quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Fascinating position by justice Alito.

https://www.vanityfair.com/new...know-it-will-be-over

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
The Constitution requires a President to take care that the Laws of the United States be carefully executed, not his political rivals.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
The Constitution requires a President to take care that the Laws of the United States be carefully executed, not his political rivals.

Wow! Does this apply to democrats?

Like our borders?

Drug laws?

Firearms laws?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Well, a POTUS should have immunity for official acts done in his capacity as POTUS. A POTUS shouldn't have immunity for sedition, falsification of business records, election interference, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Well, a POTUS should have immunity for official acts done in his capacity as POTUS. A POTUS shouldn't have immunity for sedition, falsification of business records, election interference, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is ridiculous. I will do anything within my power to prevent any Democrat from being elected to any office. Is that election interference?

On the other hand, is requiring a presidential candidate to sit in a trumped up trial so he can't campaign election interference? Pretty much the definition of it. But no prosecutions there.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is ridiculous. I will do anything within my power to prevent any Democrat from being elected to any office. Is that election interference?

On the other hand, is requiring a presidential candidate to sit in a trumped up trial so he can't campaign election interference? Pretty much the definition of it. But no prosecutions there.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is ridiculous. I will do anything within my power to prevent any Democrat from being elected to any office. Is that election interference?

On the other hand, is requiring a presidential candidate to sit in a trumped up trial so he can't campaign election interference? Pretty much the definition of it. But no prosecutions there.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is ridiculous. I will do anything within my power to prevent any Democrat from being elected to any office. Is that election interference?

On the other hand, is requiring a presidential candidate to sit in a trumped up trial so he can't campaign election interference? Pretty much the definition of it. But no prosecutions there.

This trial and the publicity related to it are far more valuable to trump than any campaigning he might be doing right now. As evidenced by your wadded-up panties.

quote:

You actually are not wrong this good for him. People love a martyr.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

You actually are not wrong this good for him. People love a martyr.

Not everyone.

The persecution syndrome or delusion is strong in Trumpsters.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
This is ridiculous. I will do anything within my power to prevent any Democrat from being elected to any office. Is that election interference?

On the other hand, is requiring a presidential candidate to sit in a trumped up trial so he can't campaign election interference? Pretty much the definition of it. But no prosecutions there.

This trial and the publicity related to it are far more valuable to trump than any campaigning he might be doing right now. As evidenced by your wadded-up panties.

You actually are not wrong this good for him. People love a martyr.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I disagree. The middle, that 3-5 percent, of the GOP and Indies have some number that are waiting to see if President Trump is convicted.

Assuming President Trump can obtain jury verdicts that repudiate his responsibility for all these alleged acts, that jury nullification of responsibility shall be felt at the polls.

I would not have brought this NY state case given the alleged facts. I understand it, but it is trying to splice together a scheme.

Bottom of the Line: A win for President Trump in courts of justice being state or federal is a win in the voting populace. Winnipeg has it deadlocked at 37 percent. The whole things teetering on the razor’s edge. What side of the edge President Trump slips to will have an impact.

His political and moral responsibility is solidified in my eyes. That is a complicated argument that has not been embraced by a majority. A seal of legal innocence is not going to make that argument more competing the face of those who are doubtful to mostly convinced that these prosecutions are reaching (at best).

The margin is that close as see it today. It will give some GOP leaning voters reason, justification to permit themselves to vote for the man.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
This one being NY, in my view, is the weakest of the cases. The strongest is the documents case which absolutely should be brought.

This NY state case is very complicated. It hinges upon this scheme to hide something that one must prove was an unreported, excessive in amount campaign contribution.

The goods may be there. In good faith, I believe the prosecution team believed they have sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. It seems rather complicated to me, and the more complicated it is the harder it is to explain. Sometimes, the juice is not with the squeeze.

A cynic with no proof would say, that a NY York state convictions does two things: 1 being a state conviction it narrows the scope of appealable issues, and 2assuming a conviction is upheld, a dem governor from the State of NY will never pardon President Trump.

A Dem President or Dem Republican President may very well pardon a federal conviction. Likewise, a GOP Gov in GA might pardon a state conviction.

Now, I am not a cynic. I have seen no evidence the above is the case. However, one should always rationalize like the opposition. A task I had in my first year of law school was to write the opposition brief.

Like I posted about 404b, what we are seeing is testimony of a common plan and motivate to use monies to benefit the campaign. That is is the play that hooks the felony. Statute of Limitations issues not withstanding. I am not competent to address that issue. We do not have SOLs for felonies on KY.

Surely, the trial judge has and can deal with the alleged SOL issue. That would be a matter of law for him to adjudicate. Assuming, the SOL has not been tolled or extended by the misdemeanors that require the jury to make an affirmative finding. Thus, I assume that issue is not in serious play.

Why do I think this case was brought believing it to be weak. I believe the case was brought bc the prosecution team in good faith believe they can prove the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. I think given the complexity of the matter to reward that is a tall ask. We shall see. I respect the jury verdict. I reiterate that President Trump is currently as innocent of this as I am. I have never been to nor done business in NY.

The appellate courts are going to have to find an error in law, a piece of evidence or testimony that was admitted that was prejudicial error to admit over objection, or a federal right (such as the right to effective assistance of counsel that Justice Thomas got a majority opinion neutering that specific incorporated federal right last year or so). A jury’s factual findings may only be set aside over a very high burden of no sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable juror to so conclude. That the appellate court might or could decide a factual issue differently shall not suffice to overturn.

That is the most honest answer I can give.

In conclusion, the more the judge or jury has to think the harder it is to rebut the presumption, to make them comfortable to walk down the line w you to strip someone, effectively, of their citizenship. Being hard does not mean the prosecution is in bad faith. Being hard means you better be able to tell the story with the permissible tools that lessons the thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
Are you agreeing with the ridiculous idea that documents were planted at Mar a Lardo? Please tell me you are not. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that anyone be that fucking stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
I have no doubts about the stupidity or low level stooping on anything political anymore.

especially by those trying to save a 'democracy' while living in a republic.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
This one being NY, in my view, is the weakest of the cases. The strongest is the documents case which absolutely should be brought.

This NY state case is very complicated. It hinges upon this scheme to hide something that one must prove was an unreported, excessive in amount campaign contribution.

The goods may be there. In good faith, I believe the prosecution team believed they have sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. It seems rather complicated to me, and the more complicated it is the harder it is to explain. Sometimes, the juice is not with the squeeze.

A cynic with no proof would say, that a NY York state convictions does two things: 1 being a state conviction it narrows the scope of appealable issues, and 2assuming a conviction is upheld, a dem governor from the State of NY will never pardon President Trump.

A Dem President or Dem Republican President may very well pardon a federal conviction. Likewise, a GOP Gov in GA might pardon a state conviction.

Now, I am not a cynic. I have seen no evidence the above is the case. However, one should always rationalize like the opposition. A task I had in my first year of law school was to write the opposition brief.

Like I posted about 404b, what we are seeing is testimony of a common plan and motivate to use monies to benefit the campaign. That is is the play that hooks the felony. Statute of Limitations issues not withstanding. I am not competent to address that issue. We do not have SOLs for felonies on KY.

Surely, the trial judge has and can deal with the alleged SOL issue. That would be a matter of law for him to adjudicate. Assuming, the SOL has not been tolled or extended by the misdemeanors that require the jury to make an affirmative finding. Thus, I assume that issue is not in serious play.

Why do I think this case was brought believing it to be weak. I believe the case was brought bc the prosecution team in good faith believe they can prove the elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. I think given the complexity of the matter to reward that is a tall ask. We shall see. I respect the jury verdict. I reiterate that President Trump is currently as innocent of this as I am. I have never been to nor done business in NY.

The appellate courts are going to have to find an error in law, a piece of evidence or testimony that was admitted that was prejudicial error to admit over objection, or a federal right (such as the right to effective assistance of counsel that Justice Thomas got a majority opinion neutering that specific incorporated federal right last year or so). A jury’s factual findings may only be set aside over a very high burden of no sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable juror to so conclude. That the appellate court might or could decide a factual issue differently shall not suffice to overturn.

That is the most honest answer I can give.

In conclusion, the more the judge or jury has to think the harder it is to rebut the presumption, to make them comfortable to walk down the line w you to strip someone, effectively, of their citizenship. Being hard does not mean the prosecution is in bad faith. Being hard means you better be able to tell the story with the permissible tools that lessons the thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
I have no doubts about the stupidity or low level stooping on anything political anymore.

especially by those trying to save a 'democracy' while living in a republic.

Except our Republic is a democracy. A limited, very close to a pure democracy since universal Sulfridge, direct election of Senators, the Supreme Court enshrining one person one vote, and the abolishment of racial gerrymandering as a violation of the federal right to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
I have no doubts about the stupidity or low level stooping on anything political anymore.

especially by those trying to save a 'democracy' while living in a republic.

Except our Republic is a democracy. A limited, very close to a pure democracy since universal Sulfridge, direct election of Senators, the Supreme Court enshrining one person one vote, and the abolishment of racial gerrymandering as a violation of the federal right to vote.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I get so tired of hearing Republicans claim the US is not a democracy but a republic. They're wrong. And even if they weren't, it's a distinction that makes a material difference to what issues?

The US is actually a democratic republic. Ancient Rome was a republic, but not a democratic one. The office of senator wasn't determined by elections, but by inheritance. The office was inherited along with the family name and material goods.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I do. Why it is capitalizing and changing it ask Apple.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I disagree. The middle, that 3-5 percent, of the GOP and Indies have some number that are waiting to see if President Trump is convicted.

Assuming President Trump can obtain jury verdicts that repudiate his responsibility for all these alleged acts, that jury nullification of responsibility shall be felt at the polls.

I would not have brought this NY state case given the alleged facts. I understand it, but it is trying to splice together a scheme.

Bottom of the Line: A win for President Trump in courts of justice being state or federal is a win in the voting populace. Winnipeg has it deadlocked at 37 percent. The whole things teetering on the razor’s edge. What side of the edge President Trump slips to will have an impact.

His political and moral responsibility is solidified in my eyes. That is a complicated argument that has not been embraced by a majority. A seal of legal innocence is not going to make that argument more competing the face of those who are doubtful to mostly convinced that these prosecutions are reaching (at best).

The margin is that close as see it today. It will give some GOP leaning voters reason, justification to permit themselves to vote for the man.