Should Trump Trial Go Direct To Supreme Court?

[justoffal]

It can't. That's not how it works.​

next

I don't know It might work that way this time.

 

[Dante]

I don't know It might work that way this time.

It can't. It hasn't been settled in the state. Trump's legal team will first appeal at the state level. That's how the separate powers work.

move along

 

[jbrownson0831]

I assume that you are a Democrat..

Crusty and Stretched?
Definitely a Dimtard.

 

[justoffal]

It can't. It hasn't been settled in the state. Trump's legal team will first appeal at the state level. That's how the separate powers work.

move along

Depends on whether or not it gets transferred to a federal system based on what could potentially be the breaking of federal laws. Given the very low bar that Merchan and Bragg already established Don't be surprised to see federal charges brought. Federal court system does not have to wait for the state's permission if they see impropriety. Of course given that most of the people in New York are all of one mind it's unlikely.

 

[Dante]

Depends on whether or not it gets transferred to a federal system based on what could potentially be the breaking of federal laws. Given the very low bar that Merchan and Bragg already established Don't be surprised to see federal charges brought. Federal court system does not have to wait for the state's permission if they see impropriety. Of course given that most of the people in New York are all of one mind it's unlikely.

not happening

not in this lifetime

 

[Couchpotato]

I think jury tampering is a pretty legitimate one. However let's not be credulous here.... Bragg and Merchan Have shown the extremely low bar required to make charges. They basically took a non case and conjured one up out of thin air. I would expect now that that pattern has been established It will be used by others.

That's a state issue not a federal one.

 

[Lisa558]

SCOTUS doesnt hear state criminal cases unless there is some Constitutional issue involved with them. Due process or illegal searches things of that nature. And we shouldnt want them to either. Whether or not this "novel legal theory" is valid is a matter for the state of NY not a federal issue. You have to take the bad with the good when you have a federal system. If NY upholds this conviction, they are going to see a lot of businesses leave the state. More than have already.....

But there ARE constitutional issues involved.

- Trump was denied an impartial jury (his request for change of venue was denied)

- Trump was entitled to an impartial judge (the judge hand-picked for this sided exclusively with the prosecution, blocked an expert witness who would have testified that Trump broke no election law, and was a Biden donor - and this should have recused himself)

- Trump was entitled to know the crime he was charged with (NOT some unidentified “other crime” as part of a novel legal theory)

- Trump is entitled to a unanimous verdict (not some weird 4-4-4 deal in which the jurors are presented with three possible crimes, and they can be split on which one he did)

- Trump is entitled to the same free speech rifhts as any one else (not have him gagged while allowing his adversary, a convicted perjurer, to spew his garbage)

 

[Lisa558]

I think jury tampering is a pretty legitimate one. However let's not be credulous here.... Bragg and Merchan Have shown the extremely low bar required to make charges. They basically took a non case and conjured one up out of thin air. I would expect now that that pattern has been established It will be used by others.

The word “Stalinesque” comes to mind.

 

[justoffal]

The word “Stalinesque” comes to mind.

Yeah....it fits

 

[Couchpotato]

But there ARE constitutional issues involved.

- Trump was denied an impartial jury (his request for change of venue was denied)

The DA definitely chose the venue for a reason.

- Trump was entitled to an impartial judge (the judge hand-picked for this sided exclusively with the prosecution, blocked an expert witness who would have testified that Trump broke no election law, and was a Biden donor - and this should have recused himself)

Do you have a link to the hand picking? Im not saying I agree with many of his rulings but you are going to need to provide some proof other than you just not liking what he's done.

- Trump was entitled to know the crime he was charged with (NOT some unidentified “other crime” as part of a novel legal theory)

I dont disagree here but Im not sure this is a Constitutional issue.

- Trump is entitled to a unanimous verdict (not some weird 4-4-4 deal in which the jurors are presented with three possible crimes, and they can be split on which one he did)\

Again I agree however I think it's a state issue not a federal one.

- Trump is entitled to the same free speech rifhts as any one else (not have him gagged while allowing his adversary, a convicted perjurer, to spew his garbage)

Sure. Doesnt have anything to do with the verdict of the trial though

 

[Lumpy 1]

Care4all

You just gave me a thumbs-uo for discrediting your lies about the Trumo trial. Is your programming off?

If this keeps up you two will sharing a bottle of wine and laughing..

 

[Lisa558]

If this keep up you two will sharing a bottle of wine and laughing..

Wouldn‘t THAT be a hoot!?

 

[Lumpy 1]

Wouldn‘t THAT be a hoot!?

Kindness and humor seems to be the most disarming things you can do on a political message board.. and yes

 

[Lisa558]

The DA definitely chose the venue for a reason.

And the reason is that it is overwhelmingly anti-Trump. Should have been moved to Staten Island, but Trump’s request for change of venue was denied.

Do you have a link to the hand picking? Im not saying I agree with many of his rulings but you are going to need to provide some proof other than you just not liking what he's done.

Give me a minute to find a link. But ordinarily, judges are assigned to cases as they come up in rotation - and specifically to avoid bias.

I dont disagree here but Im not sure this is a Constitutional issue.

Definitely a Constitutional issue: a defendant is entitled to know the specific crime with which he is being charged (or in this case, the specific crime being used to move the expired misdemeanor to a felony).

Again I agree however I think it's a state issue not a federal one.

No….its federal. A jury of 12, beyond a reasonable doubt, unanimous, that a specific crime was proven. Otherwise, you could have a biased judge throw out, right at the point of jury instructions, 12 different possible crimes, and as long as each finds the defendant guilty of at least one of the crimes, he’s guilty. Would you not agree that is a miscarriage of the unanimous standard?

Sure. Doesnt have anything to do with the verdict of the trial though

It does show that Trump’s 1st Amendment Rights were violated, and ONLY his, and gives credence to the fact that this was a biased judge.

 

[braalian]

What are Democrats afraid of, go directly to the Supreme Court, they’re already handling the Presidential immunity case?

This Democrat/Bragg case could be mute anyway.

There should be a resolution before the election..what’s the problem with that?

I don’t think you understand what the Supreme Court is, or how it works

 

[BackAgain]

I just saw an interesting piece.

It says that since the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS is limited, perhaps some of the other states should sue NY (state vs state would give the SCOTUS jurisdiction) for its deliberate misuse of its civil and criminal processes in order to achieve the NY State goal of interfering with the election.

Mark Levin (@marklevinshow)

Other states must sue New Yorkhttps://therightscoop.com/the-state-of-new-york-should-be-sued-in-the-supreme-court-over-outrageous-prosecution-of-trump-in-election-year/

truthsocial.com

I’m not sure it flies. But it does address the jurisdiction issue.

 

[Care4all]

But there ARE constitutional issues involved.

- Trump was denied an impartial jury (his request for change of venue was denied)

- Trump was entitled to an impartial judge (the judge hand-picked for this sided exclusively with the prosecution, blocked an expert witness who would have testified that Trump broke no election law, and was a Biden donor - and this should have recused himself)

- Trump was entitled to know the crime he was charged with (NOT some unidentified “other crime” as part of a novel legal theory)

- Trump is entitled to a unanimous verdict (not some weird 4-4-4 deal in which the jurors are presented with three possible crimes, and they can be split on which one he did)

- Trump is entitled to the same free speech rifhts as any one else (not have him gagged while allowing his adversary, a convicted perjurer, to spew his garbage)

The constitution of the United States, dictates where the trial is to be held, the 6TH AMENDMENT....requires the trial to be held in the district the crimes were committed with a jury of his peers from that district.

A trial anywhere else in the Nation would still be made up of a bunch of people who know who the former president... Donald Trump is and we would still need to rely on jurists setting their previous knowledge aside and only use the evidence provided in the case....in the court room.

Trumps jury did have two of his supporters on it, one who used primarily Truth Social as their news source and the other used primarily FOX News as their News source. They still found him guilty.

The judge was not hand picked, it was a random pick of a judge, for the Bragg grand jury inquiry, who then gets the case if it goes to trial,is my understanding of New York procedure. There is no way to NOT have a randomly picked judge.

The crime he was charged with was well known, falsifying business records.

He wasn't charged with another crime by Bragg to bring the misdemeanor up to a felony, but he didn't have to be the way the law is written...at minimum there only had to be a preponderance of guilt, a likelihood that he falsified records to cover up someone else's crime....he didn't even have to commit the other crime himself.

In trial, it was shown that he likely, at a preponderance level and not the beyond a reasonable doubt level, committed all three of the options given for election subversion....those other crimes that involved why the records were falsified. This is what will likely be challenged on appeal.

Trump was an indicted alleged criminal, out on bail. The Judge has control over the defendant and gag orders involved in the trial. The judge has no control of witnesses outside of the court room.

The purpose of gagging trump was so he would not break the law and intimidate witnesses or jurists ....not necessarily Cohen as a witness, but the effects the bashing of Cohen by Trump would have on intimidating other witnesses and jurists watching....

 

[Lumpy 1]

I don’t think you understand what the Supreme Court is, or how it works

Well .. I’ve learned a few things in this thread, mostly that Democrats fear the slim possibility and lack of absolute fascist control.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Well .. I’ve learned a few things in this thread, mostly that Democrats fear the slim possibility and lack of absolute fascist control.

Also this Democrat lawfare scheme to suppress a presidential candidates free speech rights etc. (screwing over fairness) during an election may require extraordinary action.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yup, the trial was a Democrat Party scam.. everyone knows it and the appeals process in New York is likely corrupted as well. The voters need an honest resolution before the election.

There’s no legal way for it to go directly to the SC.