Soros-Backed/Placed Prosecutor Alvin Bragg dropped tons of criminal charges on pro-Hamas extremists when they attacked Columbia.

[Mr. Friscus]

Yep.



It wasn't subjective. It was based on court precedent.

The judge can't change the laws, he can only apply them.


He didn't supposedly break state law, he did break state law.

34 times.

We’ll see. These subjective cases aren’t definite. It smells to a majority of the country.

 

[Catsnmeters]

We’ll see. These subjective cases aren’t definite. It smells to a majority of the country.

They aren't subjective. They are based on the law and precedent.

Again, the law is not subject to popular opinion.

What is it with Trump supporters and populism these days?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

They aren't subjective. They are based on the law and precedent.

Again, the law is not subject to popular opinion.

What is it with Trump supporters and populism these days?

These cases are absolutely subjective. There were no victims. And Different prosecutors and judges produce different results.

 

[Catsnmeters]

These cases are absolutely subjective.

Nope. The judge uses precedent.

It's his job. It's required. He can't deviate from precedent.

There were no victims. And Different prosecutors and judges produce different results.

Oh no, not the " who is the victim" arguement again.

Trump's fraud case called and they want their "no victim" parroting back.

Anyhow...

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/what-is-a-victimless-crime.html

There are some laws in the American criminal justice system which, if violated, cause no one any harm. Many consider violations of those laws to be “victimless crimes.” However, breaking those laws is still illegal.

A “victimless crime” is an illegal criminal act. The views on these crimes are often based on views of what should or should not be against the law. However, the fact that no one was harmed is not generally a legal defense.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Nope. The judge uses precedent.

It's his job. It's required. He can't deviate from precedent.


Oh no, not the " who is the victim" arguement again.

Trump's fraud case called and they want their "no victim" parroting back.

Anyhow...

https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/what-is-a-victimless-crime.html

There are some laws in the American criminal justice system which, if violated, cause no one any harm. Many consider violations of those laws to be “victimless crimes.” However, breaking those laws is still illegal.

A “victimless crime” is an illegal criminal act. The views on these crimes are often based on views of what should or should not be against the law. However, the fact that no one was harmed is not generally a legal defense.

You’re reaching to get Trump. In your logic there’s no such thing as prosecution bias or trial errors/abuse.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You’re reaching to get Trump.

No Im not.

The jury already got Trump.

I need not do anything.

In your logic there’s no such thing as prosecution bias or trial errors/abuse.

That isn't my logic.

My logic is I don't see anything that would cause this case to be appealed.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No Im not.

The jury already got Trump.

I need not do anything.

I hate to have to tell you something obvious, but juries are sometimes wrong. There’s a long list of people convicted of murder, rape, etc who are later freed because the jury got it wrong.

If it were up to you, you wouldn’t consider their appeal because they were initially convicted, and that would be that.

It’s a good thing your model isn’t the norm. You’d be condemning tons of innocent people.

That isn't my logic.

My logic is I don't see anything that would cause this case to be appealed.

We can agree to disagree

 

[Catsnmeters]

I hate to have to tell you something obvious, but juries are sometimes wrong. There’s a long list of people convicted of murder, rape, etc who are later freed because the jury got it wrong.

Yep. They sometimes are.

Does that mean Trump is innocent?

Should we assume everyone is innocent because of this?

If it were up to you, you wouldn’t consider their appeal because they were initially convicted, and that would be that.

I would if I saw a good reason.

It’s a good thing your model isn’t the norm. You’d be condemning tons of innocent people.

Why would I do that.

The model is a jury of peers.

That is what Trump got.

We can agree to disagree

Sure.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

My logic is I don't see anything that would cause this case to be appealed.

Challenges Trump can make:

1. Appeal to NY's 1st judicial Dept appellate court within 30 days of July 11th sentencing.

At trial, jurors found Trump guilty of falsifying business records with the intent of concealing a plot to undermine the 2016 election. To prove the underlying crime, jurors had to agree Trump used “unlawful means” — but they did not have to agree on a singular unlawful act. “The combination of the prosecution offering three different theories as to how the false records could have violated state election law, limited instruction on what some of those theories required, and the fact that jurors were not required to agree on which had been proven creates a real issue for the appeal.

2. Appeal on grounds that Expert Witness Trump wanted to testify was restricted by judge.

3. Appeal on prejudicial testimony

Stormy Daniels’ detailed account of having sex with Trump, as well as some of the testimony connected to the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump’s lawyers might appeal on the ground that the material “wasn’t relevant and the jury didn’t need to hear it in order to make a conviction,”

4. Judge should have recused himself

due his daughter's work for a Democrat consulting firm.

5. Appeal on change of venue

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/02/trump-conviction-appeal-juror-00161110

We'll see... but he has options.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Challenges Trump can make:

1. Appeal to NY's 1st judicial Dept appellate court within 30 days of July 11th sentencing.

At trial, jurors found Trump guilty of falsifying business records with the intent of concealing a plot to undermine the 2016 election. To prove the underlying crime, jurors had to agree Trump used “unlawful means” — but they did not have to agree on a singular unlawful act. “The combination of the prosecution offering three different theories as to how the false records could have violated state election law, limited instruction on what some of those theories required, and the fact that jurors were not required to agree on which had been proven creates a real issue for the appeal.

They didn't have to agree because Trump was not charged with the predicate crimes.

2. Appeal on grounds that Expert Witness Trump wanted to testify was restricted by judge.

The expert witness wanted to supply irrelevant and unnecessary testimony. It's the judges job to explain the law. Not the defense.

3. Appeal on prejudicial testimony

Stormy Daniels’ detailed account of having sex with Trump, as well as some of the testimony connected to the “Access Hollywood” tape. Trump’s lawyers might appeal on the ground that the material “wasn’t relevant and the jury didn’t need to hear it in order to make a conviction,”

Lol, good luck.

4. Judge should have recused himself

due his daughter's work for a Democrat consulting firm.

Judges don't recuse themselves from cases because of who their kids fund raised for...unless you have a link with the precedent.

5. Appeal on change of venue

Trump did the crime in New York.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/02/trump-conviction-appeal-juror-00161110

We'll see... but he has options.

We will see.