Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Sat, 1 Jun 2024 02:43:16 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Sat, 1 Jun 2024 10:54:32 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

On 2024-05-31 10:46:00 +0000, FPP said:

On 5/31/24 4:48 AM, trotsky wrote:

On 5/30/24 4:17 PM, FPP wrote:

GUILTY. All 34 counts.

I called it. Let the whining begin!

Yup... I was shooting for Friday.  Really surprised, since a half hour
before, the judge was shutting it down for the day.

Trump the Chump's whining startedd immediately and his braindead
supports declared "war" not long after.

Not that this decision means anything in reality. The whole mess will
drag on for years longer yet with numerous appeals, counter-appeals,
etc. Trump the Chump and most of the witnesses will be dead of old age
before it ends, and even then you'll probably have their kids trying to
clear their names one way or another.

Not that long but yes, it will likely go on for a couple of years.
There are two level of appeals at the NY state level and then Trump
can try to jump to the US Supreme Court if both levels of appeal fail
to overturn the verdict.

There's no direct appeal from state court to federal court. They have to
find a federal issue to dispute.

Yes, but as a federal prosecutor (former) pointed out today it is a
potential last stop. His point was that with this makeup of a Supreme
Court it's entirely possible they would find a reason to hear the case
if it gets that far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfMgcR0XJhg

This is similar to what I told you. There has to be a federal issue. His
Colorado example isn't the same thing, as that was a state court trying
to apply a provision in the United States Constitution -- the insurrection
clause -- to Donald Trump with respect to his eligibility to be president
and whether's he's qualified to be on the ballot in Colorado.

Merely being tried in state court on a violation of state criminal law
with respect to falsifying business records in entirely inadequate for a
federal court to assert jurisdiction.

There's always equal protection and due process claims to get a matter
under state jurisdiction into federal court.

Now we're getting into equity and not law. There are myriad writs that a
judge may issue in equity under common law. Note that common law exists
in state courts (with the exception of Louisiana) but not federal court
as the federal constitution abolished it. However, the first Congress
re-enacted various provision of common law into United States law so
they are available to the federal courts to use, and precedent from
English courts (except during the reign of James II) comes with it.

Here's a better explanation from Mark R. Levin on what a convicted
defendant must do to preserve his right to timely appeal in state court,
and then apply for equitable relief with the US Supreme Court and what
the applicant would need to assert. In this case, merely being a
presidential candidate isn't adequate. The harm asserted has to be with
federal matters like federal elections and federal campaign disclosure
law. I don't see how the latter is harmed, given that Michael Cohen was
convicted of failure to disclose. At every step of the way of that money
transfer, disclosure was necessary, but it's not like the Federal
Election Commission made a finding that the law didn't apply to those
prior undisclosed transfers, nor do I see a conflict with the state
criminal law of keeping proper business records.

https://x.com/marklevinshow/status/1796336250959380547

The Supreme Court is an appellate court with original jurisdiction on a
mere handful of matters named in the Constitution. Why, then, may
equitable relief be applied for directly with them and not a judge
hearing equity in district court? I have never understood how the
applicant can claim "emergency" bypassing the district court where the
same equitable relief may be obtained.