https://youtu.be/sdqWcexJ6Uo?si=oDtvTgXGk-8ubWGZ

Dec 16, 2024

Ben Meiselas reports on Justice Merchan’s ruling on Trump’s immunity claims in the NY criminal case where he was convicted on 34 felony counts.

Trump's motion to dismiss was denied.

I'm shocked! Marchan ignored the law! Again.

Good!

Trump has been a crook all his life!

BULLSHIT. I don’t think falsifying business/ tax returns qualifies as Presidential duties and thus qualifies as official duties of a President….

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I'm shocked! Marchan ignored the law! Again.

What law did he ignore, counselor?

The judge found that falsifying tax records, which Trump was convicted of doing, was not part of the official duties of the president.

Explain why the ruling is incorrect, please.

I've noticed you tend to run away when asked a tough question. Why not stand up like a man and defend your position?

Thread title misled me. I thought the court ruling was for Trump.

The conviction was on another charge that Alvin Bragg never should have brought, but let's get to some of the flaws in the prosecution and supposed conviction. It's been a while since I looked at it so I'm sure I'm missing things. There was a whole lot wrong with this.

The whole strategy to survive the statute of limitations and convert a time-barred misdemeanor into a felony, while ingenious, can't possible work. If that was done to a Black man or a Democrat, the whole liberal world would be outraged.

That should have ended the prosecution before it started.

Then we have the judge and his bias and his daughter's bias and affiliation with the Democratic Party and why he should have recused himself. But when he didn't. I need to stop there.

The Dims wanted to rush this case to trial before the election and the Supreme Court's decision on Presidential immunity, but by doing so, Marchan, and his cronies, allowed the introduction of evidence of things Trump did in his capacity as President. So that evidence couldn't be relied upon in any event, but it came in. So inadmissible evidence was before the jury. Simple reversal.

Next is that the complex misdemeanor theory to survive the statute of limitation, even if it worked, which is doubtful, should have required the jury to unanimously agree on the actual crime committed, but the way the charge was submitted, the jury could have agreed on any one one of three charged crimes and so there was no unanimous verdict on the precise "crime' committed.

This was a "Trumped up" charge by a failed DA, Alvin Bragg, just like the Daniel Penny prosecution.

Thank you for meeting my challenge.

But it's the lower court's denial of Trump's motion for immunity that we're talking about. Why is that ruling erroneous?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I'm shocked! Marchan ignored the law! Again.

Now, you are just lying.

Trump was not president when these state crimes were committed. Thus, they cannot be official acts.


You have not read this opinion to opine on its rationale.

But discussing these "unofficial" acts with counsel while president makes these discussions "official" and thereby immune according to SCOTUS. Is that correct? If so I call FUCKING BULLSHIT on that.

The guy in this video answers your question in the first three minutes.

https://youtu.be/sdqWcexJ6Uo?si=bNbb3mNqNQLrKo5v

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...353cf1afdd4cfb&ei=13

'Psychotic': Trump posts furious attack on judge who refused to accept immunity bid
Story by Travis Gettys • 2h • 2 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...78d384dfe8a846d&ei=3

Judge Merchan Just Put 'Leash' on Trump During Presidency—Legal Analyst
Story by Martha McHardy • 1h • 4 min read

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c8a&ocid=socialshare

Trump Suffers Legal Blow As Lawsuit Threatens To Release Jack Smith’s Reports