Poll: Which court will overturn Trump's conviction for his NDA?

[Skylar]

Sorry, won't take your word for it. Try harder.

You're the one making the claim that the statute of limitations had expired. Show me.

Remembering of course, that I'm looking at summaries of Merchan's pretrial rulings on this very issue. And the legal justification for why the statute of limitations had been extended over COVID. And weathered every challenge to dismiss on the basis of the statue of limitations.

Good luck.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, won't take your word for it. Try harder.

You don't have to. NY already took care of it.

 

[Rogue AI]

You're the one making the claim that the statute of limitations had expired. Show me.

Remembering of course, that I'm looking at summaries of Merchan's pretrial rulings on this very issue. And the legal justification for why the statute of limitations had been extended over COVID.

Good luck.

Show these cases then, you claim they exist.

 

[OKTexas]

I have my money on the US Supreme Court since it looks like the NY State court of appeals is packed with nothing but Democrats. But hey, this trial was such a joke maybe they will try to save a little face for the state of NY.

There is no question this will be reversed once it gets to a real court.

New York State Court of Appeals

I think the NY court of appeals will. There are just too many reversible errors. The jury instructions were a disaster, the fact that Trump was not apprised of all the charges was a constitutional violation. I could go on but just those two should be enough. The real question is how long they will drag it out.

.

 

[Skylar]

Show these cases then, you claim they exist.

The burden of proof is entirely on you to show me that the statute of limitations had passed. Its your claim. Prove it.

I'm just telling you what you're up against when you try. All of these issues have already been adjudicated. And I'm looking at exerpts and summaries of those pretrial rulings.

So I know exactly how hard its going to be for you to prove that the statute of limitations had expired.

Show me. Its not my responsibility to disprove your claims. Its your responsibility to prove them.

 

[Skylar]

I think the NY court of appeals will. There are just too many reversible errors. The jury instructions were a disaster, the fact that Trump was not apprised of all the charges was a constitutional violation. I could go on but just those two should be enough. The real question is how long they will drag it out.

.

Such as? What reversible errors are you referring to specifically?

Why were the instructions a 'disaster'? Specifically.

And Trump was apprised of the charges. At least as early as November of 2023.

And please, go one.

 

[Rogue AI]

The burden of proof is entirely on you to show me that the statute of limitations had passed. Its your claim. Prove it.

I'm just telling you what you're up against when you try. All of these issues have already been adjudicated. And I'm looking at exerpts and summaries of those pretrial rulings.

So I know exactly how hard its going to be for you to prove that the statute of limitations had expired.

Show me. Its not my responsibility to disprove your claims. Its your responsibility to prove them.

I knew you couldn't produce, thanks for proving it.

 

[Skylar]

I knew you couldn't produce, thanks for proving it.

When you can show me that the statute of limitations had expired, we can continue on the issue. This is your claim. The burden is on you to prove it. Not me to disprove.

But you're demonstrating that you can't. What, for example, is the statue of limitations of a felony charge under 175.10.

Do you even know?

Here's a little help, as you don't seem to have done the research yet.

The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump - Feb. 15, 2024

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Faun]

When you can show me that the statute of limitations had expired, we can continue on the issue. This is your claim. The burden is on you to prove it. Not me to disprove.

But you're demonstrating that you can't. What, for example, is the statue of limitations of a felony charge under 175.10.

Do you even know?

Of course he can't. The statute of limitations is 5 years. The underlying crimes were committed in 2016. The charged crime occurred in 2017. NY tolls statute of limitations.

 

[Skylar]

Of course he can't. The statute of limitations is 5 years. The underlying crimes were committed in 2016. The charged crime occurred in 2017. NY tolls statute of limitations.

But the statute of limitation of crimes was extended by one year and 47 days due to COVID related extensions of the statutes of limitations of all crimes in NY while the court systems were impacted by the pandemic.

Extending the statue of limitations to 6 years, 47 days. Merchan already ruled on all of this in pre-trial hearings.

After conviction, Trump questioned the New York statute of limitations. Here are the facts

Trump and his team have said the statute of limitations may be an issue in appealing his convictions. Here's what we know about the unusual timing.

www.usatoday.com

It was close. But they just got in.

 

[Rogue AI]

When you can show me that the statute of limitations had expired, we can continue on the issue. This is your claim. The burden is on you to prove it. Not me to disprove.

But you're demonstrating that you can't. What, for example, is the statue of limitations of a felony charge under 175.10.

Do you even know?

Here's a little help, as you don't seem to have done the research yet.

The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump - Feb. 15, 2024

www.documentcloud.org

I specified the misdemeanors, which were expired even with the extension. Not only can you not produce, you are a liar.

 

[Faun]

But the statute of limitation of crimes was extended by one year and 47 days due to COVID related extensions of the statutes of limitations of all crimes in NY while the court systems were impacted by the pandemic.

Extending the statue of limitations to 6 years, 47 days. Merchan already ruled on all of this in pre-trial hearings.

After conviction, Trump questioned the New York statute of limitations. Here are the facts

Trump and his team have said the statute of limitations may be an issue in appealing his convictions. Here's what we know about the unusual timing.

www.usatoday.com

It was close. But they just got in.

It didn't even need to be. NY doesn't count the time Trump was living in D.C. or Florida.

 

[Faun]

I specified the misdemeanors, which were expired even with the extension. Not only can you not produce, you are a liar.

Trump wasn't charged with a misdemeanor. You really should have already known that.

 

[Skylar]

I specified the misdemeanors, which were expired even with the extension. Not only can you not produce, you are a liar.

The misdemeanor violations of 175-10 BEFORE the felony enhancements? The hell they were. The charges were within days of the earliest incidents.

And if you're referring to the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime that is part of the felony enhancement, there is no requirement that the underlying crimes be charged, tried or convicted. Only that there was an intent to commit, aid or conceal said crimes.

With no charges, there's no statutory limitation.

Trump was charged with only felonies.

 

[OKTexas]

Such as? What reversible errors are you referring to specifically?

Why were the instructions a 'disaster'? Specifically.

And Trump was apprised of the charges. At least as early as November of 2023.

And please, go one.

The Constitution requires a unanimous verdict, in the jury instructions the judge told them they could take up to three different paths to a verdict on the crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal. (A)Election interference, (B)tax evasion or (C)campaign finance violation. He told them he was just fine with 3 choosing from (A), 5 choosing (B) and 4 choosing (C) and they could call it a unanimous verdict. The Constitution doesn't see it that way.

And no, the defense wasn't apprised of this phantom menu of charges, so there was no way of mounting a defense for them.

Also the Daniels testimony was irrelevant, salacious and prejudicial. The reason it was irrelevant is the NDA had already been stipulated as existing by both sides. The only reason for her testimony was to smear Trump.

Not allowing the former FEC commissioner's testimony to explain the law and why there was no campaign finance violation.

.

 

[OKTexas]

The misdemeanor violations of 175-10 BEFORE the felony enhancements? The hell they were. The charges were within days of the earliest incidents.

And if you're referring to the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime that is part of the felony enhancement, there is no requirement that the underlying crimes be charged, tried or convicted. Only that there was an intent to commit, aid or conceal said crimes.

With no charges, there's no statutory limitation.

Trump was charged with only felonies.

Me thinks you need to read the Constitution. All crimes must be charged and part of the unanimous verdict.

VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

.

 

[Faun]

The Constitution requires a unanimous verdict, in the jury instructions the judge told them they could take up to three different paths to a verdict on the crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal. (A)Election interference, (B)tax evasion or (C)campaign finance violation. He told them he was just fine with 3 choosing from (A), 5 choosing (B) and 4 choosing (C) and they could call it a unanimous verdict. The Constitution doesn't see it that way.

All the law states is that intent to commit a crime is needed or to aid or conceal a crime. The prosecution offered 3 such crimes. The jury did not have to agree with which of those crimes he intended to conceal. They only had to agree he intentended to conceal at least one of them. That does not violate the Constitution.

And no, the defense wasn't apprised of this phantom menu of charges, so there was no way of mounting a defense for them.

Of course they were. They were listed in the statement of facts issued with the indictment.

Also the Daniels testimony was irrelevant, salacious and prejudicial. The reason it was irrelevant is the NDA had already been stipulated as existing by both sides. The only reason for her testimony was to smear Trump.

Not true. She had relevant testimony to offer. Specifically how Trump was trying to stall paying her until after the election.

Not allowing the former FEC commissioner's testimony to explain the law and why there was no campaign finance violation.

How could he testify to something he has no knowledge of? And yes, there was a campaign finance violation. Cohen was convicted and incarcerated for it, among other crimes.

 

[Faun]

Me thinks you need to read the Constitution. All crimes must be charged and part of the unanimous verdict.

VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Good thing for NY, Trump was formally charged with violating NY § 175.10 and convicted unanimously of that charge by all 12 jurors. Which included 2 attorneys.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution requires a unanimous verdict, in the jury instructions the judge told them they could take up to three different paths to a verdict on the crime Trump was supposedly trying to conceal. (A)Election interference, (B)tax evasion or (C)campaign finance violation. He told them he was just fine with 3 choosing from (A), 5 choosing (B) and 4 choosing (C) and they could call it a unanimous verdict. The Constitution doesn't see it that way.

The felony enhancement for 175-10 requires the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime. 175-10 doesn't specify WHICH crime, merely that it be intent to commit, aid or conceal 'another' crime.

Every juror agreed that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the business records were falsified with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. Unanimously.

Meeting every requirement of the felony enhancement of 175-10.

The constitution has zero prohibition to any of this.

And no, the defense wasn't apprised of this phantom menu of charges, so there was no way of mounting a defense for them.

Nonsense. Both 17-152 and the FECA citations as underlying crimes in the felony enhancement were cited specifically in the prosecution filings made available to defense in November 2023.

The underlying crimes in the felony enhancement were again discussed in detail in a February 2024 hearing where both 17-152 and the FECA laws were cited. In fact, the judge actually winnowed the list from 4 to 3 in this ruling. Something he couldn't do without all 4 of the original underlying crimes being sited in detail.

You're just wrong on this one.

Also the Daniels testimony was irrelevant, salacious and prejudicial.

Says who?

ump.

Not allowing the former FEC commissioner's testimony to explain the law and why there was no campaign finance violation.

.

Brad Smith was permitted to speak to any point of fact. But judge rightly found that Brad Smith speaking on the law would surplant the Judge's role on determining what the law was.

If Merchan's determination of what the law is in error, you have the grounds for an appeal. But a judge's refusal to permit a witness arguing and contradicting the judge on what the law is not a basis for appeal.

Smith didn't testify because had no relevant facts to convey to the jury. And it was Trump's legal team that made this determination.

 

[Skylar]

Me thinks you need to read the Constitution. All crimes must be charged and part of the unanimous verdict.

VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

.

And the jury did unanimously find that Trump violated 175-10 with the felony enhancement. Everyone single one of them.

As for the 'informed of the nature and cause of the accusation' part, you've been misinformed on what Trump's legal team was told. Both 17-152 and the FECA citations as underlying crimes in the felony enhancement were cited specifically in the prosecution filings made available to defense in November 2023.

The underlying crimes in the felony enhancement were again discussed in detail in a February 2024 hearing where both 17-152 and the FECA laws were cited. In fact, the judge actually winnowed the list from 4 to 3 in this ruling. Something he couldn't do without all 4 of the original underlying crimes being sited in detail.

You're just wrong on this one.