Don't forget that Trump is a convicted felon

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I agree with Dershowitz. Our counselor from Baton Rouge probably does too although he won’t admit it. He’s been all over the board but is avoiding this thread.

his absence of comment is telling isn't it? i've been waiting with great anticipation for his learned opinion ... especially about my claim that Trump's "conviction" is currently provisional and not official until all appeals have been heard and formal sentencing has taken place.

i mean .. i stayed at a Holiday Inn last night but when i woke up i was still an IT geek.


bahahahaha

[rooster]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

you realize you just agreed with my post, yes? but Democrats would never exploit the committee, would they?

Good gawd. YES I REALIZED IT! You just missed my point. Let me make it simpler. The House Judiciary Committee is a biased, political tool, controlled by the party that rules the House. So yea...Dems abuse it too.

So that source sucked. The others that you quoted later...better! So make your argument with sources like those. Leave stupid fuckhead shills like Jim Jordan out of it.

.

[rooster]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

his absence of comment is telling isn't it? i've been waiting with great anticipation for his learned opinion ... especially about my claim that Trump's "conviction" is currently provisional and not official until all appeals have been heard and formal sentencing has taken place.

i mean .. i stayed at a Holiday Inn last night but when i woke up i was still an IT geek.


bahahahaha

As the legal definition stands...RIGHT NOW...Trump is a convicted felon.

There is no such thing as a "provisional conviction."

That could change. But until it does, he is a convicted felon.

Now...I'm not a lawyer...but you aren't either...and I hate Holiday Inn....and IT people (Sorry, it ain't personal...most of us do)....

But maybe you can find some legal documentation or QUALIFIED opinion that says I'm wrong. But I highly doubt it. And if you try, please use something legit. Like a citation that would stand up in a court. No opinions from "Townhall" or idiots like that. Thanks in advance.

But...RIGHT FUCKING NOW...Donald J Trump is a convicted felon.

Get over it. Hell...summa y'all are embracing it. Maybe go for that. We won't think worse of you. Not possible.

.

[Tigbitties38]

You're wrong again.
Americans do.

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Nobody sane gives a flying fuck about the dems lawfare. Maybe if they didn’t start slinging bullshit charges that constantly got blown to smithereens from day one they’d have SOME credibility. Mommy and daddy should’ve read their democrat kids The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

[Tigbitties38]

So?
I didn't say don't let him vote.

Originally Posted by ICU 812

I think that this conviction will be o\overturned or dismissed (whatever the legal term is) by a higher court.

In any case, it has long been my understanding that the progressive left strongly supports the reinstatement of rights for convicted felons. Here in Houston, the Democrats in control are letting county inmates vote in prion, so . . . .

[Tigbitties38]

Many people are wrong.
You believe election fraud "stole" the 2020 election.
That fact taints every thing you say.

Originally Posted by Tiny

Those were bull shit convictions. He paid off a porn star through Michael Cohen and got prosecuted for campaign law violations. The prosecution, like the rest of the ones in Manhattan, was political. Many people recognize that. And those 34 convictions might just result in Trump getting more votes than if he'd never been charged.

If you limited your post to charges he may be convicted of the future, like the election interference case Jack Smith is trying in Washington, D.C., I might agree with you.

[Tigbitties38]

Again, so what?

Trump is a convicted felon.

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Yes. . .and progressive liberals want reinstate voting rights for felons.

[Tigbitties38]

So?

We're not hearing anything about this. Because it is all bullshit.
For every opinion like this, there are many of the opposite.
From repubs too.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what shady things?

you might find this interesting.


New Report: How Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan Violated the Constitutional and Legal Rights of President Donald J. Trump

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/pr...rchan-violated


July 9, 2024
Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim staff report titled, "Lawfare: How the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and a New York State Judge Violated the Constitutional and Legal Rights of President Donald J. Trump." The state or local prosecution of a current or former president by a popularly elected district attorney raises substantial federal interests and raises serious concerns about conflict between state and federal entities.


The report explains the several ways in which New York County District Attorney (DANY) Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump suffers from severe legal and procedural defects, including:

• Bragg's unconstitutional and unprecedented Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability, in which the jury never had to reach unanimity as to each element of the criminal offenses; and
• Bragg's usurpation of the federal government's exclusive authority to prosecute alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws and the Biden-Harris Administration's refusal to intercede to protect federal interests.

The report also details Judge Merchan's egregious legal rulings before and during the trial that all cut against President Trump's rights, including:

• Judge Merchan's failure to recuse himself for manifest political bias against President Trump;
• The unconstitutional gag order he imposed on President Trump during the trial;
• Judge Merchan's admission of plainly inadmissible, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial testimony against President Trump; and
• Judge Merchan's refusal to permit former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith to testify as to the meaning and complexities of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Every person admitted to practice law in New York, including elected district attorneys and appointed judges, must take a "constitutional oath of office," swearing or affirming to "support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of New York." By taking that oath, District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan were legally "bound to a constitutional course of conduct." In their politicized efforts to indict and convict President Trump, they failed their oaths of office.


Given that President Trump's indictment was conceived in legal and constitutional error and the trial exacerbated and compounded those errors, an honest review of the facts and the law will likely lead appellate courts to vacate the conviction and dismiss the indictment with prejudice. This will go a long way in restoring the American people's trust and confidence in our justice system, although more work is ahead. In the meantime, the Committee and Select Subcommittee will continue our oversight of lawfare and its effect on the rule of law in the United States.


Read the full interim staff report here.

[Tigbitties38]

Blah, blah, blah.

Sorry charlie. You arguments are all empty and/or false.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

are the democrats any different? the statute of limitations had run out on misdemeanor "record keeping" so Bragg a NY State prosecutor used a nonexistent Federal Campaign "violation" to both elevate these to felonies and get around the statute of limitations. the FEC itself investigated and found no violation, as did the DOJ. Bragg's "claim" that this should have been paid by Trump's campaign not personally by Trump is a load of shit.


in fact, if Trump had done what Bragg claims he should have .. it would have been a campaign violation.


care to refute any of the report's details? all of which are true.

[Tigbitties38]

Not trying to sell it.
It's fact.

Who cares how hard you voted for Trump? You voted for a felon.

Originally Posted by texassapper

Stop selling it. I can't vote any Harder for Trump than I already have....

[Tigbitties38]

Can you prove any of that?

Of course not.

It's fact he was convicted.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

deflect much?


The report explains the several ways in which New York County District Attorney (DANY) Alvin Bragg's prosecution of President Trump suffers from severe legal and procedural defects, including:

• Bragg's unconstitutional and unprecedented Russian-nesting-doll theory of criminal liability, in which the jury never had to reach unanimity as to each element of the criminal offenses; and
• Bragg's usurpation of the federal government's exclusive authority to prosecute alleged violations of federal campaign finance laws and the Biden-Harris Administration's refusal to intercede to protect federal interests.

The report also details Judge Merchan's egregious legal rulings before and during the trial that all cut against President Trump's rights, including:

• Judge Merchan's failure to recuse himself for manifest political bias against President Trump;
• The unconstitutional gag order he imposed on President Trump during the trial;
• Judge Merchan's admission of plainly inadmissible, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial testimony against President Trump; and
• Judge Merchan's refusal to permit former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith to testify as to the meaning and complexities of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

can you refute any of this?

[Tigbitties38]

It's a federal body commenting on a state case.

It has no standing whatsoever.

The judicial committee? The same guys that tried to impeach Biden without a charge?

They have no standing. How many Dems signed off on the hot air?

Blah, blah, blah.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

source material? the Judiciary committee? you are kidding right?


do you two believe that a jury must be unanimous on a verdict? let's just start there .. okay?


"The report goes into great detail about the legal and procedural mess in Bragg’s prosecution of Trump. One major issue is Bragg’s “Russian-nesting-doll” theory of criminal liability. This unprecedented approach allowed the jury to convict Trump without agreeing on each element of the offenses charged, which is a big no-no when it comes to due process."


is this fake news? Republican slander?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Tigbitties38

Many people are wrong.
You believe election fraud "stole" the 2020 election.
That fact taints every thing you say.

WRONG. Reading is fundamental.

Originally Posted by Tiny

If you limited your post to charges he may be convicted of the future, like the election interference case Jack Smith is trying in Washington, D.C., I might agree with you.

[Tigbitties38]

It's a proven fact.

All of your bullshit meant nothing.
If the judge had to explain to every non-lawyer tard that posted on a hooker board,they wouldn't ever get anything done.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

it's FACT and the fact you can't prove it false is proof it's not partisan

what the Judge said


His instructions for the jury’s deliberation process (page 31) state that jurors don’t have to agree unanimously on exactly how the crime was committed: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”


“The prosecution presented evidence of three different ‘unlawful means’ to satisfy this requirement and the Judge told the jury that they did not have to agree upon which of these unlawful means were intended to be used,”


The prosecution theory is essentially a Russian nesting doll of criminal violations — under New York law, falsifying business records is a felony only if the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime.


In Trump’s case, prosecutors have offered three types of crimes that would make the state election-meddling charge come into play: federal election law crimes, tax crimes or false business records.


the Judge allowed three different ways to get a conviction, two of which are false. there was no federal election law crimes or tax crime.


FEC drops investigation into Trump hush money payments

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...oney-payments/


Why Did Federal Prosecutors Drop Trump's Hush Money Case?

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article...ush-money-case


even lawfare says the Federal campaign issue was not a issue for Bragg to bring. Bragg is not a Federal prosecutor. the DOJ declined to file charges. there was no election finance crime. that's one of the three DOWN.


When Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg first announced hush money charges against former President Donald Trump in March 2023, commentators were quick to cast doubt on the strength of the case. Among the criticisms leveled against Bragg from both right and left was that the district attorney’s office had simply resurrected a case already considered and abandoned by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), who had already investigated Trump and chosen not to bring charges against him under federal campaign finance law for the same scheme. “If anyone should have brought this case,” wrote law professor Jed Shugerman in the New York Times, it was the Justice Department. In the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus questioned whether Bragg could “transmogrify this conduct into a state crime” from its federal roots. On the right, Andrew McCarthy suggested in National Review that Bragg was “politically engineering” federal law “into a new election law of his very own.”

[Tigbitties38]

Stay on topic.
More added details that mean nothing?

Nothing you've posted means anything or is significant in any way.

You don't know anything about New York law or any law.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

re-read my post. more added details.


and show me a direct claim of tax crimes by Trump. Bragg based that on Michael Cohen who took a plea deal to tax evasion by inference.