Is a Constitutional Crisis looming? (Poll)

[kyzr]

SCOTUS is already on record with Jack Smith saying they have no reason to rush any judgments for Trump’s criminal cases, which is why his other trials are on hold.

So could they put Bragg's bullshit hush-money trial/appeal on hold? Election interference? 6th Amendment violation? Presidential immunity? Etc.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So could they put Bragg's bullshit hush-money trial/appeal on hold? Election interference? 6th Amendment violation? Presidential immunity? Etc.

None of that, kyzr, is real. Really. None of it is real.

 

[kyzr]

Trump started running for president again the day after he lost the election. So the election interference charge is bullshit on its face.
Trump was advised, and knew damn well that he had committed multiple felonies, and started putting up the "You can't indict me because I'm a candidate now" dodge to put as many steps between him, and the jailhouse as possible.

The Biden DOJ should have gone after him in 2021 for the January 6th insurrection. That will be a stain on his legacy, whether he thinks it's warranted or not. By appointing a toy poodle as Attorney General, instead of a pit bull, has been the biggest mistake of his Presidency to this point.

1. The Bragg hush-money case should have been brought in 2021. So it is OBVIOUS election interference. Fani and Smith could have brought their cases in 2022 or so. if they weren't intended to be election interference.

2. The FBI investigated and said Trump did NOT incite the J6 riot. Biden can't prosecute anyone, especially his political opponent. Biden's presidency has been disaster after disaster, appointing Garland as AG doesn't make the disaster scale. Just an FYI, Trump could have pushed to prosecute Hillary's obvious crimes, but didn't.

 

[kyzr]

None of that, kyzr, is real. Really. None of it is real.

You may be right, we'll see how the appeals process plays out.

 

[Marener]

So could they put Bragg's bullshit hush-money trial/appeal on hold? Election interference? 6th Amendment violation? Presidential immunity? Etc.

Trump is entitled to his appeals, but it’ll take a long time to get to the Supeme Court, if ever. He can’t just ask SCOTUS to take it because he wants them to.

 

[Catsnmeters]

1. There are no Federal crimes to multiply or conceal, just fictitious ones. The state crime is a misdemeanor.

Yes there are. Only one of the 3 maybe but can't remember for sure.

2. The 6th Amendment is regarding the "concealed" crime, that isn't real.

The concealed crimes are in the jury instructions. You should read them.

3. The change of venue is regarding the composition of the jury pool. In this case the jury had no real option other than to find Trump guilty based on the judge's instructions.

That isn't grounds for a change of venue.

The 6th amendment specially says the trial takes place where it occurred.

4. Yes, Merchan disagreed with the FEC legal expert. We'll see who the appeals courts agree with.

He didn't disagree with him. The testimony just wasn't relevant.

5. Trump's best option is to appeal directly to the USSC. We know NY is a partisan "Lawfare" state. One potential basis could be presidential immunity. Just sayin'.

Why should Trump get special privileges?

If it was you or I would they skip the legal process and make exceptions to go straight to the supreme court?

 

[eagle1462010]

Yes there are. Only one of the 3 maybe but can't remember for sure.



The concealed crimes are in the jury instructions. You should read them.



That isn't grounds for a change of venue.

The 6th amendment specially says the trial takes place where it occurred.



He didn't disagree with him. The testimony just wasn't relevant.


Why should Trump get special privileges?

If it was you or I would they skip the legal process and make exceptions to go straight to the supreme court?

750.10 specify crime? 34 receipts of books isnt the Felony

Specify it

 

[Catsnmeters]

750.10 specify crime? 34 receipts of books isnt the Felony

Specify it

He wasn't charged with "receipts of books". He was charged with falsifying records.

And yes. It is a felony. Escalated from misdemeanor based on intent to hide additional crimes.

 

[eagle1462010]

He wasn't charged with "receipts of books". He was charged with falsifying records.

And yes. It is a felony. Escalated from misdemeanor based on intent to hide additional crimes.

Specify the law allowing that 34 receipts as a Felony.

Hint John Edwards attempt bu Bragg

 

[kyzr]

Yes there are. Only one of the 3 maybe but can't remember for sure.

The concealed crimes are in the jury instructions. You should read them.

That isn't grounds for a change of venue. The 6th amendment specially says the trial takes place where it occurred.

He didn't disagree with him. The testimony just wasn't relevant.

Why should Trump get special privileges? If it was you or I would they skip the legal process and make exceptions to go straight to the supreme court?

1. None of the "concealed crimes" were convictions. Therefore no due process.

2. I read them. They violate the 6th Amendment, just like CO's "insurrection" charge.

3/4. We'll see how the appeals pan out.

5. Trump is running for president. It makes sense to expedite the appeals so voters know the truth.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Specify the law allowing that 34 receipts as a Felony.

Hint John Edwards attempt bu Bragg

Sure. No problem. Better yet below is the law and the precedent that Merchan was legally compelled to follow.

Also, in case you didn't know this. Blanche agreed this was the proper precedent during the arraignment.

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We...reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the “intent to conceal” prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement—“an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—not any additional actus reus element (Penal Law § 175.10)."

 

[eagle1462010]

Sure. No problem. Better yet below is the law and the precedent that Merchan was legally compelled to follow.

Also, in case you didn't know this. Blanche agreed this was the proper precedent during the arraignment.

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We...reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the “intent to conceal” prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement—“an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—not any additional actus reus element (Penal Law § 175.10)."

And specify the other crime and tie 34 receipts to it.?

 

[Catsnmeters]

1. None of the "concealed crimes" were convictions. Therefore no due process.

They don't need to be convictions. Here is the legal precedent....

People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Taveras, 12 N.Y.3d 21, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"We...reject defendant's contention that a separate crime automatically becomes a material element of falsifying business records in the first degree whenever the People rely on the “intent to conceal” prong of that statute on the theory that concealment, as opposed to an intent to commit another crime or aid in the commission thereof, presupposes a prior completed crime. Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement—“an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”—not any additional actus reus element (Penal Law § 175.10)."

2. I read them. They violate the 6th Amendment, just like CO's "insurrection" charge.

The charge of falsifying business records does not violate the 6th amendment.

3/4. We'll see how the appeals pan out.

Sure and I will accept whatever they say.

5. Trump is running for president. It makes sense to expedite the appeals so voters know the truth.

He should get the same process ever other citizen gets.

 

[Catsnmeters]

And specify the other crime and tie 34 receipts to it.?

Falsifying business records 34 times.

The other crimes were one of the three in the jury instructions. I don't know which one each juror picked and it doesn't matter.

 

[eagle1462010]

Falsifying business records 34 times.

The other crimes were one of the three in the jury instructions. I don't know which one each juror picked and it doesn't matter.

LOL

The 34 could only be used if to conceal the main crime.

What is that crime?

 

[Catsnmeters]

LOL

The 34 could only be used if to conceal the main crime.

What is that crime?

34 counts of falsifying business records. Those are the main crimes.

The other crimes based on intent are the secondary crimes that elevated them all to felonies. Those are in the jury instructions.

 

[eagle1462010]

34 counts of falsifying business records. Those are the main crimes.

The other crimes based on intent are the secondary crimes that elevated them all to felonies. Those are in the jury instructions.

No they are not.

They are only felonies is concealing another crime.

Name that crime

 

[Catsnmeters]

No they are not.

They are only felonies is concealing another crime.

Name that crime

34 counts of falsifying business.

It's in the indictment. It's in the arraignment. It's in the jury decision.

Here is a hint...it's the same 34 crimes Trump plead not guilty to under oath....unless you think Trump lied under oath?

 

[eagle1462010]

34 counts of falsifying business.

It's in the indictment. It's in the arraignment. It's in the jury decision.

Here is a hint...it's the same 34 crimes Trump plead not guilty to under oath....unless you think Trump lied under oath?

Reread the requirements of allowing them to be felonies and get back to me.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Reread the requirements of allowing them to be felonies and get back to me.

I already posted the link that explained that to you.

Did you miss it?

Did Trump lie under oath?