Jonathan Turley says he’s not blaming the jurors for Trump’s conviction

[tnt]

@Ben_Natuf

what, you don’t trust the chief judge?

throwing the justice system under the bus for tds… sad

Who said anything about the chief justice?

If you don’t trust a guy who gives $35 to biden, how can you trust someone appointed by trump?

[Ben_Natuf]

being appointed by and donating to are not the same thing.

The chief justice has thrown out all the frivolous programmed complaints against her. Thats proof enough

[johnwk2]

@dderatz

@johnwk2

Where in the language of the Sixth Amendment does it say its protection only applies prior to a possible conviction?

I’m not sure what your point is. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is inherently a Pretrial right. However the issue can be waived by non-assertion. It’s called procedural default. If you don’t raise it pre- or during trial, you may lose the right to appeal.

Of course, you don’t understand my point because you dismiss the importance and application of the Sixth Amendment in the Trump case.

In regard to your comment that, “If you don’t raise it pre- or during trial, you may lose the right to appeal…” “may” is the operative word and in Trump’s case that protection still exists if it is invoked.

The bottom line is, it seems both juries [the one which indicted Trump and the one finding Trump guilty, may have been hoodwinked by the prosecution and done so beyond constitutional limits and protections.

[johnwk2]

@Ben_Natuf

That is false. The only identified laws were “federal and state tax laws” without identifying the particular statutes, what the defense guessed at is not what matters. Also, NY and Federal election laws only generally identifying FECA, at that point the prosecution had not identified 17-152 and it was not a part of the defenses arguments. and "other falsified business records violations without identifying which statutes were violated. It is not the defenses responsibility to guess which laws the defendant is being charged with having violated, it is the prosecutions job to identify which specific statutes the defendant is said to have violated.

The prosecution in the case argued they didn’t have to identify which laws were violated, and the court corruptly agreed. That pretention is complete ■■■■■■■■■

And New York’s corrupted prosecutor and judge will find that out during Trump’s appeal.

[dderatz]

@johnwk2

And New York’s corrupted prosecutor and judge will find that out during Trump’s appeal.

We’ll see about that. Prediction - this argument loses in the NY appeals and SCOTUS rejects certiorari because the NY decisions are not a manifest misapplication of federal constitutional law. They will also reject the theories of original jurisdiction propounded by the likes of Mark Levin because those are foreclosed by, inter Alia Marbury v Madison and Texas v Pennsylvania.

[STODR]

@Ben_Natuf

being appointed by and donating to are not the same thing.

The modern lib logic

[FreeAndClear]

@johnwk2

Trump May Appeal New York Felony Charges Based on Due Process Issues

Not a bad blog post though some of it utter nonsense but overall good points

And one important aspect of the article is that it discusses appeal based on Merchan rulings/decisions…

[Imel]

The jury heard from a man who went to prison for his part of this crime so how could they logically think the crime was too vague for Trump to prosecute.
Cohen was guilty of false business records and election interference but ultimately he was paid by Trump for doing it.

[DougBH]

@dderatz

@DougBH

We still don’t know which jurors believed which crime Trump was supposed to be hiding, or if they all agreed to,the same crime.

Unanimity on a point which is not an element of the crime is not required. The law under which he was charged is a crime of general intent. So long as a juror believed that it was for some unlawful purpose, the crime has been proven.

And it is ludicrous to think he had any intent other than to prevent Stormy from publicizing her story.

[johnwk2]

Yup. In your world the Sixth Amendment doesn’t apply to political opponents in New York City which has been turned into a rat, garbage, crime and terrorist filled ■■■■ hole.

Tammany Hall tyrants are alive and doing well in New York.

[Imel]

Not so the first witness David Pecker said they would make up stories about Trumps political opponents before the election.
Intent was established.

[Ben_Natuf]

@Imel

Cohen was guilty of false business records and election interference but ultimately he was paid by Trump for doing it.

If you believe Cohen. There is however, no reason to… except maybe TDS

[Ben_Natuf]

thats not illegal

[Ben_Natuf]

@Imel

his part of this crime

was the only part of the crime

[Imel]

You can’t prove false business records case without paperwork not who said what.

[Imel]

That Trump paid him for. Strange that…

[DougBH]

@Imel

Not so the first witness David Pecker said they would make up stories about Trumps political opponents before the election.
Intent was established.

Is he convicted of badmouthing political opponents then?

[Imel]

No but it established motive as being political so therefore the Stormy payment was too.
He made up stories and had them printed so if he could do that its not difficult to believe he paid Stormy for the same reason.

[Imel]

Ok and just outright ignore Trump paid him for his criminal activity.

[Ben_Natuf]

what do you call it when you pay a lawyer for his services and expenses? Most people would call it “legal expenses”. There were no false business records, and oddly enough, nowhere in the jury instructions were they ever told to determine if the entries were even false.