jerrymahoney

Of all the reasons not to again elect Trump NOV 2024, I think this chickensh*t E felony should not be top of the list. DA Bragg said “This wasn’t a hush money case, this was an election interference case”, then why not charge him with election interference instead being an optional “another crime”. As the otherwise Conservative opinion but anti-Trump writer on NY Times 3 June: Bret Stephens: Gail, I yield to nobody in my loathing for La Panza Naranja, particularly since he stole my grand old party from me. But this conviction, from a flimsy and convoluted case that should never have been brought and may ultimately be reversed on appeal, probably improves his chances of winning in November.

Regarding any (immediate) Supreme Court intervention: THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT pg. 31: The first of the People's theories of “unlawful means" which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. **************** "It is not clear if the federal election law violations could be the basis for prosecution in state court," Hasen said. "There is also an argument that Trump did not violate federal election law, for example, if his payments were personal and not campaign related." Richard Pildes, law professor at New York University School of Law and an expert on constitutional law, said including the FECA violation as an "unlawful means" provided a federal question for Trump to bring to the Supreme Court. "If the Trump team wants to argue that his actions do not amount to a violation of that federal law, the Supreme Court would have the power to decide on the proper meaning of FECA," Pildes told Salon. "Because it’s a federal law, the Supreme Court has the power to resolve the proper interpretation of that law." https://www.salon.com/2024/06/01/ive-never-seen-that-legal-scholars-say-has-opening-to-turn-to-for-help/

That's Ok. There was a guy on here who insisted on writing "The Unelected Prime Minister" in referring to Prayut even if it meant writing 'Unelected PM' 4 or 5 times in the same paragraph.

Hail Mary OK. However if they so choose SCOTUS could expedite like Bush v Gore 2000. As DA Bragg often insisted: This was not a hush money case -- this was a (Federal) election interference case.

FECA's preemption law makes clear that it supersedes any state election law so maybe. The jury instructions were that there are 3 "unlawful means" on the table and all that is required is that each of you jurors agree on at least one them of them, So it is possible if not likely that the case is predicated on a violation of Federal law.

Articles have said that as this is a NY State case, the Supreme Court cannot get directly involved -- that it is a NY State Appeals issue. Then there is this from the Jury Instructions: THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT pg. 31: The first of the People's theories of “unlawful means" which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. **************** One legal analyst has said that there's never been a state prosecutor that has relied on the Federal Election Campaign Act before in the prosecution. So maybe Judge Merchan has just elevated this case to one where the Supreme Court has some Federal interest.

I grew up in Republican NJ and the Frelinghuysen Republican dynasty. Or Moderate Republicans as they were then known. As for the Presser article, nothing that hasn't been said before even by otherwise left-leaning legal minds. I posted this a few weeks back (April 11): Or as Judge Merchan put it in a ruling: "The People's primary contention with Defendant's argument is that the statute does not require that the "other crime" actually be committed. Rather, all that is required is that defendant have the intent. That is, he acted with a conscious aim and objective to commit another crime." KInda like the Shadow radio intro as spoken by Orson Wells: Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Don't be confused. It's simple. The Prosecution's closing argument might be to the jury: We are asking you to find Donald Trump guilty of something he didn't do.

Thanks again. I lived in NYCity in mid1970's and was very aware of Mr. Trump (much as Robert DeNiro described) but upon waking up election morning NOV 2016 and realizing THAT guy was now President, I said that I will never under-estimate this guy again, And part of that was realizing that the slam-dunk type talk with all these criminal cases was doing just that.

Thank you. Not an attorney but 40+ years ago I worked with attorneys and CPA's on oil&gas legal issues when you actually had to sit in a law library to get the answers.

No comment from me just this: Pre-Sentence Report A Judge uses a pre-sentence report to help decide the defendant’s punishment for the crime. The pre-sentence report is made by probation officers. The report is made after the conviction and before the date for Sentencing in felony and serious misdemeanor cases. https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/criminal/preSentenceReport.shtml

I have and continue to respect for any Republican House Member or Senator who voted for conviction of Trump in his 2 impeachments -- at least that their opinions currently are worth a listen.

No different from Lindsey Graham -- I read it here.

Anything beyond the indictment itself, then NO.

That is still my answer.

If your questions are 'Does the voting public have a LEGAL right to know?', the answer is NO.

As one of (only) 7 Republican Senators who voted for conviction in the Jan6 impeachment proceedings against Trump, I think Mitt Romney deserves a reasonable listening.

OK.

The CourtListener link you provided is the Federal Court case wherein Trump team wanted the case moved from NY State Court to the Federal Court as it involved time when Trump was President. (obviously failed). Nothing to do with the just concluded NY State Court case Judge Merchan presiding.

Blanche also said that some issues for appeal were not just during the trial but written decisions Judge Merchan made prior to the trial

I don't know -- the word 'effect' is not in the jury instructions.

No -- only one Prosecution opening statement. And just as I said: Even the Prosecution's opening statement said that they make no claim as to whether the Daniels dustup would have materially affected the 2016 election results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

He said both. “This was a highly unusual deal even for tabloid journalism,” Colangelo said. "It was election fraud, plain and simple. We’ll never know — and it doesn't matter — whether this conspiracy was the difference maker in a close election.” https://www.courthousenews.com/prosecutors-chide-trumps-criminal-conspiracy-in-opening-statements-of-nyc-criminal-trial/

Even the Prosecution's opening statement said that they make no claim as to whether the Daniels dustup would have materially affected the 2016 election results.

I don't know that I am challenging that he was found guilty. As I've said multiple times my concern is that Trump is not again President. And there are plenty enough legal minds that are saying the same thing. That the only reasons the statutory charges fit the crime is that Judge Merchan said that they fit the crime.