Regardless of one's beliefs on Trump, it is a good day when presidents are no longer de facto immune from law. We now have case law that presidents can be prosecuted post-office. In terms of Montesquieu checks and balances, this is a good day.
In terms of the pragmatic health of America, I'm not nearly as sure.
No, they were immune. Donald Trump is the first US President to be criminally indicted after leaving office. Mueller himself went before Congress and said nothing could be done about a President's illegal activities because you cannot pursue a President for illegal activity.
I suspect now that the custom (of pardoning and not prosecuting former and current political opponents) has been broken, we'll see a lot of prosecutions of political opponents in the future, because "lawfare" is now an established tactic.
I don't think that's a good thing.
Edit: How is it lawfare? The charges are based on a questionable, novel legal theory that no one has ever been prosecuted for before, as nonpartisan legal experts have observed from the beginning:
“The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.”
They said the same about impeachments when Trump got 2 in a row, it has yet to happen to Biden. I wouldn't be so sure. Trump might be a precedent-breaking president because that's simply his essence.
Why link an article from a year ago, before the trial was even scheduled? You cherry picked one quote ignoring the rest of the article that actually answers a lot of questions your quoted expert asks.
<< “The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. “And the district attorney did not offer a detailed legal analysis as to how they can do this, how they can get around these potential hurdles. And it could potentially tie up the case for a long time.””
If you continue to read further in the article you linked then you would see that the DA had an answer to that:
<<“Bragg said the indictment doesn’t specify the potential underlying crimes because the law doesn’t require it.”
But beyond that, the DA did offer an explanation to how they could move forward with charging Trump:
<<“Falsifying business records can be charged as a misdemeanor, a lower-level crime that would not normally result in prison time. It rises to a felony — which carries up to four years behind bars — if there was an intent to commit or conceal a second crime. Bragg said his office routinely brings felony false business records cases.
In Trump’s case, Bragg said the phony business records were designed to cover up alleged state and federal election law violations. The $130,000 payment to Daniels exceeded the federal cap on campaign contributions, Bragg said. He also cited a New York election law that makes it a crime to promote a candidate by unlawful means.
“That is what this defendant did when he falsified business records in order to conceal unlawful efforts to promote his candidacy, and that is why we are here,” one of the case prosecutors, Chris Conroy, told the judge Tuesday.
Prosecutors, however, also alluded to another accusation involving tax law: that Trump’s scheme included a plan to mischaracterize the payments to Cohen as income to New York tax authorities.
“They did talk about tax crimes, and I think that could be potentially more compelling for the jury,” Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, said on ABC News. “It’s a safer bet than the campaign finance crimes.”
Bragg is “going to bring in witnesses, he’s going to show a lot of documentary evidence to attempt to demonstrate that all these payments were in furtherance of the presidential campaign,” said Jerry H. Goldfeder, a veteran election lawyer in New York and the director of Fordham Law School’s Voting Rights and Democracy Project.”
> And they ignored the statute of limitations in order to bring these charges several years late.
Again, in the article you linked it explains how they were legally able to extend the statute of limitations for this case:
<<There were some extensions during the pandemic, and state law also can stop the clock when a potential defendant is continuously outside the state.
Can you give an example of another US President who was charged for a criminal offence outside of their term of office and declared to be immune from prosecution?
Or one who was investigated and then publicly not charged because they were deemed to be immune (for crimes outside of their term in office)?
Bill Clinton undeniably committed perjury. That was during his term, but not related to his duties as President.
Despite his clear guilt, every Democrat in the Senate voted not remove him from office, and he was never charged by a criminal court.
He was also accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women, and never charged in any of those cases.
The Democrat voters I knew at the time (including myself) knew quite well that he was guilty of perjury and sexual harassment, and probably sexual assault as well, but didn't care.
We felt that the investigation was politically motivated, and that having him in office was more important than enforcing the law.
Look, if you want to toss Bill Clinton in jail for any or all of those offenses—go right ahead. I don’t think many Democrats would complain or shed a tear. If that’s the price for holding criminals responsible, then it’s one I’ll gladly pay.
Easy to say now, when you know it won't (can't) happen, and even if it did, it would have no effect on governing the nation.
As defrost said well: "the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts [for which they didn't have immunity as President]". Other POTUS's have, so, it was unfair.
Changing that may be a good idea, or it may simply lead to more abuse of power as the party in office investigates its enemies. I guess we'll find out.
You are literally holding the judicial process hostage and throwing proportionality out the window to make some contrived, disingenuous point.
People are not willing to entertain this non-sense. He means it when any reasonable person would burn Bill Clinton just to avoid the catastrophe conservatives would bring upon this country by making the law useless.
Show me the proof. Not some poorly reasoned allegation or out of context edited excerpt, but the original source where "they" say they intend to end democracy.
>Not some poorly reasoned allegation or out of context edited excerpt
I'm sorry I have to ask, do you guys think everyone else are just toddlers or that your uh... group of incredibly like minded individuals is really that clever?
>does thing
>claims to not do thing
Oh well I guess that settles that! We were all worried for nothing.
I certainly don't think everyone else is a toddler, but I do wonder about some people.
Anyway, this line of discussion is so far outside the HN guidelines (or the limits of "curious conversation"), I see little point in continuing.
If you want to bandy insults in a forum that doesn't expect any sort of rational thought, may I suggest reddit? I think you'd like that site better.
Edit in response to post below: Serious lack of self-awareness. Read your first message again and you'll see who made reasonable discussion impossible.
You prevented any possible discussion of dissent or disagreement by ignoring readily available proof and stuffing it under what I'm going to politely refer to as rationalization.
Don't you dare pretend like you're adhering to guidelines or standards of any sort, this forum or otherwise. The grandstanding is cute, but it's only fooling yourself.
Because US Presidents have immunity (limited) for official acts commited while in office.
Donald Trump was convicted for acts outside of term in office as POTUS, the question of whether this was fair or unfair rests on whether other POTUS's have skated on criminal acts outside of their term in office.
He gave the reasons. He took a deal for a fine, loss of his law license for 5 years, and not pursuing lawyer fees as his punishment for what he did. In exchange for that, he would be immune from being prosecuted any further on that matter. It's quite plain in the article you linked.
It was 2001, Clinton was leaving office, Bush was entering. They didn't need a prosecution of a former president on their hands. They had just assumed the White House after losing the popular vote, people were bitter about the whole 2000 election to begin with. There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished.
I mean, it took years to badger the DOJ into prosecuting Trump for waging an insurrection when he was on his way out. Honestly Trump would have gotten the same treatment as Clinton if he hadn't gone apeshit at the end. He wouldn't have a Federal indictment or a Georgia indictment. The other Florida indictment wouldn't have happened if he would have just returned everything he had taken instead of lying about it for a year and trying to hide it.
The two NY cases would have resulted in a fine and community service if he had just kept his mouth shut and shown a little contrition.
> There was no political will to prosecute the Clintons, because the entire point of White Water and the subsequent Lewinsky investigations was to damage the Clintons politically. Mission accomplished.
Yeah, just like now, the goal is to damage Trump politically. That's exactly what people mean when they say the prosecution is politically motivated.
No, in this case the crime was known about since 2018, and it was prosecuted because it was a serious crime. Someone went to jail for it already and they were prosecuted by the Trump administration. Hard to call this political when this case was first prosecuted by a Republican AG.
In the case of Clinton the entire “crime” was that he lied in the process of a political investigation into him which, ultimately we know today, had absolutely no legitimate basis whatsoever, as they ultimately found no crime aside from the one they induced. Today Republicans call this a “process crime” and they view it as foul play, presumably because they run that playbook themselves and know how dirty it is.
Today his conduct is a matter of course for Republicans — AG Jeff Sessions lied before Congress and wasn’t prosecuted. So really kvetching about Clinton at this point is ancient history and water under the bridge.
Again I ask you, point to something concrete which shows Bragg is a political operative instead of an independent DA. I’ll wait.
> Again I ask you, point to something concrete which shows Bragg is a political operative instead of an independent DA. I’ll wait.
By his own admission, Bragg sued over 100 times to block Trump's policies. That's over 100 times he acted like a political operative instead of an independent (in the political sense) DA. How much more proof do you need?
That's not an "admission" that's a statement of fact which is his record.
But let me get this straight. Those 100+ cases were brought while Bragg was working as Chief Deputy Attorney General of New York. I'm not exactly sure what the Chief Deputy AG role is, but clearly he wasn't a director. Either way, how does working as and fulfilling the role of Deputy AG for the state of NY make him a political operative? It's not a political role in the least. Those 100+ cases were DACA and immigration cases, so they were for NY citizens and constitutions, not political investigations into Trump.
Frankly, I think you have a definition of "political operative" so broad that it includes every Democrat. That's not the standard we run things on. Democrats only investigating Democrats and Republicans only investigating Republicans is not how you arrive at accountability.
What proof I'm looking for is Bragg campaigning on the idea that he would "go after" Trump, as people keep saying. Him stating a fact of his past that he did these prosecutions in his role as Deputy AG is not that. Despite you trying to paint him as biased, he had actually said many times he will follow the facts and won't prejudge the case.
Also, crucially (and I don't know why this is continually glossed over) he did not even bring the case to begin with -- it was brought by Cy Vance. Bragg actually received great flak from Democrats for not acting with more alacrity, which is what you would have expected if he were out to "get" Trump. By the time Bragg was elected the case was already before a grad jury. So this whole demonization of Bragg misses the mark entirely.
> Also, crucially (and I don't know why this is continually glossed over) he did not even bring the case to begin with -- it was brought by Cy Vance. Bragg actually received great flak from Democrats for not acting with more alacrity, which is what you would have expected if he were out to "get" Trump. By the time Bragg was elected it was already before a grad jury. So this whole demonization of Bragg misses the mark entirely.
That's "glossed over" because it's not true. Bragg was elected Manhattan DA in 2021. This case was brought before the grand jury on Jan 30, 2023 and the indictment was approved on March 30, 2023.
As for the rest, this discussion is clearly going nowhere. Bragg declared his intention to fight Trump during the campaign and spent several years trying to find a way. If you don't think that's political bias, I can't convince you.
---
Edit: Stop wasting my time. You claimed Vance brought the case, then quoted a source proving that was false: "Vance did not seek an indictment". To avoid admitting your mistake, you changed your claim from "brought the case" to "the first grand jury". I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.
No, you are incorrect. The case was first brought by Cy Vance in front of a grand jury when he was on his way out of office in 2021. He left the rest of the case to Bragg.
Vance authorized the attorneys on the team to present evidence to the grand jury near the end of 2021, but he did not seek an indictment. Those close to Vance say he wanted to leave the decision to Bragg, the newly elected district attorney.
Bragg's grand jury was not the first grand jury to have heard the evidence.
> As for the rest, this discussion is clearly going nowhere.
I disagree, I think you're learning a lot of new facts about the case you were unaware of before. Like the one above. I'm happy to spread knowledge.
> If you don't think that's political bias, I can't convince you.
If you think that's political bias then you must think every Democrat is politically biased against Republicans and vice versa, so therefore no Democrat can ever investigate a Republican. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to me to be the obvious conclusion from your stance. I don't see a way a Democrat could prosecute a Republican without charges of political bias with your outlook on what constitutes bias.
Thankfully that's not the system we live under (yet), so I don't care if I can't convince you that's a bad way to run things. Suffice it to say though, you (and moreover Trump) are going to be sorely disappointed if that's your expectation for how things run.
Edit in response to your edit (as the someone else said, learn to post, you're supposed to wait for the rate limiter to expire not to circumvent it with edits):
> Edit: Stop wasting my time. You claimed Vance brought the case, then quoted a source proving that was false: "Vance did not seek an indictment". To avoid admitting your mistake, you changed your claim from "brought the case" to "the first grand jury". I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.
1) I'm not wasting your time, any moment you spend here is a moment you choose to spend. If you consider the time engaged with me wasted, you are the one wasting it. I haven't forced you to write a single word or to spend a single second doing something you didn't want to do.
2) That "Vance did not seek an indictment" does not mean Vance didn't originally bring the case. The facts were originally made public in 2018 due to Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress. Cy Vance then opened a case into the allegations, and advanced it to the point where in 2021 it was in front of a grant jury. Crucially at that point, Vance was on his way out and Bragg had already been elected. Which means while the case was being worked on before Bragg even got it, which is what he states in the other source I linked in this thread ("I haven't seen the facts of the case yet", meaning the case that Cy Vance started).
Either way, the point you seem very intent on missing, is that when Bragg started as DA, there was a case already started by Vance, that had already been before a grand jury once before, that already had been investigated and worked on for years. So to say that the case only made it to trial because Bragg had some sort of political agenda is false. He said before he was elected that he would continue the case and let the facts direct it, without prejudging it. You are conveniently ignoring all of that to conclude the prosecution was politically motivated because Bragg is a Democratic political operative. The track record and history of the case does not bear that theory out.
> I don't think you're discussing this in good faith.
Then don't talk to me anymore, I'm not going to try and convince you of my faith. Why am I spending all these words and hours if I'm not being genuine? Don't waste your time with such pointless allegations, just go do something else.
I've said already I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm not using terms precisely that you understand a different way, but I'm not trying to deceive you or make specious arguments. I'm genuinely engaging with you at a fine grained level and we are honed in on this idea that Bragg is a political operative. You've brought very light evidence to bear such as anodyne statements of a desire for pursue accountability of political figures like Trump, and the fact he worked for a Democratic state government, but you haven't explained how that doesn't preclude all Democrats from investigating any Republican. I'm still waiting on that logic.
But moreover you claim Bragg's history of bringing DACA cases against the Trump administration on behalf of citizens is evidence of some sort of Democratic political animus against Trump himself.
To which I pointed out in fact the case was first brought/started/opened/whatever not by Bragg, but by his predecessor. The most aggressive statement against Trump you can find is Bragg stating he will continue the already started case, and he will let the facts take him where they may, which includes holding Trump accountable if necessary, but all the while not prejudging before looking at the facts of the case.
Which.... just doesn't rise to the level of political bias you are alleging that would bring into question the veracity of the case that just concluded.
"political prosecution in a rigged court is not a good day. Not knowing the exact charges and being unable to defend yourself is not a good day. Being able to convict while disagreeing on the specifics wrongs is not a good day."
What are you talking about? His fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendment rights that concern conduction of a criminal trial were all honored. They didn't disagree on specifics, charges were decided and enforced.
There's no evidence of rigging the court or that the prosecution was "political", short of the politics of everyday judiciary anyway.
If you've got a problem with how this case was conducted, you ought to take it up with the country's 238 year-old precedents for its handling of criminal justice theory (and in some cases, I'd agree with you) - NOT how this specific case was conducted.
If Trump doesn't understand the charges against him, maybe he should have paid attention when his lawyer explained it to him. The charges are pretty clearly laid out.
He paid off a woman whom he had an affair with to not talk about it during the election. That is election tampering. He then falsified business records to cover this up. It’s a classic political coverup and bribery case.
I doubt it would have made a difference with his cult but who knows.
For it to really be "decided" SCOTUS would need to weigh in. Case law is is as you say based on precedent. And the higher the court that decided the stronger the precedent. A conviction that hasn't even started the appeals process isn't much to go on.
This was a state criminal case, not a federal one. It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court. IANAL but based on the commentary I've read, if SCOTUS overrules the state court's decision, all hell breaks loose legally speaking.
That said, SCOTUS has a very liberal interpretation of the concept of precedent so anything is possible.
> It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court.
Nitpicking: New York's court nomenclature is super weird. "Supreme Courts" are their ordinary trial courts. Their highest level court is the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court could rule that the law itself is unconstitutional.
Or it could rule that the trial was invalidly performed. That would overturn the conviction, though prosecution could be brought again.
As you note, either of these would cause all hell to break loose. Last week I would have said that it was nonetheless certain. Today, noting that the court decided not to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I'm far less sure. They have no specific love for the man, even if I still think they're likely to act in a partisan manner in general.
Just one example of why this might be overturned. Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). In this case the judge let the prosecution go last. Why is this a problem? The prosecution did not reveal the second crime (they gave a set of possible crimes) needed to elevate the misdemeanour to a felony, until they spoke at the end.
So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken. And the set of those laws were only revealed to the jury at the last moment. Literally denying the defence a legal opportunity to respond to the laws that the defendant was alleged to have broken.
Breaking law A = misdemeanour
Breaking law A + another law = Felony
Prosecution never revealed the other law Trump was alleged to have broken until closing arguments.
Trial is about breaking law A. But closing arguments are about breaking law A in combination with another law.
The prosecution gave a set of possible other laws at closing arguments, in which they went last. The judge instructed the jury that they can individually select which other law they think Trump broke.
How can this possibly be a fair trail process, when you can defend yourself for breaking law A, but get punished for breaking laws A + X. In which X is not revealed to you during the proceedings of the trail, but only to the jury at the last moment.
> Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence).
This is actually the complete opposite of the truth. Almost always, the side who has the absolute last word to the jury is the side that bears the burden of proof, i.e., the plaintiff (or government in a criminal trial). Usually this manifests as plaintiff goes first, then defendant, then plaintiff gets a rebuttal argument.
You're correct. But in this case, because the second crime was the reason for the felony charge, and revealed in the closing arguments. The only way it could be have been responded to, is if the judge allowed to defence to go last.
This will be one of the contentions in any appeal.
So the NY criminal dockets are sufficiently closed down that I can't find the defense's briefing papers on its motions. But given that some of the public orders do castigate that defense for trying to reraise the same "these charges are complete bullshit" too many times, that the defense helped prepare the jury instructions (which specifically include mention of the second crime), and the fact that the underlying second crime has been heavily reported on news media since the charges were first brought, I find it hard to believe that the first opportunity the defense could have known about the second crime was in closing arguments.
Also, I don't see in the transcript of the closing arguments any objections defense raised to the second crime only being brought up then, so even if it were true, it can't be raised in appeal.
> Typically (almost always) the defense has the last word to the jury.
Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know.
Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second:
After all evidence has been presented, the defense may deliver a summation, or a closing statement to the jury. *The prosecutor must then deliver a summation*. The summations review the evidence and present arguments based upon the evidence in the case to try to persuade the jury to convict or acquit the defendant.
So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation.
> So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken.
No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states:
That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.
So they did not have to prove commission of an additional crime, they had to prove intent to commit an additional crime. The facts the jury used to determine whether Trump had this intent were presented by the prosecution at trial, and the defense had every opportunity to mount a defense against them.
It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense.
Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously.
What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy.
We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.
How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
"Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" is a misdemeanour, a small fine. Which at this point (2016) expired and could not be charged.
The main reason this was resurrected and elevated to a Felony is because of politics. The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform". Which under the American system is fine. But suppose he doesn't get Trump in the end. Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
As far as the judge:
The standard for a judge to recuse themselves is public "perception of bias"
How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past. Which is also contrary to NY ethical guidelines for judges.
His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail.
How can the judge's claim no to be biased be taken seriously when his family has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial?
>"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent > to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so"
How could this trial have proved what it charged .. the intent for classifying the NDA as a legal expense was fraudulent (that it was really a campaign contribution). When there's a gap of a year between the time Trump got elected, and the classification happened. Trump got elected in 2016. Accountant classified it as a legal expense in 2017. How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election?
Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
How can this be a fair trial when the judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution, yet simultaneously denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence they get to hear. Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
Finally, A conflicted judge will jail a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan ...so what is the next phase of their plan to prevent the public from electing Trump in a Democracy? I'm waiting to see.
I can tell you are getting your news about the trial filtered through right wing media, principally because these talking points are the kind of thing I get in my email inbox from the Trump campaign newsletter and Fox News. Most of the info you seek was presented at trial.
It's fascinating to me that you've paid enough attention to the trial to have received the right wing talking points as to why it's objectionable, but you haven't actually looked into any of the first hand information directly from the trial to verify the right wing talking points.
> How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
I was using the word "watch" in the github repo sense, not in the visual television sense. I followed along with it via reporters who went to the trial and wrote down what they heard. Also I followed commentary from former prosecutors, attorneys and judges. I tried to stay away from political commentary from pundits and politicians, and I looked at left and right leaning sources.
> The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform".
I've asked others for a source for this, and the best they have come up with is Bragg saying "We need to hold Trump accountable", which is a pretty anodyne statement for a DA to make compared to the one your purporting him to have made -- "I'll get Trump" is pretty extreme. What I've heard him say specifically is that he promised to follow the facts wherever they lead, and he promised not to prejudge the case.
> Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
He didn't actually campaign on a platform of getting Trump, he had a platform of reducing gun violence and reforming Riker's. Show me Bragg making one single stump speech or campaign event where he promises to "Get Trump". I predict you won't be able to, because actually Bragg is an eminently fair and competent DA, and all around good guy.
> How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past.
Because he didn't -- he donated $15 to pro Biden and $10 to something called "Stop Republicans". It was seen as maybe not a great move by the ethics board, but they dismissed the complaint, and the appeals court didn't step in. At the end of the day, yes the judge is a Democrat. But that does not mean he is automatically biased against Trump and all Republicans to the point he can't preside over this cause. And frankly we don't want to live in a system where the standard is that politicians can only be judged/investigated/prosecuted by members of their own party.
Judges can and must be fair to a defendant even when they disagree with them politically. That is their whole job and we should be putting people in that position who can do precisely that. In the case of Judge Merchan, during the trial is he was eminently fair to Trump. He allowed him to get away with 10 counts of violating a gag order without any jail time. Normal people would be behind bars after 1 instance. Merchan made objections on behalf of defense counsel, and in fact had to warn Trump's attorney that he was dropping the ball for his client when he was failing to object. So the ethics board was right in dismissing the complaint, as the judge was fair to Trump.
> His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail.
Under the law she doesn't have enough stake in the outcome of the trial for it to matter. I hear people complaining about this constantly, but how do you figure the daughter of the judge raising money for Democrats means the judge is biased against Trump. Again, his conduct during the trial shows that he in fact was not biased. So what does the daughter have to do with anything. Seems like a red herring to me.
> How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election? ... Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
Read the testimony of Hope Hicks. She testified under oath that he admitted to her after the election, while he was President, that he was fortunate to have hid the information from voters because he feels they would have reacted negatively to it. Trump had the opportunity to defend himself on this point but he didn't, so it's a matter of fact at this point.
> judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution
Because it was already adjudicated by SDNY.
> denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims.
Trump was free to present the witness, but he was looking for the witness to instruct the jury on his own interpretation of the law, which the judge disallowed because that's the judge's role in the trial, not an expert witness'.
> Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
The judge allowed both sides to be presented. The defense was allowed to call any number of witnesses who could have testified in Trump's defense. Allen Weisselberg. Keith Schiller. Trump's family. The doorman who was paid off, I don't know his name. Any of them could have cleared up the matter, but they weren't called in Trump's defense because Trump's counsel knew they wouldn't have stood up under cross. Because Trump is guilty.
> a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
No mind reading. No time travel. It's just that he had to falsify business records in furtherance of another crime. The law is actually 2 pages long and straightforward. Moreover, most laws have more than one part, so that's not really objectionable. Maybe the case is a little convoluted, but that's because the crime was; they intentionally tried to hide this scheme through obfuscation, shell companies, and ultimately fraud -- of course it's convoluted.
> with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime,
No ambiguous intent. Pure intent. The jury determined Trump had that intent. Juries are the people in society we task with determining intent of criminal defendants, and they did so in this case. Why is that objectionable to you?
> Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
Doesn't matter if most Americans are on board with this, and it doesn't matter what happens to Trump's poll numbers -- it wasn't a political prosecution, it was an application of the law. Why are you bringing political considerations into this?
> The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan
I wish the trial was televised. The source of information about the trial I'm relying on is Allen Dershowitz and CBC news youtube channels. Derszowtiz is a self described lifet8me Democrat and CBC news is hardly right wing, it's actually kind of opposite.
Allen is an experienced lawyer and gifted lecturer and orator. The criticisms that Allen has levied against the trial are nothing more than simple logical counter arguments to what went on in the court room.
CBC is pretty much is Canadian version of PBS.
I have also watched yesterday a more conspiratorial take on things which I suppose you could classify as fun intuitive speculation. Ian Caroll on Twitter
This doesn't really make much sense in this specific case. It was a state court, and he was found guilty of a state crime. While state decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, it requires that some Constitutional or some violation of other federal law be in question. I haven't seen anyone argue that in this case, even Trump's biggest supporters.
Contrast that with the Jan 6th case, which is a federal case and is currently before the Supreme Court.
Sure, New York Supreme Court then. But SCOTUS still weighs in on matters of federal law and constitution which I'm sure will come up from Trump's legal team.
Case law is case law. The point was we haven't even gotten started yet on "deciding" anything.
I don't see any non-frivolous argument that can be made here. Federal law doesn't preempt state criminal law (you can in fact be tried in both federal and state court for the same offense), and I have a hard time seeing any constitutional claim that can be pressed here (especially one that isn't precluded by defense failing to object).
Don't really think it's a good idea to let lawyers pick who the people can vote for. Nor that justice is served when the conviction is obtained on alleged book keeping crime from 2017 in which it was claimed it was to influence an election in 2016, and relied on testimony from a man that perjured himself multiple times. And that it was illegal for a bookkeeper to select "legal expense" for payment of an NDA agreement.
In terms of the pragmatic health of America, I'm not nearly as sure.