Below is my column in the Hill on the most compelling grounds for an appeal in the Trump case after his conviction on 34 counts in Manhattan. There has been considerable criticism of the defense team and its strategy in the case, including some moves that may undermine appellate issues. However, after the instructions became public, I wrote a column that I thought the case was nearly un-winnable, even for those of us who previously saw a chance for a hung jury. Clarence Darrow would likely have lost with those instructions after the errors in the case by Judge Juan Merchan. At that point, it became a legal canned hunt. So the attention will now shift to the appellate courts. While it may be tough going initially in the New York court system for the former president, this case could well end up in the federal system and the United States Supreme Court. The thrill kill environment of last week may then dissipate as these glaring errors are presented in higher courts.
Here is the column:
The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations. This thrill-kill environment extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was “majestic day” and “a day to celebrate.” When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media.
The celebrants would be wise to think twice before mounting this trophy kill on the political wall. The Trump trial is a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error, in my view.
I am less convinced by suggestions that the case could be challenged on the inability of Trump receiving a fair trial in a district that voted roughly 90 percent against him. The problem was not the jury, but the prosecutors and the judge.
Some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups.
The Judge
Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. With any other defendant, there would likely be outrage over his selection. Merchan donated to President Biden. Even though the state bar cleared that violation based on the small size of the contribution, it later stressed that no such contributions were appropriate for a judge. We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.
To his credit, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has previously said that this case was legally dubious, uniquely targeted Trump and could not succeed outside of an anti-Trump district. On the judge, he recently challenged critics on the fairness of assigning a Biden donor who has earmarked donations for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” He asked “Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? “Absolutely not.”
What is equally disturbing is the failure of Merchan to protect the rights of the defendant and what even critics admit were distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial. It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted.
The Charges
A leading threshold issue will be the decision to allow Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively try Trump for violations of federal law. The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged “hush money” payments. The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court.
Even when closing arguments were given, analysts on various networks admitted that they were unclear about what Bragg was alleging. The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.
The Evidence
Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but actually blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony. He had previously chastised counsel for making continued objections, but now he criticized them for not continuing to make objections.
Merchan was equally conflicted in his other orders. For example, he allowed the prosecutors to introduce the plea agreement of Michael Cohen to federal election violations as well as the non-prosecution agreement of David Pecker on such violations. However, it was allowed only for the purposes of credibility and context. He issued an instruction that the jury could not consider the plea or the agreement to establish or impute the guilt of Trump.
The prosecutors then proceeded to expressly state that it was “a fact” that federal election violations occurred in this case and that Trump ordered those violations. They also solicited such statements from witnesses like Cohen. Merchan overruled the objections that the prosecutors were eviscerating his instruction. Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election.
Merchan is likely to be upheld in denying the expert, since the court retains the authority to state what the law is to the jury. The problem is that Merchan failed to do so. Worse still, he allowed the jury to hear the opposite in the repeated false claim that these payments were campaign contributions.
The Instructions
Even with all of the reversible errors, some of us held out hope that there might be a hung jury. That hope was largely smashed by Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The court largely used standard instructions in a case that was anything but standard. However, the instruction also allowed for doubt as to what the jury would ultimately find. When the verdict came in, we were still unsure what Trump was convicted of.
Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of the three vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which of the crimes were found. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case. They could have seen a conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. We will never know. Worse yet, Trump will never know.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. In some ways, Trump may have been fortunate by Merchan’s cavalier approach. Given that the jury convicted Trump across the board, they might have found all of three secondary crimes. The verdict form never asked for such specificity.
These are just a few of the appellate issues. There are other challenges, including but not limited to due process violations on the lack of specificity in the indictment, vagueness of the underlying state law and the lack of evidentiary foundation for key defenses like “the legitimate press function.” They are the reason why many of us view this case is likely to be reversed in either the state or federal systems. None of that is likely to dampen the thrill in this kill in Manhattan.
But if Biden wins the election before this conviction is overturned, history’s judgment will be deafening.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
In a focus group of two-time Trump voters who were down on Trump, five of the nine voters said they were less likely to support Trump because of his conviction:
Michelle from Florida:
“I’m tired of the lies. I’m tired of the nonsense. And I believed the testimony. And that is why I am happy that the jury found him guilty. And I think also, now that he is a convicted felon, he’s completely unfit.”
What’s sad is that it took the guilty finding for this person to find him “not fit”. He’s always been not fit. He’s a despicable disgusting lying criminal. Always has been.
He has been unfit to work in government from the day of his first bone spur!
I also like how anon responded 2 times to his own post before anyone else could lmao
Boo hoo
Someone said they won’t support him. 24 hours after the verdict Trump hauled in over 70 million dollars. Ya can’t please everybody.
Thats why we know michelle is a dem plant and a liar.
She was ok with him bragging about grabbing women by the pussy and being a “convicted rapist”, but not with this goddam bookkeeping error LMAO.
Thats just a bridge too far.
You look like an idiot for posting that here.
TRump will win Florida easily. Do you doubt that?
Independent voters said they would be more/less like to vote for trump by 15%/11%
Sorry. He gained 4 points among the only group that matters.
Keep hoping though. Its a good look.
LOL
In a focus group at the Rehoboth Beach County Club sponsored by Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, open bar and all you can eat, partcipants were asked would they vote Trump again?
Michele Obama from Florida stated Choo choo!
Felonious Trump!
Felons for Trump!
Trump 2024!
Nobody wants America to be in a position where the person who has been nominated for the president for a major party is standing trial. Nobody wants to see that. But the reason that’s happening is because Donald Trump commits a lot of crimes.
Total BS. The reason it’s happening is because his name is Donald Trump, and there is a blatant double standard. Your comment is disingenuous.
Awwwww, so sad. Does anyone want to see that guy win???
LMAO
Asking the lawyers among us:
Regarding “the vagueness of the underlying state statute”: Would challenging the constitutionality of the state law under which he was convicted be the fastest way to elevate this matter to the Supreme Court?
Surely a law that allows for an indictment that is silent about the crime(s) with which the defendant is being charged, cannot be constitutional. How can the defendant prepare his defense?
Surely a law that allows for a state to (silently) charge and prosecute Federal violations cannot be constitutional.
But, if so, wouldn’t Trump’s counsel have advocated for him along these lines earlier on?
Remarkable that Trump’s former lawyers, Cabinet members, and even his own VP, do not support him.
Well, he still has Melania. Although he’s had to up her pre-nup more times than Madonna’s had comebacks.
Or facelifts.
Remarkable
Professor Turley,
You wrote: “While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been.”
However, you failed to cite a single case or statute that would require “an express finding of what that crime may have been.” In fact, NY law is very clear that no express finding is required.
Section 175.10 does not require an express finding that the second crime occurred, just that there was intent to carry it out or cover it up: “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Further, the NY Court of Appeals considered this issue in People v. Taveras and found that only intent is required. In Taveras, the defendant challenged his sentence under § 175.10, along with a number of other offenses, including a charged object offense. While considering sentencing matters, the court held, “Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement … not any additional actus reus element.”
https://casetext.com/case/people-v-taveras-41
As a legal blog, you would hope you would make references to the law when you make a claim in an article nominally highlighting avenues for appeal. Yet, here, you fail to do so. Why? This is SETTLED LAW.
Which makes the criminal statute unconstitutionally vague, no?
What is vague about the statute? It very clearly does NOT require anything more than the intent to commit another crime.
If § 175.10 required prosecutors to prove both the records falsification and the commission of the object offense beyond a reasonable doubt, a verdict that acquitted or deadlocked on the object offense but convicted on the § 175.10 charge would seem to be legally incoherent. Prosecutors’ failure to convince the jury as to the commission of the object offense would undercut their case on the § 175.10 charge, if proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the object offense were itself a necessary component of § 175.10.
New York case law seems clear and consistent that he does not have to prove the object crime itself, only the intent to commit an object crime.
If this makes § 175.10 appear to be an expansive statute that gives prosecutors a great deal of latitude to make their case—well, that’s exactly what it is. While initial commentary around the Trump case often framed the indictment as anomalous in its use of the statute, the case law suggests Bragg’s approach here isn’t that atypical for the office.
You may disagree with the broad latitude afforded to law enforcement in NYC, but the remedy is not judicial activism. The proper remedy would be to amend the statute.
The remedy will be total smack down by scotus.
What is hilarious is your sidestep of the issue of the inherent unfairness AND unconstitutionality of the statute as interpreted by the appellate court. That a jury can “find” that someone committed some “other crime” with zero evidence presented of it, no defense allowed of it, and zero due process involving it.
Exactly WHICH “Federal Election Act violation(s) did Merchan allude to in his instructions? Answer…None. Those were his words. Why was the jury constrained at all? According to you, the underlying crime need not be named. Why werent they allowed to come up with their own, for lets say, 12 different versions of the unlawful means. Or shit, lets not stop there, we could have each juror with a different unlawful means for each of the 34 counts, for a total of 408 different versions. And none of it need be charged, litigated, defended, or proven beyond a reasonable doubt
SCOTUS is going to slap this one back into the stone age.
The jury does not need to find that someone committed some other crime. Did you fully read the above discussion?
Are you familiar with “actus reus” and “mens rea”? Read above!
It doesnt matter whether you use the word commit or intent. Both still need to be named specifically, litigated, defended, and found beyond a reasonable doubt.
Scotus has ruled that unanimous “elements” extends to mens rea. Your red herring is useless here.
In fact, one could argue that proving “intent” is a much tougher burden than an act that is actually committed.
In fact, you’re arguing that it could be either commit or intend to commit. Both are elements which are required to be spelled out, and agreed upon unanimously
Thanks for proving my point.
Is there any procedural mechanism by which SCOTUS can strike down this verdict before Election Day? Say, a petition for a writ of mandamus?
Steaming turd^^^^
There is no such thing as SETTLED LAW, when it comes to due process rights, unless SCOTUS has ruled in it, numbnuts.
Where dos you go to school, seriously?
What are you talking about? Settled law literally means binding legal precedent. The NY Court of Appeals is the highest appellate court of NY.
So what? They do not have the final word on due process protections of the constitution, which is the topic here. Keep up.
You will find out how unsettled this law is when SCOTUS gets done with it LMAO
Who exactly does legal precedent bind, dum dum. Lower courts only. Jeesh u lawyer types love those big words, huh?
The Court of Appeals is the third tier of the NY system. It would bind the court that would hear any appeal from trump (the second tier).
I believe that was just stated, dum dum.
In fact the same idiot that said it was settled law, argued that the predicate crime could have been committed or intended. Either of which would be an ELEMENT of the charged crime. As such, they require unanimous agreement. Its SETTLED LAW.
What?
The Appellate Division (Second Tier Court in NY) would oversee an appeal of the trial court. That court is legally obligated to follow the ruling of the NY Court of Appeals (the third tier), which has held (as I noted above) that the actus reus element of “another crime” need not be proved, only the intent (i.e., the mens rea).
This means that the jury does not need to prove that another crime was actually committed. It is sufficient to prove simply that Trump had a guilty mind.
The jury still must prove both the actus reus and mens rea of the the falsification of business records charges.
If math is hard for some people, that means actus reus is needed for the falsification of business records and mens rea is needed for the first crime and only the mens rea is needed for some other crime. It is an intentionally broad statute.
That is how it has been applied to prior defendants, and there is no reason it should be applied in the same fashion to anyone else.
Blah blah blah. All later to be found violations of due process by SCOTUS
Scotus has ruled that the all elements unanimity requirement extends to mens rea.
And again your red herring with the “first crime requires only mens rea”. The fvck it does. It requires one or the other or both. And which one it is, is an element of the crime. An element that must be agreed upon with unanimity.
I know who you are, ATS. The same guy who just the other day said that “contemplation” of a crime was all that was required.
Same guy who infamously said “evidence is not admissible unless it is incontrovertible”.
You love to throw out case law names, all the while misrepresenting what was actually litigated.
Before the verdict came in, before the trial started, when the so-called indictment was filed, we knew what Trump would be convicted of. He would be convicted of being Trump. And he was.
…being tRump, is synonymous with conman so jail is not a stretch of the imagination.
Jury Instructions:
“By Unlawful Means”
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.
[3 are presented]
Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or
not guilty, must be unanimous; that is, each and every juror must
agree to it.
Under these instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case.
In spite of SCOTUS rulings that EVERY element of a crime must be agreed upon unanimously.
Every element of the charged crime was agreed upon unanimously. Which element of the crimes for which Trump was charged did not have unanimous agreement? I’ll wait.
It depends on whether Scotus agrees that the “means” are really means and not separate elements. Scotus has taken a hard look at that, and the fact the trial judge called them “means” is not determinative. The Due Process Clause doesn’t allow a trial judge to mislabel an element as a means. Scotus will look at substance over form.
“Today, DJT was convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree, to conceal a scheme to corrupt the 2016 election”
——-Fat Albert Bragg
Didnt have to wait long, did you?
Seems like he didnt wait. Just ran off to spew some more horse shit.
Scotus has ruled that “every element” extends to mens rea.
Get a clue before you spout off.
BugAnon – How do you know that every element of “the charged crime” (whatever that is) was agreed upon? It was a general verdict form. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4695094-trump-hush-money-trial-verdict-sheet/
Selected Babylon Bee headlines:
– Terrorists learn harsh lesson that if you rape and murder women, the UN will give you your own country and a billion dollars
– In touching Memorial Day address, Biden thanks fallen American servicemen for their votes
– Hamas announces pride month kickoff party on roof of very tall hotel
– Report reveals $7.5 billion in government EV charger spending has purchased one 4-pack of Energizer AA’s
– Biden administration stations circus clowns, jugglers, lion tamers outside Trump trial
– Kangaroos ask people to stop unfairly comparing them to U.S. justice system
– Judge instructs jury they need not believe Trump is guilty to convict him
– Donald Trump found guilty of being Donald Trump
– Bailiffs cast lots for Trump’s clothing
– Jury passes note to judge asking to review 14 seasons of ‘The Apprentice’
– Trump sentenced to four years of confinement in small oval room in Washington, DC
– Trump reminds media he prefers the term ‘justice-impacted person’
– Twelve jurors unanimously vote to ensure Trump reelection
– Satan asks Dems to tone down all the evil
– Banana republics starting to feel kinda bad for United States
– NY prosecutor says nobody is above the laws he makes up to convict them
– Dems celebrate Trump being convicted of . . . whatever it was he did
– To save time, Biden to drop next $320 million directly into ocean
– To grow customer base, Cracker Barrel rebrands as ‘Hispanic, Black, and Cracker Barrel’
– Hillary condemns Trump for paying hush money to political liabilities instead of just killing them
– Liberals heroically prevent history from repeating itself by removing all references to history
– Judge dismisses sexual assault allegations against Biden on grounds he is not a Republican
– Democrats hiss in terror as Judge Amy Coney Barrett pulls out crucifix
– CDC: People with dirt on Clintons have 843% greater risk of suicide
– Motorcyclist who identifies as bicyclist sets cycling world record
– CNN publishes real news story for April Fool’s Day
OldManFromKS,
LOL!
Thank you for the laugh!
The headlines alone are funny . . . and true!
This will be a Colorado deja vu. That is, the Democrats running the NY State Court “System” will make the unethical and corrupt decision against DJT the same way the Colorado State Court “System” did in DJT’s other case there. Ultimately, the SCOTUS will have to put the hold on the Democrats’ Marxist-Fascist “leadership. This will put the Democrat far Leftists on the SCOTUS in a bit of a tizzy because they will have to go along with the majority. They wouldn’t want to go officially on record as being part of the same corrupt Democrat Marxist-Fascist “leadership
Judge Juan Merchan set Sentencing on July 11
The Supreme Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October.
The SCOTUS will be on Summer Vacation, it could be Putting a Stay on Sentencing.
What does it mean when a court puts a stay on something?
Stay is an action taken by a court to stop a legal proceeding or the actions of a party. A stay most commonly is issued by a court as a stay of proceedings in order to stop litigation from continuing, and they normally are only temporary.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stay
Trump urges Supreme Court to act before his sentencing
by Brett Samuels – 06/03/24
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4699894-trump-supreme-court-sentencing-hush-money-trial/
-TRA
Turley and the right-wing bubble are running a sham on their own faithful. Telling the truth has no money in it for them. And time will tell. Example…200 mules. And the “gold” coins, and the gold shoes…and….and…and….
Rigged law. Rigged charges. Rigged Judge. America’s very first Soviet style show trial brought to you by the Democratic Party !!! Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
More of a question than a comment. It appears very likely to me that Marchan will sentence Trump to prison, given the strong desire to get visuals of Trump in handcuffs, behind bars, or in an orange jumpsuit (if not all three). The sentencing hearing just days before the GOP nominating convention in Milwaukee is a dead giveaway. Would he be required to report to prison even if his case is on appeal?
Kelly Johnston,
Keep in mind that Trump already has 10 contempt charges for violating the gag order imposed by Merchan. Furthermore, Trump continues to bad mouth and denigrate the judge. As a convicted felon he can be jailed for having those extra charges and bad mouthing the judge. Freedom of Speech as a convicted felon comes with a much higher risk of going to prison for saying things that would violate any conditions of his probation or if he badmouths his probation officer. Trump is on thin ice as a felon.
Thank goodness Trump is as brave as he is. His incredible bravery is testimony to his ability to be a great President!
Kelly
Since George is too stupid to answer your question, and prefers instead to spew more nonsense, I will attempt.
Trumps appeal(s) are likely to request and, if granted, result in a stay of the enforcement of the sentence, and possibly even the sentencing hearing, pending the outcome of the appeals.
Merchan and his handlers at DOJ also know that any jail time assigned is likely to trigger an emergency response from appeals courts, due to the affect on the national election.
“Trump is just an ordinary citizen” is a load of crap concocted by the left and repeated here by George the Macaw. Bush and Gore were both “ordinary citizens” when SCOTUS took up their case in 2000.
New York lawyers I’ve heard interviewed say that no appeal can be commenced until after sentencing. And Trump whining about the date for sentencing ignores the fact that his attorney agreed to July 11.
It is true this verdict has a chance of being overturned on appeal. Harvey Weinstein’s verdict in the New York court system was recently overturned on appeal. I would not conclude Weinstein is innocent of the charges; just that the court system lets some guilty people go free. With Trump it might be the same way.
I am surprised to Turley didn’t mention a 1st Amendment violation against Merchan for issuing a gag order on Trump and his family . This was truly unconstitutional especially since Merchan didn’t issue a gag order on Michael Cohen who spewed nonstop hatred of Trump.
The gag order was upheld by the NY appeals court. It is not a violation of the 1st amendment.
It can still be appealed to the SC. We know NY is. Democat sham, same as DC.
Who here claims to be an American and states that a judge ordering a person to not speak is not a violation of the 1st Amendment?
Answer: A —-ing anti-American communist.
__________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It was upheld by AN appellate court in the New York Supreme Court System, to be precise, which George rarely is.
The New York Court of Appeals, the states highest court, has yet to rule.
I am no Trump fan, but I still cannot fathom why he is convicted. I watched what everyone else watched and just do not see it. Someone has yet to explain to me how this even turned into a felony.
Now the talking heads say he probably will not go to prison, but they said he should have never been tried too. You know it is bad when the liberal side and the conservative side agree ONLY Trump faces this kind litany of charges. I full expect to see Trump sentenced to jail because this has been that kind of case.
I read that the Democrats are openly suggesting to NY Gov. Hutchul she should offer Trump a pardon. That is a trap for him. If he takes it, he is guilty and cannot challenge the case.
At some point, I expect this to be overturned with a scathing response from the appeal process. Whether this costs Trump the Presidency or not remains to the future. It should not have happened, but it did.
I can only hope this Judge (who has not shown much equilibrium in judgement) does not confine Trump while the appeal process moves forward because that will be seen as election interference.
I hope the Democrats know what they are doing because their turn is coming….
“I watched what everyone else watched and just do not see it.”
The trial was not televised – the jury saw the testimony. So perhaps you did not see what everyone else watched. Clips on right wing media and rants by Trump and allies outside the courthouse would give a different impression than the actual evidence.
I did see what everyone else saw and I did watch it from both sides. While I agree that coverage can be different depending of which side of political news one watches, it is remarkable how BOTH side agree ONLY Trump faces this kind of attack. The interpretation may be different on the news, the coverage on what was covered was remarkably similar and that was striking from both sides.
FYI,
I live within the NYC area and we are carpet bombed with coverage. Even more than national news due to local coverage too.
Once again, I am no Trump fan and have said so many times on these threads. However, I end up defending him more than I like due to the unfairness of how he gets handled differently. I cry no tears for him because I do think he brings it on himself by being so nasty, but that does not make it right he gets treated with different rules.
BTW, can you tell me what the underlying crime was for the conspiracy? Nobody can seem to tell me.
If you had bee subjected to the abuse, belittling, attacks upon family, privacy and outright harassment that President Trump has been, ya might be a bit nasty in response.
Just so we are the same page, I live in the NYC area. Long before the trial, long before his Presidency, long before The Apprentice, Long before he owned a USFL team, long before he owned casinos, long before he had any national exposure, he was in NYC and he was nasty to everyone. It is his schtick and he uses it effectively. Yet, chickens come home to roost.
Jonathan: Frankly, I don’t see any basis for reversible error on appeal of DJT’s conviction on all 34 criminal counts–not in the NY Appellate Division nor in the federal courts and less likely with SCOTUS. DA Bragg brings business fraud cases all the time. They are run of the mill. The only difference here is that in this case it involves a former president–and that made the trial an attention getter.
As to your specific claims for reversal on appeal I think you are clutching at straws. Justice Merchan was not “handpicked” to preside over the case. He was RANDOMLY selected to preside over the grand jury investigation and therefore the logical judge to preside over the trial. DJT tried to get Merchan recused. But NY’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics found there was no bias against DJT by Merchan’s small contribution to a Democratic candidate nor his daughter’s work as a Democratic consultant. That opinion pretty well insulates Merchan from claims on appeal that he was biased against DJT.
You also claim the testimony of Stormy Daniels was “immaterial and prejudicial”. Nope. Before and throughout the trial DJT claimed he never had sex with Daniels. Her testimony was necessary to rebut DJT’s false claim. The jury believed Daniels, not DJT. But Daniels testimony was not central to the case. DJT was convicted on basis of the documents and other important witness testimony by David Pecker, Hope Hicks among others. All that sunk DJT, not Daniels description of the “unremarkable” sex in DJT’s bedroom.
So, no, I don’t see a “target rich environment for appeal” in this case. The hard reality for DJT is that he is now a “convicted felon” and will remain so until after the November election. In the meantime DJT can’t fly around the country without the approval of his probation officer who will control his every movement. In addition, 37 countries have banned DJT’s entry because he is a convicted felon. Who would have thought DA Bragg’s state criminal case would go first and now could be a game changer in the election!
And your inability to see what is right in front of you is why no one takes you seriously.
Dennis is correct. Turley is gasping at straws just like everyone else is. All are looking for excuses to justify the “unfairness” that befalls Trump because he’s a former president. He’s no longer president and he’s now just a private citizen who happens to be running for president.
George
Go stand in the corner and put on the pointy hat!
“Frankly, I don’t see any basis for reversible error on appeal of DJT’s conviction “
Gee, who saw that coming???
Dennis the draft dodger, who claims to be a lawyer but famously claimed that “habeas corpus” means “it doesnt count as necrophilia if the body is still warm”
“and now could be a game changer in the election!”
Poor Dennis. He thinks that a conviction on a bookkeeping error will somehow sway the votes of people who are willing to vote for
“A pussy grabbing rapist, who defrauded banks, jilted creditors, conspired with putin, caged children, caused the pandemic, tried to get bleach approved to inject, killed millions during the pandemic, caused the invasion of ukraine, incited an insurrection, killed jfk and martin luther king, and peed on prostitutes.
Did i cover all of it Dennis, or do you need “its the results, stupid” shoved up your ignorant nose hole a few more times?
If he had just said grab them by a dik everything would’ve been okay!
See Larry Sinclair interview with Tucker Carlson…Barry Sotero
Anonymous: Except for killing JFK and MLK, I think you got it all about right!
The chance of the judge having been chosen “randomly” is 4 percent, assuming 25 judges were in the pool.
Given that assumption, the chance of his being chosen “randomly” on two Trump-related cases is .16 percent; and on three Trump-related cases, is .0064 percent.
New York is leading the US off the metaphorical cliff of self-destruction with the blatant use of lawfare against political opponents. Throughout history, when the Rule of Law is abused and ignored, that nation’s society falters, and within a short period, that nation fails. It’s not just a few times in history; it is every time. Past politicians, as mentioned, over the last thirty years, for example, were caught in more severe issues. Yet, the rule of law for politically motivated prosecutions was not pursued. The legal system stayed above potential political weaponization. But now, only a few years later, we have crossed into a period that can only be described as the beginning of the end. History is one hundred percent correct; the US is destined to fail, and soon.
Read about Maximinus I of Rome; this is only but one example. The abuse of law, lawfare for political purposes, and other abuses will now exponentially increase as all sides will engage in payback schemes. Society will become unglued, and our institutions will become powerless to calm emotions down.
You guys who are happy with this political use of law are not thinking of the broader implications. We are beyond danger signals. We have started the inevitable, there is no turning around. It does not matter if appeals are successful or not. The fuse is lit.
You have missed the point. Lawfare and the cooperation between DC, DoJ, the DNC, and New York are the problem, not justice.
Unless some players of the last 8 years “decade of political persecutions” swing, we are not serious about keeping our country.
The anniversary of Tiananmen Square protests is coming up. The only question left to Americans is “Which way will our ‘woke’ military point its guns?”
Yes. When the Soviet system collapsed, Yeltsin stood on a tank and begged the military to protect the people, not shoot them. It worked, and the Union fell without a shot. I think a similar event will happen here, except I have no idea what the military will do. Are they real patriots, or will they follow their paychecks?
The Soviet military that refused to fire on the Russian people was a conscript army. I think the day will come soon when Americans regret our having gotten rid of the draft.
Salem Apologizes, Retracts Dinesh D’Souza’s Debunked Election Fraud Movie ‘2000 Mules’
Dinesh D’Souza’s movie that sought to prove former President Donald Trump’s fantasy that the 2020 election was stolen from him by widespread fraud has been debunked time and time again. Now, years after its release, its executive producer is retracting the film entirely.
Salem apologized for the film and said it would cease distributing it.
“We have removed the film from Salem’s platforms, and there will be no future distribution of the film or the book by Salem.”
Paid off by Soros.
Your capacity to simply make stuff up never ceases to amaze.
Classic cult behavior !!!
Making things up is all the hope they have. Because their lies won’t work anymore. The Cult is disappearing, so making it up and lies is what they have left.
Soros paid troll^^^^