- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: President Donald Trump's Manhattan Convictions are Unconstitutional
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:32 am to Byron Bojangles III
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:32 am to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
I love watching all these google lawyers argue with a real one
My family is full of doctors, lawyers and engineers. It's kind of funny during holiday season at family get togethers when the lawyers start arguing. The people with science backgrounds just look on, laugh and shake their heads.
0
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And what if the associated crimes had nothing to do with federal election law? I didn't read the whole article only what you quoted but does he cover the other options?
If there were "other options" for crimes Trump supposedly committed, then why didn't the DA make that argument in court?
The fact that you have to ask what the options are for the crime Trump was being accused of should be a giant red flag. But you'd rather pretend this was a legitimate trial, even though we are sitting in a thread arguing about what crime Trump may have committed BECAUSE IT WASN'T STATED IN COURT.
Your reaction is to always defend the system. As a lawyer, you should be demanding the state show what crime was actually committed and provide evidence it occurred. Yet, here you are, after Trump was found guilty, still wondering what crime Trump committed, without even a second of hesitation to question why you don't have this information after the trial is over. And you are perfectly fine with that.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:35 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
If there were "other options" for crimes Trump supposedly committed, then why didn't the DA make that argument in court?
With the jury instructions, they didn't have to
quote:
The fact that you have to ask what the options are for the crime Trump was being accused of should be a giant red flag. But you'd rather pretend this was a legitimate trial, even though we are sitting in a thread arguing about what crime Trump may have committed BECAUSE IT WASN'T STATED IN COURT.
You need to keep reading.
quote:
Your reaction is to always defend the system. As a lawyer, you should be demanding the state show what crime was actually committed and provide evidence it occurred. Yet, here you are, after Trump was found guilty, still wondering what crime Trump committed, without even a second of hesitation to question why you don't have this information after the trial is over. And you are perfectly fine with that.
You need to keep reading some more.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Federal election law was noted, and allowed for consideration, in the jury instructions. At that point, unless the jury explicitly specified it rejected consideration, the "associated crimes" must be assumed to have involved federal election law.
And what if the associated crimes had nothing to do with federal election law?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:36 am to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
The fact that you have to ask what the options are for the crime Trump was being accused of should be a giant red flag. But you'd rather pretend this was a legitimate trial, even though we are sitting in a thread arguing about what crime Trump may have committed BECAUSE IT WASN'T STATED IN COURT.
that is the crux of David Rivkin's op ed in the WSJ that Trump was basically denied due process
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:39 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Federal election law was noted, and allowed for consideration, in the jury instructions. At that point, unless the jury explicitly specified it rejected consideration, the "associated crimes" must be assumed to have involved federal election law.
No. The jury instructions make it clear they had options, and Merchan ruled that decision didn't have to be unanimous (which implies accounting for multiple options).
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If he was smart, he'd give Trump the weakest slap on the wrist possible.
This would severely decrease the chance of any sort of accelerated review during the election so they can truly tee off and call him a felon over and over again.
quote:
If he was smart,
So it's completely normal (and ethical) for a judge to use his personal political desires as the basis for sentencing?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:42 am to loogaroo
Will take years to unravel and be undone on appeal.
Trump will be dead or near death by that time.
Trump will be dead or near death by that time.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:42 am to loogaroo
Trump's Constitutionally guaranteed and protected First and Eighth Amendment rights have been absolutely chewed up, swallowed, then vomited back out into a pile of shite since he left office.
That's not to even mention the infringements of liberty carried out against him during his time in the Oval Office.
We are witnessing the full-blown weaponization of the whole weight of the eff bee eye, dee oh jay and N ess A against a former and possibly future President of the United States of America. We should be terrified. This is third-world banana republic bullshite featuring a modern gestapo and kangaroo courts with the unlimited funding of the American Taxpayer who continues to sit idly by and watch this all go down.
That's not to even mention the infringements of liberty carried out against him during his time in the Oval Office.
We are witnessing the full-blown weaponization of the whole weight of the eff bee eye, dee oh jay and N ess A against a former and possibly future President of the United States of America. We should be terrified. This is third-world banana republic bullshite featuring a modern gestapo and kangaroo courts with the unlimited funding of the American Taxpayer who continues to sit idly by and watch this all go down.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:43 am to loogaroo
Have the Muh First Amendment Isn't Absolute!!! idiots been by the thread yet?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:48 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Who made the decision that paying a hooker is bad for an election? Some people could actually agree paying a hooker for sex might not be a bad thing.
If it Flies, Floats, or fricks = Rent it!
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:50 am to SlowFlowPro
You seem like a mental giant. 
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
I think I need a injury lawyer, reading your post hurt my brain.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 10:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is the basis for the felony you fucing dumbass motherfricker because the misdemeanor had expired and no one wanted to prosecute. You come here acting like you know what the frick you are talking about.
And what if the associated crimes had nothing to do with federal election law?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:18 am to momentoftruth87
quote:by who exactly? other law professionals? or people who read Charlie Kirk blogs?
SFP needs help. He’s getting dragged itt and every one he posts in.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That opens up the avenue for the defense to attack his credibility in a new angle. It's not going to magically solve the problem but if they can show with good authorities that he was the one who actually had the affair then it discredits the rest of his testimony.
Again, just for discussion…could Trump claim that he didn’t sign the check(s) in question?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:But they were not required to specify which option they chose. The judge could have required that. He didn't. So Trump is subject to >130yrs imprisonment for an unspecified """crime""", and for which jurisdiction cannot be soundly established as we don't know whether Federal Elections Violation was the crime considered. We also have SOL issues in some of the 34 counts.
No. The jury instructions make it clear they had options
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:32 am to Flats
quote:
So it's completely normal (and ethical) for a judge to use his personal political desires as the basis for sentencing?
I'm speaking within the context of his conspiratorial post.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:33 am to ninthward
quote:
That is the basis for the felony you fucing dumbass motherfricker
It's a possible basis, not the only basis. The jury had options.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:34 am to jimmy the leg
quote:just for discussion...didn't they have people testify they saw him sign those checks?
Again, just for discussion…could Trump claim that he didn’t sign the check(s) in question?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News