Bad news for Trump at trial today

Watchdog said:
Gag orders should be unconstitutional. This Judge is a big Democrat supporter, and Mr. Trump cannot get a fair trial in NYC.
Click to expand...

Lawfare (Supreme Court):

"...the U.S. Supreme Court considered the following factors in analyzing the constitutionality of a gag order: “(a) the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage; (b) whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pretrial publicity; and (c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger [of an unfair trial for defendant].” In that case, however, the Court found that a lower court’s gag order was justified because publicity of alleged shocking crimes would be widespread and would likely reach a jury, impairing the defendant’s right to a fair trial. "

___
.
 
Watchdog said:
Gag orders should be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
They're not, and the video (which I'm pretty sure you didn't watch) has nothing to do with gag order violations.

The video explains that prosecutors have 13 prior convictions (re. criminal violations, lawsuit judgments against defendant, etc) they want to bring into THIS court case. They'll do this to demonstrate how little credibility the defendant has.

The judge may allow or deny those convictions to be brought in, which Trump will then use to decide whether he's gonna testify or not - and that's what (at least in part) the hearing today is about.

Watchdog said:
This Judge is a big Democrat supporter
Click to expand...
A $35 donation makes him a "big supporter"? If you say so ;)

In any case, just because a judge donated to a political party opposite of the one the defendant belongs to isn't anywhere close to guaranteeing judicial bias.

Watchdog said:
Mr. Trump cannot get a fair trial in NYC.
Click to expand...
You're an impartial judge of whether the trial will be fair not? Hardly; your bias is writ large across these forums.
 
mikeT said:
They're not, and the video (which I'm pretty sure you didn't watch) has nothing to do with gag order violations.

The video explains that prosecutors have 13 prior convictions (re. criminal violations, lawsuit judgments against defendant, etc) they want to bring into THIS court case. They'll do this to demonstrate how little credibility the defendant has.

The judge may allow or deny those convictions to be brought in, which Trump will then use to decide whether he's gonna testify or not - and that's what (at least in part) the hearing today is about.


A $35 donation makes him a "big supporter"? If you say so ;)

In any case, just because a judge donated to a political party opposite of the one the defendant belongs to isn't anywhere close to guaranteeing judicial bias.


You're an impartial judge of whether the trial will be fair not? Hardly; your bias is writ large across these forums.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if Trump's lawyers allow him to testify and run the risk of perjury charges.
 
Lastdaysbeliever said:
Still voting not democrat not biden.

Trump 2024
Click to expand...

Better politics should be about bringing like-minded people into the cause. When a candidate deliberately turns people away and divides the party, that strategy cannot succeed without a sudden and dramatic reversal. The way I see it, the tried-and-true Reagan conservative cause needs to be restored to properly lead the United States toward a better future. Unfortunately, a number of Reagan conservatives have left the current populist insurgency and time will reveal how well this brand of populism will endure.
___
.
 
vibise said:
I would be surprised if Trump's lawyers allow him to testify and run the risk of perjury charges.
Click to expand...
This probably goes without saying, but he can testify if he wants to.

I agree his lawyers are almost certainly counseling him against testifying. The average politically-aware person recognizes Trump speaking under oath would be extremely risky for him. As many have said, though, Trump likes to defy convention...

I honestly think he will not testify, but I wouldn't put it past him to do something that stupid.
 
inertia said:
Better politics should be about bringing like-minded people into the cause. When a candidate deliberately turns people away and divides the party, that strategy cannot succeed without a sudden and dramatic reversal. The way I see it, the tried-and-true Reagan conservative cause needs to be restored to properly lead the United States toward a better future. Unfortunately, a number of Reagan conservatives have left the current populist insurgency and time will reveal how well this brand of populism will endure.
___
.
Click to expand...
Ronald Reagan 2.0 would do much to restore governmental sanity to what has become, overall, an insane, totalitarian democratic party administration and a feckless Republican party.
 
Faithoverbelief said:

13 counts of misconduct against Trump.

Not a good day for Trump.
Click to expand...
Some communist apparently also burned themselves alive outside the courthouse.
www.foxnews.com

Florida man set himself on fire near NYC courthouse holding Trump trial

A man set himself on fire Friday near where former President Trump is being tried on criminal charges, police said.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

I do, however, as someone who isn't even a trump supporter (indeed he will never get my vote), I do think the judge requiring him to be present every day of the trial is deliberately political and an attempt to influence an election by forcing him to not be able to go campaign. Not a great look.
 
SlaveForChrist said:
Some communist apparently also burned themselves alive outside the courthouse.
www.foxnews.com

Florida man set himself on fire near NYC courthouse holding Trump trial

A man set himself on fire Friday near where former President Trump is being tried on criminal charges, police said.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

I do, however, as someone who isn't even a trump supporter (indeed he will never get my vote), I do think the judge requiring him to be present every day of the trial is deliberately political and an attempt to influence an election by forcing him to not be able to go campaign. Not a great look.
Click to expand...
Surely a defendant that did not bother to attend his own trial could not legitimately contest the verdict or even complain about how it was conducted.
 
vibise said:
Surely a defendant that did not bother to attend his own trial could not legitimately contest the verdict or even complain about how it was conducted.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But he's being legally barred, by the judge, from being anywhere else during the trial, than in the courtroom. Which, again, looks flagrantly political given he is running a presidential campaign. Not a good look
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top