MovieChat Forums > Politics > Trump conviction is BS and here's why

Trump conviction is BS and here's why

posted 6 months ago by Mikey (420)
26 replies | jump to latest

Complete and utter BS!!
The Supreme Court should hold an emergency session to deal with this sham. Here are the reasons they should (and they WILL, eventually --the problem is how long will it take them??) throw this verdict in the dust heap where it belongs:
1. CONFLICTED JUDGE. In NY a judge is REQUIRED to recuse himself from a case to avoid the APPEARANCE of a conflict. The judge's daughter works with Democrat operatives like Adam Schiff --you know the guy who IMPEACHED Pres. Trump. The guy who lied repeatedly by saying that he had SEEN the evidence that Pres. Trump colluded with Russia, yet Schiff has never produced that evidence. Again, the judge's daughter works with these people. The judge has also donated to Democrat candidates, and to a PAC that tried to keep Pres. Trump off the ballot. Those are not just APPEARANCES of conflict; those are ACTUAL CONFLICTS!!! He should have recused himself. BUT HE DID NOT.
2. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. The midemenaor of falsifying business records has a two year statute of limitations in NY. The documents in question were filed almost EIGHT YEARS AGO. That is LONG past the statute of limitations. The judge should have thrown the case out for that. BUT HE DID NOT.
3. NO SECONDARY CRIME SPECIFIED. The prosecutors tried to get around the statute of limitations by saying Pres. Trump falsified the business records in an effort to cover up another crime, BUT NEVER SPECIFIED WHAT THAT CRIME WAS. They said it could have been THIS, or it could have been THAT, or it could have been THIS OTHER THING. But nothing specific. That is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A person has the right to know what specifically they are being charged with so they can mount a proper defense. The Trump defense team did not hear what other crimes Trump was trying to cover up until the prosecution's closing arguments. And since the defense presents their closing arguments first, and are not allowed to have any additional closing comments after the prosection, the Trump defense team never got to address that "secondary crime" in their defense. The judge should have thrown the case out for that. BUT HE DID NOT!
4. FELONIES DO NOT FALL UNDER A.G. BARR'S JURISDICTION. Felonies can be prosecuted by the Dept. of Justice or the federal prosecutor for the district where the alleged crime took place. Both the DOJ and others whose jurisdiction covered election crimes looked into this case and chose NOT TO PROSECUTE. Federal offenses cannot be charged by a local county prosecutor. The judge should have thrown the case out for that. BUT HE DID NOT.
5. STORMY DANIEL's TESTIMONY WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE CASE. Daniels had no knowledge of anything having to do with falsifying records. Her testimony was about sexual positions, kinds of boxer shorts, and other sordid, salacious details. The only reason for her testimony was to prejudice the jury against the defendant. The judge should not have allowed Daniels to testify. BUT HE DID. (PS --He later tried to correct this error by telling the jury to "unhear" her testimony.)
6. THE PROSECUTION's CASE HINGED ON THE TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL COHEN a SERIAL PERJURER ACCORDING TO ANOTHER JUDGE. During his testimony Cohen admitted to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from Pres. Trump. This is grand larceny and is a crime far worse than anything Pres. Trump was charged with. The judge should have not allowed Cohen's testimony to stand. BUT HE DID.
7. THE JUDGE DENIED THE DEFENSE THEIR OWN PIVOTAL WITNESSES. Trump's CFO and others who knew of how records were kept by Trump were not allowed to testify for the defense. The judge should have allowed the Trump defense team to call their witnesses. BUT HE DID NOT.
8. PRES. TRUMP WAS DENIED A CHANGE OF VENUE. Pres. Trump was being prosecuted in a city where 85% of voters voted against him. There was no way Pres. Trump was going to get a fair jury in New York City. The judge should have allowed a change of venue. BUT HE DID NOT.
9. THE JURY DID NOT HAVE TO AGREE ON WHAT CRIMES PRES. TRUMP WAS GUILTY OF. The judge instructed the jury that they could find Trump guilty on one of three possible crimes. So 3 jurors could find Trump guilty of crime A, and 5 jurors could find Trump guilty of crime B, and 4 jurors could find Trump guilty of crime C, and THAT would be considered a unanimous verdict. The judge should never have given such asinine instructions to the jury. BUT HE DID.
All of the above are REVERSIBLE ERRORS and those are just the ones off the top of my head!
The flag of political prosecutions has been planted, and America is changed forever.

[–] IrishEyes (12) 6 months ago

There are so many errors in your flawed logic and I’m not going to waste my time pointing them out because arguing with someone who fervently supports nonsense isn’t worth my time refuting point by point. Your misunderstanding of the law and cherry picking are about what one expects from a supporter of a criminal.

[–] Mikey (420) 6 months ago

"There are so many errors in your flawed logic and I’m not going to waste my time pointing them out.."

You're not going to because you can't.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14379) 6 months ago

Thank you very much. I knew it was BS the moment I heard which way the judge voted, and whom he and his family were friends with. That, and a mecka fuckton of charges against one man the entire left hates during an election year? The entire thing stinks of political chicanery under the table. It's lawfare, pure and simple.

And yet the elites in Washington, who have committed far worse crimes during their careers, never get charged or prosecuted by the DOJ ever?

[–] Rorikon (17855) 6 months ago

6. If he's a serial perjurer, why would you suddenly believe he stole from Trump? All of a sudden he's telling the truth now? Give me a break. You can't pick and choose. Either he is or he isn't.

8. Change of venue to where? To a place where they 85% voted for Trump instead? KEK! Next time he should only do it in Republican run states so he can get scott free on all his crimes.

9. Indeed but instead they ALL agreed in ALL his crimes so that mention is moot.

[–] Corbell (10995) 6 months ago

Interesting that you are the only person to even try to address the list of points.

1. It is worth nothing that all the points don't have to be correct, for the trial to be bad. Indeed, only ONE of them need to be correct for the trial to be a sham.

6. If he is not credible then his testimony against Trump is not trustworthy. That this case rests on this guy is a huge problem and raises the question why the jurors did not find this to raise REASONABLE doubt. It does not look good.

8. To where is a real problem for such a trial. But, that is the problem for the Judge to solve, not ignore. NYC is very hostile and biased agaisnt Trump. That the judge did not approve the change of venue alone is... justifcation the whole case to be thrown out on appeal.

9. That is the court overplaying their hand. It would have been more convincing if they only convicted Trump on...say, half or even less of the charges. 100% convictions? That is clearly a sham trial.