A Deeply Fractured US

[The Bread Guy]

Meanwhile, "good answer" for a change from Team Red on this one ....

Trudeau government mum on Donald Trump conviction, vows to work with any U.S. leader

The Canadian government remained quiet Friday after a New York court convicted Donald Trump as a felon, despite the Liberals repeatedly trying to draw equivalencies between the former U.S. president and the Canadian Conservative leader.

www.cp24.com

 

[dimsum]

You’d have to have been paying attention since the Russia collusion hoax to understand this.

I chuckle every time this comes up.

 

[FJAG]

I have once been told that it was best not to interact with witnesses at all to prevent contaminating their testimony.

There is really little choice. You need to know what the witness knows and even where there are police statements, they are often not as complete as one might like. I've never had real concerns about a "contamination" claims. One can always have a third party attend the interview and audio or video record it if there is a concern.

By "commentator" I mean US-trained former and practicing lawyers, and professors of law. Their thoughts I find more relevant about the structure of case and advisability of calling witnesses than the musing of Canadians here.

That doesn't change my view. I've seen the indictment. It's pretty clear as to elements of the offense. American commentators - even the legally trained ones - are for the most part not impartial but rather advocates for their viewpoints and/or clients and/or cause celebre of the moment.

They don't matter. What matters are the people in the legal community - particularly the ones whose names I readily recognize as habitual supporters of Democratic and progressive politics - saying the same things.

It all matters. When you have elected officials yap in the public about the judicial system being corrupt because one of their darlings was indicted and then convicted, then you are well along on the slippery slope to becoming a banana republic.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It all matters. When you have elected officials yap in the public about the judicial system being corrupt because one of their darlings was indicted and then convicted, then you are well along on the slippery slope to becoming a banana republic.

Then they're screwed. Democrats can't handle an adverse ruling at the USSC or the threat of one without slagging the justices.

 

[dimsum]

Then they're screwed. Democrats Neither party can handle an adverse ruling at the USSC or the threat of one without slagging the justices.

 

[KevinB]

Well duh, the Judges are only right if they are on my side…

As to DJT, and the rhetoric about the charges, go back and look what he said about HRC, when she was being investigated (and I personally view she should have been charged just like DJT had been).

 

[QV]

Well duh, the Judges are only right if they are on my side…

As to DJT, and the rhetoric about the charges, go back and look what he said about HRC, when she was being investigated (and I personally view she should have been charged just like DJT had been).

I agree she should have been charged, but the Trump administration did not pursue their political opponents after election like this one has.

 

[KevinB]

I agree she should have been charged, but the Trump administration did not pursue their political opponents after election like this one has.

The law is the law, and no one should be above it.

 

[jackamela]

The "actual crime" was falsifying business records (that's what the 34 counts are) but there had to be a predicate crime, of which there were three choices: campaign funding violation, false tax return, falsifying other records. The jury did not have to agree unanimously on predicate crimes; the prosecution didn't have to prove (NY law) that such a crime was actually committed - just that Trump intended to conceal something.

"The jury did not have to agree unanimously on predicate crimes; the prosecution didn't have to prove (NY law) that such a crime was actually committed - just that Trump intended to conceal something"

Interesting how the usual conventions of US law can be dropped if a Presidential candidate who has a fair shot of winning the election needs to be prevented from doing so.

The trial in all honesty appears to be a sham and, if anything, may well backfire and end up handing Trump a few million extra votes.

It is quite difficult to imagine that a majority of Americans would really want another four years of Biden and/or Harris.

 

[Lumber]

I agree she should have been charged, but the Trump administration did not pursue their political opponents after election like this one has.

Sorry, I must have missed the part where it was the Biden Administration who laid charges against Trump. I could of sworn it was NY state DA. I found you show me where it indicates that it was actually the Biden administration that "pursued" and these charges against Trump?

 

[Lumber]

Interesting how the usual conventions of US law can be dropped if a Presidential candidate who has a fair shot of winning the election needs to be prevented from doing so.

Exactly what convention of US law was stopped here?

 

[RangerRay]

I too found myself thinking about Juror #2.

Opinion: In one juror’s trajectory, both the strength of the jury system and the fragility of the rule of law are exposed

Juror No. 2 came to see what Donald Trump and his Republican enablers have been able to prevent so many millions of Americans from seeing – that he is a criminal

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[OldSolduer]

Meanwhile, "good answer" for a change from Team Red on this one ....

Trudeau government mum on Donald Trump conviction, vows to work with any U.S. leader

The Canadian government remained quiet Friday after a New York court convicted Donald Trump as a felon, despite the Liberals repeatedly trying to draw equivalencies between the former U.S. president and the Canadian Conservative leader.

www.cp24.com

View attachment 85678

Its almost like someone had a bolt of lightning strike some common sense into someone. This is very tactful and diplomatic

 

[jackamela]

Exactly what convention of US law was stopped here?

Uhm.... the requirement for a jury to be unanimous.

 

[OldSolduer]

Uhm.... the requirement for a jury to be unanimous.

I could be wrong but I think this varies state to state. US law is not like Canadian law. There are 50 states that in essence form their own laws, and often conflict with the Federales.

 

[jackamela]

I could be wrong but I think this varies state to state. US law is not like Canadian law. There are 50 states that in essence form their own laws, and often conflict with the Federales.

I'm not sure either - but my understanding is that a jury must be unanimous in New York to convict. Perhaps someone can clarify.

There is also the issue of an offence that is in fact a misdemeanour offence being tried as a crime - I believe this is the first time for this in New York. Again, happy to be corrected if someone can point to an instance of it prior to this case.

 

[MrWhyt]

Uhm.... the requirement for a jury to be unanimous

the jury was required to be unanimous on each charge. You can read the last paragraph of page 26 of the judge's instructions stating this here: DocumentCloud

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm not sure either - but my understanding is that a jury must be unanimous in New York to convict. Perhaps someone can clarify.

There is also the issue of an offence that is in fact a misdemeanour offence being tried as a crime - I believe this is the first time for this in New York. Again, happy to be corrected if someone can point to an instance of it prior to this case.

Merely falsifying business records is a misdemeanour. Falsifying with intent to commit or conceal another crime is what elevates the charge to felony.

 

[Brad Sallows]

the jury was required to be unanimous on each charge. You can read the last paragraph of page 26 of the judge's instructions stating this here: DocumentCloud

The jury was required to be unanimous on the charged crime, but not on the predicate crimes.

 

[jackamela]

Merely falsifying business records is a misdemeanour. Falsifying with intent to commit or conceal another crime is what elevates the charge to felony.

And what was the crime that Trump was accused of attempting to commit or conceal?