Is a Constitutional Crisis looming? (Poll)

[Delldude]

Who lied to you?

You need to rethink that.....

Been a law for decades and thousands have been charged with it.

That's a crock. It's a little used law in the business world.

Now cause it's Trump, you suddenly care. Lol.

Nope....violations of due process among other things. Law is the law and everybody is entitled to due process.

Not novel at all.

Let me rephrase that.....'contorted' is the proper word.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You need to rethink that.....

Why?

You're wrong..

That's a crock. It's a little used law in the business world.

Not a crock.

Before Trump New York Issued 9,800 Charges of Falsifying Business Records | New York Law Journal

Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.

www.law.com

Nope....violations of due process among other things. Law is the law and everybody is entitled to due process.

Trump received due process for all 34 felonies.

Let me rephrase that.....'contorted' is the proper word.

No contortion at all. The law is the law.

 

[Not That Guy]

. Law is the law and everybody is entitled to due process.

The only ones who are afforded due process are the rich and powerful, and democrats/democrat assets. Everyone else is given the mere appearance of due process or are outright denied as is the case with the PPOWs in the DC Gulag

 

[Catsnmeters]

The only ones who are afforded due process are the rich and powerful, and democrats/democrat assets. Everyone else is given the mere appearance of due process or are outright denied as is the case with the PPOWs in the DC Gulag

Who wasn't afforded due process?

 

[sparky]

Far too many partisans here to see constitutionality clearly

~S~

 

[john doe 101]

I don't know where you get your information, but Joe is way too old, the senate will go GOP with (WV, PA, MT, MD, AZ) pickup opportunities, the House will stay GOP. There was no "insurrection".

If Biden is "way too old" does that just make Trump "too old" since he's only 4 years younger than Biden?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Far too many partisans here to see constitutionality clearly

~S~

Agreed.

Too eager to lap up the words of paid pundits who lie for click bait revenue.

 

[Delldude]

Not a crock.

Yes it is...........your link is about misdemeanor charges, not how it was used with Trump.....therefor 'rarely used'.

Trump received due process for all 34 felonies.

Doesn't sound like it.

Falsification of business records, ordinarily a misdemeanor, requires an "intent to defraud." Treating the offense as a felony requires proving an additional "intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The prosecution's main theory of "another crime" relied on Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law. That obscure, little-used provision makes conspiring to promote a candidate's election "by unlawful means" a misdemeanor. But the prosecution never settled on a theory of "unlawful means," and Juan Merchan, the judge who presided over the trial, told the jurors they did not have to agree on that point.

Merchan presented the jurors with three possible theories. The first theory required viewing Cohen's payment to Daniels as an excessive campaign contribution—a contentious reading of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). According to the second theory, Trump facilitated tax fraud by enabling Cohen to falsely characterize his reimbursement as income (a counterintuitive definition of tax fraud, since that misrepresentation actually increased Cohen's tax bill). And according to the third theory, Trump falsified business records to cover up the falsification of other business records, possibly including documents related to the Daniels payment and 1099-MISC forms mischaracterizing his reimbursement as income.

The FECA theory was legally shaky. It hinged on the fuzzy distinction between personal and campaign expenditures, and it assumed that Section 17-152 applies to a federal election, a context in which federal law generally pre-empts state law. The tax theory and some versions of the double falsification theory were not just legally shaky but logically impossible, since they posited that actions taken after the election could have retroactively promoted Trump's victory "by unlawful means." And because unanimity was not required, we don't know which theory the jurors found most persuasive. Even if they split three ways on exactly how Trump might have violated Section 17-152, Merchan said, they could still deliver a guilty verdict.
____________________________

Merchan "hand-selected three laws—federal election law, falsification of 'other' business records and 'violation of tax laws'—as the 'unlawful means' by which state election law was violated," former Justice Department lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr. and Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Price Foley note in The Wall Street Journal. "Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial."

Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, was prepared to testify for the defense about the problems with characterizing the Daniels payment as an illegal campaign contribution. But Merchan excluded that testimony, ruling that Smith could not testify as an expert witness on matters of law.

In any case, since neither the prosecutors nor the jurors had to pick a particular theory of "unlawful means," Trump's lawyers were at a disadvantage. How were they supposed to rebut the claim that Trump tried to facilitate or cover up "another crime" when the nature of that crime was so hazy?

"The prosecution," Rivkin and Foley write, "involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an 'intent to commit another crime,' (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of 'unlawful means.' It's a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense."

That confusing mess, Rivkin and Foley argue, violated Trump's right to due process. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than…notice of the specific charge," the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the 1948 case Cole v. Arkansas, "and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal." According to the Court's 1970 decision in In re Winship, "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." Those "three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump's trial," Rivkin and Foley write.
__________________________
As Rivkin and Foley note, all nine justices in Schad "believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn't receive fair notice of the basis of the charge." The New York case against Trump certainly seems to fit that description.

A jumble of legal theories failed to give Trump 'fair notice' of the New York charges against him

When a New York jury convicted Donald Trump of 34 felonies last week, it was relying on a chain of legal reasoning that involved various possible

reason.com

No contortion at all. The law is the law.

Sure doesn't sound like it here.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Yes it is...........your link is about misdemeanor charges, not how it was used with Trump.....therefor 'rarely used'.


Doesn't sound like it.

Falsification of business records, ordinarily a misdemeanor, requires an "intent to defraud." Treating the offense as a felony requires proving an additional "intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The prosecution's main theory of "another crime" relied on Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law. That obscure, little-used provision makes conspiring to promote a candidate's election "by unlawful means" a misdemeanor. But the prosecution never settled on a theory of "unlawful means," and Juan Merchan, the judge who presided over the trial, told the jurors they did not have to agree on that point.

I posted a link showing thousands of examples of that law. They were all falsifying business records in the first degree; a felony.

Did you ignore it or just not understand it?

The prosecution, defense and the judge all agreed on the theory of unlawful means in February. You are being lied too.

See page 12.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

Merchan presented the jurors with three possible theories. The first theory required viewing Cohen's payment to Daniels as an excessive campaign contribution—a contentious reading of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). According to the second theory, Trump facilitated tax fraud by enabling Cohen to falsely characterize his reimbursement as income (a counterintuitive definition of tax fraud, since that misrepresentation actually increased Cohen's tax bill). And according to the third theory, Trump falsified business records to cover up the falsification of other business records, possibly including documents related to the Daniels payment and 1099-MISC forms mischaracterizing his reimbursement as income.

The FECA theory was legally shaky. It hinged on the fuzzy distinction between personal and campaign expenditures, and it assumed that Section 17-152 applies to a federal election, a context in which federal law generally pre-empts state law. The tax theory and some versions of the double falsification theory were not just legally shaky but logically impossible, since they posited that actions taken after the election could have retroactively promoted Trump's victory "by unlawful means." And because unanimity was not required, we don't know which theory the jurors found most persuasive. Even if they split three ways on exactly how Trump might have violated Section 17-152, Merchan said, they could still deliver a guilty verdict.
____________________________

The law makes no distinctions between federal or state laws.

Merchan "hand-selected three laws—federal election law, falsification of 'other' business records and 'violation of tax laws'—as the 'unlawful means' by which state election law was violated," former Justice Department lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr. and Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Price Foley note in The Wall Street Journal. "Mr. Trump received no notice of any of these offenses, and the prosecutor briefly alluded only to federal election law, during the trial."

This is a lie. Trump lied to you.

See the above link.

Why do you believe lies so readily?

Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, was prepared to testify for the defense about the problems with characterizing the Daniels payment as an illegal campaign contribution. But Merchan excluded that testimony, ruling that Smith could not testify as an expert witness on matters of law.

So?

In any case, since neither the prosecutors nor the jurors had to pick a particular theory of "unlawful means," Trump's lawyers were at a disadvantage. How were they supposed to rebut the claim that Trump tried to facilitate or cover up "another crime" when the nature of that crime was so hazy?

It wasn't hazy at all. They all agreed on it in February.

You were lied too.

Do you care? Yes or no?

"The prosecution," Rivkin and Foley write, "involved (1) a misdemeanor elevated to a felony based on an 'intent to commit another crime,' (2) an indictment and trial that failed to specify, or present evidence establishing, another crime the defendant intended to commit, and (3) a jury instruction that the other crime was one that necessitated further proof of 'unlawful means.' It's a Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminality: The charged crime hinged on the intent to commit another, unspecified crime, which in turn hinged on the actual commission of yet another unspecified offense."

Again, none of this is true.

Trump's team knew the predicate crimes for months .

That confusing mess, Rivkin and Foley argue, violated Trump's right to due process. "No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than…notice of the specific charge," the U.S. Supreme Court declared in the 1948 case Cole v. Arkansas, "and a chance to be heard in a trial of the issues raised by that charge, if desired, are among the constitutional rights of every accused in a criminal proceeding in all courts, state or federal." According to the Court's 1970 decision in In re Winship, "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." Those "three due-process precepts—notice, meaningful opportunity to defend, and proof of all elements—were absent in Mr. Trump's trial," Rivkin and Foley write.

He had due process for the charges of falsifying business records.

he was not charged with the predicate crimes so due process does not apply.

__________________________
As Rivkin and Foley note, all nine justices in Schad "believed unanimity is required to convict when the means by which a crime can be committed are so broad that the accused doesn't receive fair notice of the basis of the charge." The New York case against Trump certainly seems to fit that description.

A jumble of legal theories failed to give Trump 'fair notice' of the New York charges against him

When a New York jury convicted Donald Trump of 34 felonies last week, it was relying on a chain of legal reasoning that involved various possible

reason.com

Sure doesn't sound like it here.

The jury does have to agree on the charged crimes.

34 counts of falsifying business records.

They all agreed.

 

[kyzr]

If Biden is "way too old" does that just make Trump "too old" since he's only 4 years younger than Biden?

4-years ie a lot at those ages.
Plus Trump was much more capable to begin with.
Trump ran the Trump organization and the US from the WH.
Biden has never been right about anything, he plagiarized in college, and never was capable.
We should see the difference if the debates are fair.

 

[Clipper]

Falsifying records is a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations had expired. Try again. The DEMs set themselves up to have this overturned. They just wanted to call him a convicted felon, which in reality, he is not.

Uh, no. In actuality Trump is a convicted felon 34 times over, whether you like it or not.

 

[john doe 101]

4-years ie a lot at those ages.
Plus Trump was much more capable to begin with.
Trump ran the Trump organization and the US from the WH.
Biden has never been right about anything, he plagiarized in college, and never was capable.
We should see the difference if the debates are fair.

Trump is a criminal and a rapist. But you'll still vote for him because you are an amoral piece of garbage.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Trump is a criminal and a rapist. But you'll still vote for him because you are an amoral piece of garbage.

You forgot fraudster.

 

[kyzr]

Trump is a criminal and a rapist. But you'll still vote for him because you are an amoral piece of garbage.

LOL!! Biden is the real criminal moron.
Was Trump convicted of rape? NO HE WAS NOT.
Will those 34 bullshit counts be overturned on appeal? YES THEY WILL.

You support Biden because you're a low-IQ democrat:
1. Biden is too old, obviously.
2. Biden is senile, when he got caught stealing classified documents the special prosecutor said he's too mentally incompetent to stand trial
3. Biden can't do a real press conference. That should be the new normal, keep the MSM hypocrites in the dark.
4. Biden is a pedophile, he showered with Ashley
5. Biden is a traitor, his open borders policy is a National Security disaster. He let in 100,000 Chinese, 50m,000 Russians, and who knows how many "terrorists" and criminals. I'm sure they won't do anything until after November's election, since more and more are still pouring into the US.
6. Biden is stupid, he plagreized in his younger days, Gates said he has "never been right about any foreign policy, ever"
7. Biden voted against killing Bin Laden.
8. Biden shit his pants in front of the pope.
9. Biden can't find his way off a stage
10. Biden is not a real president, he does what he is told to do by the young commies running the WH
11. I bet Biden cancels the debates, no ******* way he can answer questions extemporaneously.

The swing state polls tell the truth, Biden is unelectable, so the dems will have their convention online to avoid the rioting protestors calling him "Genocide Joe".

 

[john doe 101]

LOL!! Biden is the real criminal moron.
Was Trump convicted of rape? NO HE WAS NOT.
Will those 34 bullshit counts be overturned on appeal? YES THEY WILL.

You support Biden because you're a low-IQ democrat:
1. Biden is too old, obviously.
2. Biden is senile, when he got caught stealing classified documents the special prosecutor said he's too mentally incompetent to stand trial
3. Biden can't do a real press conference. That should be the new normal, keep the MSM hypocrites in the dark.
4. Biden is a pedophile, he showered with Ashley
5. Biden is a traitor, his open borders policy is a National Security disaster. He let in 100,000 Chinese, 50m,000 Russians, and who knows how many "terrorists" and criminals. I'm sure they won't do anything until after November's election, since more and more are still pouring into the US.
6. Biden is stupid, he plagreized in his younger days, Gates said he has "never been right about any foreign policy, ever"
7. Biden voted against killing Bin Laden.
8. Biden shit his pants in front of the pope.
9. Biden can't find his way off a stage
10. Biden is not a real president, he does what he is told to do by the young commies running the WH
11. I bet Biden cancels the debates, no ******* way he can answer questions extemporaneously.

The swing state polls tell the truth, Biden is unelectable, so the dems will have their convention online to avoid the rioting protestors calling him "Genocide Joe"

Trump is a convict and a rapist. That right there would stop any normal person from voting for him. But you arent normal. You're a mentally ill piece of shit.

 

[ThisIsMe]

One lady on with George Stephanopolous this morning had a very concerning scenario.

Say that Biden wins a very close election in November.

Then say that Trump's 34 count conviction gets overturned soon after. That makes Biden's win illegitimate due to obvious election interference.

So what happens? Or, what should happen?

I think that the USSC needs to step in and review the 34 felony counts and either confirm, or overturn them before the election. As one GOP lawyer said, the 34 counts could be affected by the presidential immunity decision.

Well, there is never a scenario where Biden wins where the left would ever admit election interference. You have to get past that first.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I think the trial on if Trump sold top secrets to our enemies should happen before the election.

View attachment 956207

Can we have concurring trials with biden for the same thing?

 

[kyzr]

Trump is a convict and a rapist. That right there would stop any normal person from voting for him. But you arent normal. You're a mentally ill piece of shit.

1. Link to Trump being convicted of rape. Hint: you can't, so you're a low-IQ LIAR.
2. Trump 34 felonies will be overturned on appeal.
3. Maybe that would stop low-IQ people from voting for Trump, but we know more than you do.
4. Biden is a TRAITOR, he let 100,000 Chinese and 50,000 Russians into the US. Biden is a National Security nightmare. But you low-IQ people don't see that because you're simply too stupid.

 

[john doe 101]

1. Link to Trump being convicted of rape. Hint: you can't, so you're a low-IQ LIAR.
2. Trump 34 felonies will be overturned on appeal.
3. Maybe that would stop low-IQ people from voting for Trump, but we know more than you do.
4. Biden is a TRAITOR, he let 100,000 Chinese and 50,000 Russians into the US. Biden is a National Security nightmare. But you low-IQ people don't see that because you're simply too stupid.

E Jean Carroll can legally call trump a rapist. That is a fact. What if the felony convictions are not overturned? They definitely wont by election time, so you'll be voting for a convict to be put into the WH, along with trump being a rapist. You're sick in the head.

 

[Catsnmeters]

LOL!! Biden is the real criminal moron.
Was Trump convicted of rape? NO HE WAS NOT.
Will those 34 bullshit counts be overturned on appeal? YES THEY WILL.

You support Biden because you're a low-IQ democrat:
1. Biden is too old, obviously.

Agreed.

2. Biden is senile, when he got caught stealing classified documents the special prosecutor said he's too mentally incompetent to stand trial

A lie.

3. Biden can't do a real press conference. That should be the new normal, keep the MSM hypocrites in the dark.

A lie.

4. Biden is a pedophile, he showered with Ashley

Lie.

That doesn't make you a pedophile.

Pedophilia is illegal. Get back to me when he is convicted.

5. Biden is a traitor, his open borders policy is a National Security disaster. He let in 100,000 Chinese, 50m,000 Russians, and who knows how many "terrorists" and criminals. I'm sure they won't do anything until after November's election, since more and more are still pouring into the US.

A lie.

We don't have open borders.

6. Biden is stupid, he plagreized in his younger days, Gates said he has "never been right about any foreign policy, ever"

He forgot to credit someone 35 years ago.

Desperate?

7. Biden voted against killing Bin Laden.

So? He could have been right.

8. Biden shit his pants in front of the pope.

Good grief.

9. Biden can't find his way off a stage

Lie.

10. Biden is not a real president, he does what he is told to do by the young commies running the WH

Lie

11. I bet Biden cancels the debates, no ******* way he can answer questions extemporaneously.

Thanks for your opinion.

The swing state polls tell the truth, Biden is unelectable, so the dems will have their convention online to avoid the rioting protestors calling him "Genocide Joe".

To early for polls.

Do you agree with the protesters?