Verdict

[Steve R.]

 

[Jon]

No I don't. Trial Judges bend over backwards to be fair during trial. I know several Judges and dozens of D.A.'s and Defense Attorneys, as well as defendants. I hear the stories from all sides. I think Merchan showed a lot of restraint. Most defendants would have been locked up for violating a court order. The one thing you don't want to do however is piss off the judge who's going to sentence you. There's a lot of factors that are considered. Trumps gag order violations, his rants during court recesses, his continued denigration of the legal process, is all going to bite him in the ass. I think Merchan is almost obligated to sentence him to prison time, although likely suspended with conditions.

I agree that pissing off the judge is probably unwise, but Trump is far smarter than I am so maybe there is some meta strategy about it all. If it were me, I would be saying, "Yes Sir, No Sir, three bags full Sir!"

Let me ask you another question then, a hypothetical one. Imagine there was a trial and the white judge was in the South with an all white jury and there was a black man being accused of a crime. The judge was found to have donated to the Klu Klux Klan. Do you think the judge would be considered fair and unbiased towards the defendant? You have to decide before the trial starts.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Steve R.]

The supposedly unbiased judge aided the prosecution! You can skip the first three and a half minutes.

Judge essentially instructs the jury to convict Trump: will they listen?

_________________________________________________SUPPORT MY WORK:SUBSTACK: https://dersh.substack.com/ The Dershow staring Alan Dershowitz APPLE PODCAST: http

podcasts.apple.com

Dershowitz adds one banana to the US becoming a (corrupt) banana republic.

TRUMP FOUND GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS

_________________________________________________SUPPORT MY WORK:SUBSTACK: https://dersh.substack.com/ The Dershow staring Alan Dershowitz APPLE PODCAST: http

podcasts.apple.com

Trump is Convicted: What Comes Next?

This morning, many of us are emerging from the late coverage last night after the conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felonies. I was in the courtroom for the verdict, which hit like …

jonathanturley.org

However, I previously noted that the jury instructions made conviction much more likely.

Donald Trump's trial had "layers of reversible error"—Legal analyst

A jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records on Thursday, sparking polarizing reactions.

www.newsweek.com

Turley, a George Washington University law professor who testified in the first and second impeachments of Trump, told Watters on Jesse Watters Primetime last night, "I think this case was not based on the law. I think it was a political prosecution. I think it had layers of reversible error. Many will disagree with me. We have a system designed for that. It's a good system and it goes beyond Manhattan. This can go all the way to Washington." (emphasis added)

 

[Jon]

Let me ask you another question then, a hypothetical one. Imagine there was a trial and the white judge was in the South with an all white jury and there was a black man being accused of a crime. The judge was found to have donated to the Klu Klux Klan. Do you think the judge would be considered fair and unbiased towards the defendant? You have to decide before the trial starts.

Let me answer my own question on my post about the judge. The case is about politics, not race. The judge is Merchan. The accused is Trump, not a black man. The jury are all democrats, not whites. Merchan did not donate to the Klu Klux Klan. Instead he donated to - against rules of the bar - a political activist group called, "Stop Republicans." The group is, "dedicated to resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy." Or you can abbreviate that to, "Stop Trump". Essentially, the judge voted with his wallet that he wants to stop Trump. And then he presides over his trial.

And why did a review of this still let him continue with the case? Because all the people doing the reviewing are democrats too and they also want to get Trump!

Source: https://www.turnoutpac.org/stop-republicans/

If the Klu Klux Klan example is so obvious, why can't democrats see how analogous the Trump trial is?

 

[Steve R.]

... why can't democrats see how analogous the Trump trial is?

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) clouds their minds.

 

[MarkK]

I presume you are talking to the people who think that I should not be allowed to vote for DJT because he might accidentally win. You know, those people who have been trying to get him off the ballots and failing that, throw him in jail over a book keeping dispute that Hillary was fined $106,000 for. Obama's bookkeeping "error" cost him $2 million. But Trump being the evil orange man that he is, was charged with 34 felonies - which apparently were all the same "crime" but each payment was charged separately to make the "crime" seem far worse than it was and to multiply the jail sentence.

That is how a banana republic operates. Different treatment for different people. Did you hear the answer and see the snarky smile Biden replied to the reporter with when asked about the verdict? That says it all.

Democracy is an essentially hopeful and optimistic paradigm. The dream that made America, and the dream that made America great, was not flavoured with bitterness and contempt, as your words seem to be.

I think the society we are is the net result of what each of us bring to the table, and if we all bring bitterness and contempt, then that is indeed what we can expect to find.

And we are, each of us as individuals, responsible for what we bring to the table.

We can build up. We can tear down. Choose wisely.

 

[moke123]

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) clouds their minds.

PDS.

 

[Jon]

Let us see the full text of what Bill Barr said, because we know how democrats like to take things out of context, like their recent misleading commentary of Trumps use of the word "bloodbath."

Asked by NBC News' Lester Holt whether he considered Trump "responsible" for the violence at the Capitol, Barr said: "I do think he was responsible in the broad sense of that word, in that it appears that part of the plan was to send this group up to the Hill. I think the whole idea was to intimidate Congress. And I think that that was wrong."

But, he added, he hasn't seen evidence that Trump committed an actual crime. "I haven't seen anything to say he was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement," Barr said.

The commentator said that prominant republicans say Trump was responsible for the violence and attack on the capitol, and then cite Bill Barr as an example. But he never said that at all.

When talking about the break-in, Bill Barr says Trump was responsible for sending the group to the Hill, but NOT legally responsible for incitement.

Again, this is yet another clear example of TDS, where the truth gets distorted to promote a false narrative. Why not just admit that this disingenuous video is yet more propaganda to push a hateful and vindictive campaign to further smear a persecuted political rival?

 

[moke123]

Let us see the full text of what Bill Barr said, because we know how democrats like to take things out of context

That video is by republicans not democrats.

 

[Jon]

Regarding Chris Sununu in the video, this is also someone who hates Trump, previously calling him a "loser", "asshole", and "not a real republican". He wants to be president, but Trump is in his way. In other words, like the democrats, he is also trying to take down his political rival.

 

[Jon]

That video is by republicans not democrats.

I see now, from the YouTube channel, "Republican Voters Against Trump". These republican anti-Trumpers are also suffering from TDS. My comments remain true, except I will broaded the accusation from democrats to anti-Trumpers and political rivals, of which democrats form the vast majority. We know that there are Trump haters within the republican party, but to follow the democrats lead in gaslighting their political opponents just discredits their organisation.

 

[Steve R.]

Democracy is an essentially hopeful and optimistic paradigm. The dream that made America, and the dream that made America great, was not flavoured with bitterness and contempt, as your words seem to be.

We can build up. We can tear down. Choose wisely.

Once again you make a duplicitous Orwellian concept evoking the very enviable goals of hope and optimism. The Democratic party today is not about hope, optimism, and building up our culture. It is about tearing down Western culture through denigrating Judeo/Christian values, divisiveness, antisemitism, racism, and class warfare. Dershowitz just added one more banana to the US becoming a (corrupt) banana republic. Should you actually want to promote the enviable goals of hope and optimism, it seems that you need to become a conservative or at least a classical liberal. Democrats are the threat to democracy.

 

[Steve R.]

I have made numerous posts that Democrats, in their fanatical quest for the immediate "jailing" of political opponents make decisions that could potentially backfire on them in the future should the Republican finally demonstrate some courage. Mark Levin discusses that concept below.

Levin: If Trump’s the next president, he needs to ‘indict’ Biden and Blinken | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin explains why he’ll press Donald Trump, should he be elected to the White House, to indict President Biden on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’

www.foxnews.com

Furthermore, Democrats in their crazed implementation of TDS are damaging our institutions, turning the US into a banana republic.

It’s ‘hard to exaggerate the harm’ this will do to our institutions: John Yoo | Fox News Video

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo surmises what the Trump verdict will do to our legal system on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’

www.foxnews.com

 

[Mike Krailo]

I have made numerous posts that Democrats, in their fanatical quest for the immediate "jailing" of political opponents make decisions that could potentially backfire on them in the future should the Republican finally demonstrate some courage. Mark Levin discusses that concept below.

Levin: If Trump’s the next president, he needs to ‘indict’ Biden and Blinken | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin explains why he’ll press Donald Trump, should he be elected to the White House, to indict President Biden on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’

www.foxnews.com

Furthermore, Democrats in their crazed implementation of TDS are damaging our institutions, turning the US into a banana republic.

It’s ‘hard to exaggerate the harm’ this will do to our institutions: John Yoo | Fox News Video

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo surmises what the Trump verdict will do to our legal system on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’

www.foxnews.com

I would be happy just to see DJT back in the white house. It's going to be very tough to get an attorney general to bring those charges without it looking like retribution for the unjust things being done to trump now. None of these cases against trump mean anything outside of the election year we are now in. That's all that matters. Unfortunately, as Bongino said, the Republic is now officially dead.

We need a new constitutional amendment that spells it out clearly for those who try to destroy the Republic that going after a political rival by way of the court system is off-limits, because it directly interferes with the election at hand and potentially to the duties of the president as they should only be serving our country while in office without fear of frivolous law suits or indictments while serving or preparing to serve. This should be obvious to all and used to be for the history of our country, but due to the extreme division in our country we have to spell it out for them.

In this particular case, it is obvious the NY court system has interjected itself in the National Election laws by simply claiming that their state has their own election law that was violated. OK, they you should have prosecuted this back when it wasn't in an election year and when it was within the legal statute of limitations. For there to be justice, we must have separation of powers.

 

[Pat Hartman]

We can build up. We can tear down. Choose wisely.

But, we cannot take the other party's primary player off the table by using the "legal" system. OR can we? Because what goes around comes around and at some point the feckless pieces of dog poo that call themselves Republicans will figure it out.

I figured out why Clinton and Obama got away with their campaign violations with fines rather than criminal prosecution. They had their campaigns pay for personal expenses whereas Trump did not. He paid for his personal expenses himself. The accusation seems to have been that Trump should have had his campaign pay Stormy. If he cheats his campaign, he is not a criminal but if he accounts honestly, he is. Go figure.

 

[moke123]

I figured out why Clinton and Obama got away with their campaign violations with fines rather than criminal prosecution. They had their campaigns pay for personal expenses whereas Trump did not. He paid for his personal expenses himself. The accusation seems to have been that Trump should have had his campaign pay Stormy. If he cheats his campaign, he is not a criminal but if he accounts honestly, he is. Go figure.

I'm confused Pat. Are you saying they should go after the Trump Campaign for their payments to Red Curve which were listed as legal expenses even though Red Curve doesn't provide legal services or are you talking the hush money accounting?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Whatever the expense they are talking about. Please explain in short sentences why some people get fined for accounting disputes and others get threatened with 130 years in jail?

Also, How exactly should Senators and Representatives record the money paid out on their behalf from the slush fund Congress maintains to cover up for the sexual harassment complaints from staffers? Would that money be income or a gift?

 

[Jon]

@moke123 I know you said you thought that judge Merchan was very fair, but you went strangely silent when I did my Klu Klux Klan analogy. So let me try another one instead.

Biden is accused of a crime that was never used before against anyone. The judge, a Republican who made illegal donations to an activist group called, "Stop Biden", has a son raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Republican party. They try the case deep in redneck country, where 90% of them are Republican voters. The Republican prosecutor was elected after campaigning to "Get Biden", and dumps 200,000 pages of documents to the Biden defence team one week before the original trial date, despite having prepared for the trial for 7 years.

Do you think the judge should recuse himself? Do you believe Biden would get a fair trial?

 

[moke123]

In your KKK analogy I would be more concerned with the all white jury. Judicial actions are more readily available for appellate review so mistakes can be remedied. Juries not so much. I did have a murder case where I learned the jury plugged in a hot air vaporizer and ran their hands over the steam to see if it was hot enough to burn. That case was overturned due to jury misconduct but that's somewhat of a rarity.

Biden is accused of a crime that was never used before against anyone.

Trump was accused of a crime that is charged all the time. One of the paths to felony enhancement was novel but that doesn't mean it's invalid. No one was ever charged with murder for selling an addict bad heroin until they were.

The judge, a Republican who made illegal donations to an activist group

Merchan's $15, $10, And $10 donations were reviewed by The Commission on Judicial Conduct and found not to be disqualifying.
The Appellate Courts concurred. They also addressed the daughter issue.

They try the case deep in redneck country, where 90% of them are Republican voters.

Luck of the draw. Venue isn't decided on political persuasions.

dumps 200,000 pages of documents to the Biden defence team one week before the original trial date

This one's interesting but you'd have to know the intricacies of discovery rules to understand it fully.
In short, prosecutors are required to turn over evidence in their possession or control. Had it been the NYC police records it probably would have been a bigger issue. The local DA has no control over the feds or their records. The thing that surprises me is the failure of team trump to get them sooner. They weren't secret and readily available by subpoena. Total failure to prepare. You don't wait for that shit, you go out and get it. Take it from me. I'm the guy that does that.

All I can say is wait and see. Who knows. Merchan could have made some mistakes but that doesn't always add up to reversable error.

but you went strangely silent

Because I've had to chase this F**KER out of my yard 3 times today already.