- 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 11:34 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:34 am to NC_Tigah
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. .
My posts ITT cover this, as well as dozens the past week
quote:
We also have SOL issues in some of the 34 counts
Not if the predicate is established. It was all one scheme, effectively, so as long as the conspiracy has that associated crime, they're all felonies.
2
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The state cannot prove is was not a basis, or the basis. Does that not register yet?
It's a possible basis, not the only basis
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not if the predicate is established.
The predicate being any one of the many crimes allowed by the judge that didn't have to be unanimously agreed to?
This post was edited on 6/5/24 at 11:39 am
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The state cannot prove is was not a basis, or the basis. Does that not register yet?
They can, but they didn't have to, so they didn't.
On the re-trial, when they are required to specifically list the options, they will give evidence specifically or dismiss, if they can't.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:38 am to TDTOM
quote:
The predicate being any one of the many crimes allowed by the judge that didn't have to be unanimously voted on?
Yes
On retrial that should be cleaned up to require specifically listing the associated crimes and requiring the jury to agree on at least one associated crime unanimously for each charge.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You've held that jurisdiction cannot be soundly established as we don't know whether Federal Elections Violation was the crime considered?
My posts ITT cover this, as well as dozens the past week
I missed those "dozens" of posts.
The "dozens" of posts I've seen indicate you feel the state needn't have a requirement to establish jurisdiction.
The "dozens" of posts I've seen indicate you feel the state is only required to establish a possibility of jurisdiction.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:44 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
The "dozens" of posts I've seen indicate you feel the state needn't have a requirement to establish jurisdiction.
You didn't read correctly
My posts said the judge/jury instructions of the trial didn't require that.
Posts just from this thread:
quote:
The constitutional issues are actually (1) not having to be specific on which associated crimes the prosecution relied on, specifically in the indictment and (2) the non-unanimity the jury was allowed in choosing that associated crime.
quote:
Any argument implying this was the only angle to conviction is incorrect. If his whole argument is based on assuming only the federal election/interference angle was on the table, then it's a bad argument.
He's theoretically right about the election law issue, but his ignorance of the total picture is the problem in making statements like this:
quote:
There was thus no predicate crime that Trump could have been concealing when he allegedly altered business records at The Trump Organization. Trump's convictions in the Manhattan trial are unconstitutional because they violate the First Amendment as it was originally understood.
His statement "there was thus no predicate crime" assumes a very narrow scope that doesn't reflect reality (as discussed in other posts in this thread).
Now, for the 100th time, this flexibility that renders Calabresi's argument wrong will likely be the reason why the conviction is overturned and remanded for retrial. But, if we are discussing the trial that actually happened and the verdict that actually happened, we can't argue based on assumptions of future behavior and can only analyze the reality that exists as of this post.
quote:
You mean the law? Or did your instructions? Or the conviction itself?
I've said a hundred times the non-unanimity of the jury instructions is going to lead to a constitutional issue. The lack of specifying which associated crime likely also has the same issue. I don't think that that would rule the statute unconstitutional or dismiss the conviction outright. The court would instruct these to be corrected and then send it back for retrial without the incorrect jury instructions, etc
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:How?
They can
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:45 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
How?
By introducing evidence at the re-trial
This post was edited on 6/5/24 at 11:45 am
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm speaking within the context of his conspiratorial post.
Of course you are.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:49 am to Flats
I mean, I was giving strategy for the prosecution yesterday and the day before, too. Strategy is strategy.
I also like correcting people, which I was also doing with that reply. Within his CT, his purported path wasn't effective.
I also like correcting people, which I was also doing with that reply. Within his CT, his purported path wasn't effective.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:50 am to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
didn't they have people testify they saw him sign those checks?
Whom?
Links?
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:50 am to loogaroo
Trump's Manhattan show trial is not just unconstitutional, it is itself criminal.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
By introducing evidence at the re-trial
We are talking about this trial. Not some hypothetical election interfering redo.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:53 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
We are talking about this trial.
Again, already covered
quote:
but they didn't have to, so they didn't.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:54 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote:
Yep. This is why I fully expect Merchant to impose an absurd prison sentence. He will do it to make the crimes and the conviction to appear to be much more impactful to Trump election chances.
If he was smart, he'd give Trump the weakest slap on the wrist possible.
That's never going to happen. These people don't relent and they don't care about optics. They will go all in and put him in Jail. They absolutely don't give a fk about the later repercussions of their actions. The ends justify the means.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Which ... once again ... leaves state jurisdiction unestablished.
(which implies accounting for multiple options)
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:56 am to loogaroo
Under Old Racist Law, this is true, but the USA is no longer under that legal regime. The Old Racist Law legal regime of the US Constitution has been replaced by the 1619 New Law legal regime.
Under New Law, that which advances the Radical Leftist Agenda is, by definition: Legal. That which does not advance this Agenda is, by definition: ILLEGAL.
Donald Trump and his family are all Illegal Personnel. They will be eradicated by the people who run this country - not physically killed, but, ruined in every other way possible.
This is where we are today, unfortunately. Think long and hard before you try to challenge the Governing Paradigm. That's what she said.
Under New Law, that which advances the Radical Leftist Agenda is, by definition: Legal. That which does not advance this Agenda is, by definition: ILLEGAL.
Donald Trump and his family are all Illegal Personnel. They will be eradicated by the people who run this country - not physically killed, but, ruined in every other way possible.
This is where we are today, unfortunately. Think long and hard before you try to challenge the Governing Paradigm. That's what she said.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yet, your contention is that they DID have to. Hence the need for a redo.
but they didn't have to, so they didn't.
Posted on 6/5/24 at 11:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Which ... once again ... leaves state jurisdiction unestablished.
The jurisdiction is over the indicted crime, which is a NY criminal statute. How does a NY state court lack jurisdiction over a NY criminal statute?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News