Posted on 05/29/2024 9:46:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s true that Trump has been charged with a non-crime and that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump has been severely undermined by his own witnesses. In fact, several Democrat experts have said Trump could be acquitted because of how bad some of the prosecution’s witnesses have been for the case.
But between the partisan jury and Biden donor Judge Juan Merchan’s jury instructions, it seems likely that Trump will be found guilty.
So the question is: what happens if the jury returns a guilty verdict?
According to conservative radio host Mark Levin, in the event of a guilty verdict, Trump could seek a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
“I asked my friend of nearly 45-years [sic], Arthur Fergenson, who served as a law clerk to the late chief justice, Warren Burger, and one of the smartest lawyers I know, if he represented President Trump how he might seek a direct appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary,” Levin wrote in a post on X/Twitter.
Levin posted Fergenson’s reply.
The US Supreme Court can act by its statutory writs of certiorari to take a case from a lower appellate court, and the Court also has a host of other processes, often called common law writs. I became acquainted with these common law writs (actually authorized as a general matter by the Judiciary Act of 1789: law.justia.com/constitution/u… ), when IBM sought review of a discovery order by a vindictive federal judge when I was clerking for Chief Justice Warren Burger. A total of six petitions were filed; all were denied, and rarely are any common law writs ever issued by the Supreme Court, but there are, nonetheless, multiple ways to offer the Supreme Court an opportunity to forthwith review
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
That’s the REAL reason the DemonRats are going after Alito NOW, not to circumvent any immunity issues but to STOP them from ruling in favor of the rule of law vs. Juan Mechan.
Ah, but just because prosecutors selectively prosecute only the ones they want to, that doesn’t mean that the ones they do prosecute aren’t guilty.
That was actually an argument that Steinglass made in closing arguments yesterday. Just because nobody prosecuted Rahm and Eli Emanuel, etc for having The National Enquirer bury their negative stories doesn’t mean that Trump isn’t guilty for doing the same thing. Just because it’s standard operating procedure for everybody in the world and charges are never filed doesn’t mean that a fair judiciary can’t single out Donald Trump and charge him - and only him - for crimes that everybody does and throw him in jail for the next 134 years.
Same argument as for Engoron. He was told outright that what Trump did is standard operating procedure and that if NY was really going to prosecute that they would end up with all businesses leaving NY. So Gov Hochul came right out and assured everybody that their “equal justice” would really only actually ever be applied to Donald Trump.
And that’s what these people call “justice”.
SPIT
“the appeal may be fast tracked to the Supremes”
Johnathan Turley says that’s an impossibility.
“The actual text of Article III says, In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
Why would that not apply to Trump suing the State of NY for violating his 14th Amendment right to due process?”
I’ve wondered that myself. But it doesn’t. Practically speaking, there would be hundreds of thousands of cases a year before the Supreme Court if all cases against a State went right to the Supreme Court. My best guess is that it’s been interpreted to ALLOW but not REQUIRE the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction in those matters.
Cases involving ambassadors and public ministers don’t go right to the SCOTUS either. Only State vs. State goes right to the SCOTUS today.
And yet the SCOTUS refused to hear a case where - I forget how many, was it 1/3 of all the states - sued the states where their legislation’s laws were not kept in the 2020 election.
I think it might be a deal where SCOTUS CAN be appealed to, but very rarely accepts the case. And this guy may be arguing that in this case, they would take it up.
I’m told that no courts would take up the Obama eligibility issue because they were all afraid of riots in the streets. I think we’re WAY past that point right now, and these clowns need to be thinking about how much thumb-nosing and provocation from the Deep State and its criminal elements this nation can withstand, before all Hell literally breaks loose.
When we have nothing left, there is no reason to not give it all up. We’ll be celebrating Independence Day in a little over a month, but if the patriots at that time could see us now they’d be wondering what the heck we’re waiting for before we cast off the tyranny. I think at least Justice Alito understands that; hence the Appeal to Heaven. We should ALL be flying the Appeal to Heaven so nobody is deceived as to exactly where we’re at right now.
Only trouble is, our DOJ is so corrupt they would consider appealing to Heaven as treason against a regime that is quite clearly on the side of Hell.
Many don’t understand jurisdiction, nor the Supreme Court precedent requiring the moving party to exhaust state appeals before taking any action, even if standing can be achieved in some non-existent federal case.
And when a guilty verdict is returned, Trump will appeal. And win.
—
However, between rendering the sentence and a successful appeal, DJT will remain locked up. He’ll win the appeal, but lose the election.
The federal case would have to begin in a federal district court.
Presidential elections as they exist today are a special case since they are not mentioned in the Constitution and the actors with responsibility over the REAL presidential election (the one in December) are the 50 State Legislatures, to which the Constitution grants plenary power over the choice of Electors.
The “underlying crime(s) were not charged, so the prosecution has no burden to prove them. This is all about intent. Many crimes are “general intent crimes” which means simply committing the act is sufficient to prove intent.
https://www.theblaze.com/columns/opinion/levin-to-trumps-attorneys-next-stop-the-supreme-court
all manner of First Amendment questions, problems, and concerns.
Moreover, this state court could easily have avoided influencing and interfering with the federal presidential election merely by setting a later time for the case, if the court actually believed it somehow had merit. After all, the state waited years to bring its case.
Therefore, there is not only a federal constitutional Equal Protection violation, in that this state trial court has purposefully interposed itself into the federal presidential election without authority or jurisdiction, but the court has also violated the federal constitutionally protected Due Process rights of the future Republican nominee for president.
Furthermore, the voters are to determine the federal election outcome without the interference of a state court attempting to influence the result. If President Trump is found guilty of any of the 34 charges, I would strongly encourage his attorneys to seek an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court based, at least in significant part
\/
hmm..
who to beleive ?
our very own Esquire of the narrative control cubicle
or an experianced Mark Levin ?
think ill beleive mark
ymmv
Do you even know what the “underlying crime” was supposed to be? Do you know if it was a crime, or do you take Merchan’s word? Sounds like nonsense.
Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. I never said this case could never get to the Supreme Court. I said there is no way to DIRECTLY appeal it to the Supreme Court. Because there isn’t. I would love to know they theory to bring it there NOW.
I want to know if Trump will be jailed if a guilty verdict comes back from the jury.
\/
really ?
lets look for that DIRECTLY part shall we ?
There's no process to appeal from a state court other than the highest court of the state to the Supreme Court. End of Story.
See 28 USC 1257:
“a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States.”
37 posted on 5/29/2024, 10:35:29 AM by CraigEsq (,)
\/
. nope. DIRECTLY word nowhere to be found ...
history rewrite much ?
try and weasel word out of that one too.
spit.
if im so much of a nut , why do you even bother replying to me ?
looks like you are flak cuz im DIRECTLY over target /-).
spit
Juan will take his “jury” to Taco Bell for an all you can eat buffet.
Reading comprehension again is not your strong suit.
“a) Final judgments or decrees rendered BY THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court...”
Now... HOW do you DIRECTLY appeal from a trial court to the SCOTUS. You’re the one asserting it can be done.. so HOW?
The only fear I have if Trump is found guilty is those who have decided to vote Trump, will turn tail and rethink their vote. We have to stay with him and stand solid and vote for him no matter what. DO NOT RETREAT....EVER.
quit DIRECTLY changing the subject.
weasel
typical weasel move.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.