The Trump Criminal Case MEGATHREAD.

[Moksha]

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has postponed the Trump purloined documents case indefinitely.

[ajax18]

5. Trump has the right to free speech. He's not got the right to intimidate witnesses, defense counsel or court staff.

What do you consider intimidating witnesses? Pointing out that the judge's daughter is a left wing activist or that most of the jury are Democrats? Or the fact that the prosecutor is a major Biden donor? The first amendment protects the right to criticize the government. This is a partisan political case and prosecution and President Trump has the right to say so. Alvin Bragg and Latisha James literally campaigned on prosecuting Trump. Show me the man and I'll find you the crime. The Democrats are closer and closer to the USSR every day.

But maybe you agree with Democrat Ralph Nadler who said that we can't trust an election to the voters so we have to stop this election any way we can. How autocratic is that? Saviors of democracy? You're anything but democratic.

If you don't think Trump wants to get put in jail so he can cry martyr, you're not paying attention.

I think it will benefit the Trump campaign if he goes to jail. But it sets a terrible legal precedent for New York and the country. But I don't think Democrats are concerned with that. They think they'll always be in power and that the same standard will never be applied to them.

[Vēritās]

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has postponed the Trump purloined documents case indefinitely.

She needs to be ousted as it is perfectly clear she is acting as an extension of Trump's defense team. Time and time again all she does is demonstrate her inexperience, incompetence, and devotion to her cult leader. This is how our Republic dies. By filling the courts with useless political tools.

[ajax18]

Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe

by Allan Dershowitz

Some had asked whether a jury selected in Manhattan, which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, could be fair in judging the former president. But now that we have moved beyond this point, the real problem Trump has is that his best arguments are legal in nature: prosecutors appeared to cobble together misdemeanours and felonies in order to find something with which to “get Trump.”

The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanour – falsifying business records – which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.
I have been teaching, practising and writing about criminal law for 60 years. In all those years, I have never seen or heard of a case in which the defendant has been criminally prosecuted for failing to disclose the payment of what prosecutors call “hush money”. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to cover up an affair with a married woman. Many others have paid hush money since. If the legislature wanted to criminalise such conduct they could easily enact the statute prohibiting the payment of hush money or requiring its disclosure. They have declined to do so.

Prosecutors cannot simply make up new crimes by jerry-rigging a concoction of existing crimes, some of which are barred by the statute of limitations others of which are beyond the jurisdiction of state prosecutors.

Appellate courts should be able to see through this ruse and reverse any conviction resulting from it. But that would likely occur after the election. In the meantime, however, a conviction prior to the election that might influence independent voters to cast their ballot against a convicted felon.

In addition to the legal problems with the prosecution’s case, there are also some factual weaknesses. Prosecutors are relying on witnesses who have previously lied and whose credibility is very questionable. They should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump authorised the statement in business records that the alleged hush money payments were legal expenses and that this statement was knowingly false. They might also have to prove that the reason he authorised the statements was to help him get elected, not to avoid embarrassment to his wife and children or losses to his business.

If the defendant were not Donald Trump and the venue were not Manhattan, this ought to be a slam dunk win for the defendant. Indeed, this extraordinarily weak case would never have been bought.

I am not a Trump political supporter. I voted for Joe Biden in the last election and I have an open mind about the coming election. But I want it to be fair. Whoever loses the election should not be able to complain about election interference by the weaponisation of the criminal justice system for partisan advantage.

All Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system will have failed us all.

Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School

[Moksha]

Petitioners have amassed 300,000 signatures to remove Judge Aileen Cannon from the Trump stolen documents case, but that is nothing. Trump's base could easily generate an equal number of death threats.

[Res Ipsa]

Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe

by Allan Dershowitz

Some had asked whether a jury selected in Manhattan, which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, could be fair in judging the former president. But now that we have moved beyond this point, the real problem Trump has is that his best arguments are legal in nature: prosecutors appeared to cobble together misdemeanours and felonies in order to find something with which to “get Trump.”

The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanour – falsifying business records – which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.
I have been teaching, practising and writing about criminal law for 60 years. In all those years, I have never seen or heard of a case in which the defendant has been criminally prosecuted for failing to disclose the payment of what prosecutors call “hush money”. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to cover up an affair with a married woman. Many others have paid hush money since. If the legislature wanted to criminalise such conduct they could easily enact the statute prohibiting the payment of hush money or requiring its disclosure. They have declined to do so.

Prosecutors cannot simply make up new crimes by jerry-rigging a concoction of existing crimes, some of which are barred by the statute of limitations others of which are beyond the jurisdiction of state prosecutors.

Appellate courts should be able to see through this ruse and reverse any conviction resulting from it. But that would likely occur after the election. In the meantime, however, a conviction prior to the election that might influence independent voters to cast their ballot against a convicted felon.

In addition to the legal problems with the prosecution’s case, there are also some factual weaknesses. Prosecutors are relying on witnesses who have previously lied and whose credibility is very questionable. They should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump authorised the statement in business records that the alleged hush money payments were legal expenses and that this statement was knowingly false. They might also have to prove that the reason he authorised the statements was to help him get elected, not to avoid embarrassment to his wife and children or losses to his business.

If the defendant were not Donald Trump and the venue were not Manhattan, this ought to be a slam dunk win for the defendant. Indeed, this extraordinarily weak case would never have been bought.

I am not a Trump political supporter. I voted for Joe Biden in the last election and I have an open mind about the coming election. But I want it to be fair. Whoever loses the election should not be able to complain about election interference by the weaponisation of the criminal justice system for partisan advantage.

All Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system will have failed us all.

Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School

Not surprising. He was also a very talented defense attorney. He has also been a strong defender of Trump, as he by nature is inclined to defend the unpopular. He seems pretty bitter about accusations arising from his contact with Epstein, which I think has affected his political/legal views.

[ajax18]

He has also been a strong defender of Trump, as he by nature is inclined to defend the unpopular.

He didn't even vote for Trump. He'd prefer that his party ran on the issues that voters actually care about, like the economy. Nobody cares if Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels. He's demonstrating why this partisan political prosecution of political opponents is going to have some very bad unintended consequences for everyone in the country, including Democrats like himself.

[Moksha]

by Allan Dershowitz

... and the venue was not Manhattan, this ought to be a slam dunk win for the defendant.

Excellent point. If the venue was Provo, Utah the Ferengi School of Business would praise Trump for both hiding information and the creative use of accountancy. He might even be awarded the Tumbago Bowie Knife for outstanding political maneuvering.

[Doctor Steuss]

He has also been a strong defender of Trump, as he by nature is inclined to defend the unpopular.

He didn't even vote for Trump. He'd prefer that his party ran on the issues that voters actually care about, like the economy. Nobody cares if Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels. He's demonstrating why this partisan political prosecution of political opponents is going to have some very bad unintended consequences for everyone in the country, including Democrats like himself.

*Bill Clinton enters chat*

[Res Ipsa]

He has also been a strong defender of Trump, as he by nature is inclined to defend the unpopular.

He didn't even vote for Trump. He'd prefer that his party ran on the issues that voters actually care about, like the economy. Nobody cares if Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels. He's demonstrating why this partisan political prosecution of political opponents is going to have some very bad unintended consequences for everyone in the country, including Democrats like himself.

I didn't say he voted for Trump. I said he's defended him.

The Trump Cultist revenge agenda is 100% intended.