A Deeply Fractured US

[Remius]

"It should also not be denigrated or called into question if a decision doesn’t go the way one wants it to"

While I understand the nuance of what you mean by this (and I agree with you) this is of course the basis of the entire concept of an appeals system.

That’s the point though. The system has features that can correct things. Like appeals.

If the system is rigged in the minds of some then logically in their minds so would be the appeal process.

The problem is people pick and choose and what they think is rigged.

 

[Remius]

Denigration maybe not, but "calling into question" is simply criticism. Anything may be legitimately criticized.

It goes beyond just critisicm.

There are concerted attacks on various institutions (some internal , some external) in the west to delegitimize them in people’s minds. That can have dangerous consequences.

 

[brihard]

Well, it matters. Take yourself, for example.

You are convinced of his guilt, without actually having any real notion of what you think he is guilty of. You are just convinced of his guilt - and apparently on a somewhat emotional level.

You’re ignoring that your concern here has been shown to be based on a false premise. You asked a number of questions that have been answered, and which should fundamentally shape your understanding of what actually happened in court.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the judge failed to do anything he is required to do, or if the prosecution likewise did not actually provide sufficient legally required information, I’m sure that will be raised on appeal. Short of that there’s no reason prosecution would go to greater lengths than necessary to prove things beyond their already high burden of proof. The elevation of the charges from misdemeanour to felony doesn’t change any of the elements of the actual offences; it’s a question of proving motive, not proving new yet unindicted offences.

In any case, the context of all of my replies this morning has been dispensing with this silly “nobody can say” line that’s being trotted out to try to illegitimate the conviction when it fact it can be said, has been said (including where it legally mattered), and was all repeated and explained here two days ago. There’s a lot of wilful ignorance around this that is unsupported by facts.

If everything was satisfactorily repeated and explained, there wouldn't be a need or even a prospect for appeals.

If you can find a document on line that states what the jurors decided as to which predicates they found, by all means share it instead of trying to wish away a detail that plenty of people find unsettling about the process.

 

[suffolkowner]

Both Republicans and Democrats are taking great risks in running these two. Ill watch the debate with entertainment. Both would be best served with alternatives. Nikki Haley for the Republicans seems obvious but the Democrats?

 

[brihard]

If everything was satisfactorily repeated and explained, there wouldn't be a need or even a prospect for appeals.

That’s a laughable contention. The very nature of an adversarial system is that both sides will do their best and one will lose. The threshold to file an appeal is often not very high, and appeals courts will entertain appeals that haven’t much of a chance but that at least aren’t frivolous. Solid decisions and convictions get appealed all the time; that doesn’t undermine the soundness of the decision so long as it remains upheld.

If you can find a document on line that states what the jurors decided as to which predicates they found, by all means share it instead of trying to wish away a detail that plenty of people find unsettling about the process.

I’m not ‘wishing away a detail’, I’m explaining what seems to be actually required, and importantly what isn’t. I suspect you’re well aware that we’ll see no written decision coming from the jury verdict, I said as much myself in the last few days.

The jury is not required to document for anyone how they arrived at their finding of motive to elevate it to a felony. In a jury trial, they are the finders of fact, and that aspect of it is not reviewable. Appeals will focus on if there are errors of law (such as flawed jury instructions) or manifest errors of process.

It’s fine that people are ‘unsettled’ by the verdict. That’s not unusual, particularly when people have ideological or political skin in the game. But once again, in the context of the false contention that the predicate offence was not specified, some of that unsettlement is based on ignorance. I’m offering insight and facts to correct that.

We all know this could get appealed and upheld all the way to SCOTUS and some will still think it’s rigged or an injustice or whatever. That’s not who I’m offering information to try to convince.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That’s the point though. The system has features that can correct things. Like appeals.

If the system is rigged in the minds of some then logically in their minds so would be the appeal process.

The problem is people pick and choose and what they think is rigged.

The entire process can be exhausted and wrongful convictions still stand. I suppose that means part of the "process" - more informal than formal - allows for people to keep digging at something and push for a case to be re-opened, but that implies they had a critical view all along and if the conviction is overturned, maybe the critical view was always valid. Obviously "the system" isn't, and can't be, perfect. The window for criticism is always open.

Corruption exists everywhere. Conceivably some of government in NY, including its prosecutors and judiciary, are corrupt - even very corrupt. "Machine" politics aren't an urban legend.

Discussions on this site occasionally touch on the problems created by the examples set by people in charge in corporations, or in the CAF. Why would anyone believe that doesn't apply everywhere? Alvin Bragg openly vowed to "Get Trump". Who knows what mischief that set in motion among the people in the institution under him, quite apart from their own political leanings in a heavily Democrat-supporting jurisdiction?

If the system needs people to think it isn't rigged, it has to act as if it isn't rigged. It won't do to complain about the perceptions people take away when the appearances of impropriety are so manifest. The onus is on the system to be proper and look proper.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But once again, in the context of the false contention that the predicate offence was not specified, some of that unsettlement is based on ignorance. I’m offering insight and facts to correct that.

You're talking about 17-152. People are asking about the three broadly-stated underlying offenses. You're answering a question not asked.

 

[brihard]

You're talking about 17-152. People are asking about the three broadly-stated underlying offenses. You're answering a question not asked.

False. I am explicitly answering this question:

What I am interested in finding out is what the crime he was accused of having falsified records with the intent to commit or conceal is.

Nobody seems to know.

If the jury was unanimous in finding him guilty on each of the 34 charges then they would have had to know what the crime he was supposedly concealing or committing is - and if the jury know then it must now be public record.

Anybody?

That’s why I quoted it when I answered it less than three hours ago.

 

[KevinB]

hmm Trump quote ages well

https://twitter.com/x/status/1797294737512144908

 

[Brad Sallows]

False. I am explicitly answering this question:



That’s why I quoted it when I answered it less than three hours ago.

Agreed.

Also stated was: "Nobody seems to be able to state in words what the three crimes were."

If you don't want to tackle that one head-on and specify in the same detail what the three crimes were (ie. chapter and verse in penal code), also fine. But the discussion doesn't end there for everyone.

 

[brihard]

Agreed.

Also stated was: "Nobody seems to be able to state in words what the three crimes were."

If you don't want to tackle that one head-on and specify in the same detail what the three crimes were (ie. chapter and verse in penal code), also fine. But the discussion doesn't end there for everyone.

Because it’s not three specific offences that need to be made out. The only predicate offence in play is the aforementioned one. What’s being referred to is the three theories for unlawful means, but that does not require making out the elements of specific offences. I tackled this a couple days ago too.

Jury instructions, pages 28-34 spell out what the prosecution had to establish. DocumentCloud

I would recommend anyone wanting to seriously engage on this topic in good faith to read what the jury was actually told. It’s kind of important, and is also the aspect of a jury trial most subject to appellate review.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Because it’s not three specific offences that need to be made out. The only predicate offence in play is the aforementioned one. What’s being referred to is the three theories for unlawful means, but that does not require making out the elements of specific offences. I tackled this a couple days ago too.

That they didn't need to be spelled out and proven under NY law in this case, and that some people might want to know what they are, are two different things. It's easy enough to list the three and state that the jury was allowed to decide for themselves without the requirement for formal charges and evidence.

 

[brihard]

That they didn't need to be spelled out and proven under NY law in this case, and that some people might want to know what they are, are two different things. It's easy enough to list the three and state that the jury was allowed to decide for themselves without the requirement for formal charges and evidence.

Yes it is, that’s why they were in the jury instructions that two of us have now linked to. I even gave the pages.

 

[brihard]

Oh, just to close one of the remaining loops: here’s a lengthy memorandum of law filing from November 2023 where these legal theories and the specific predicate offense were laid out for the court in response to defense motions. The idea or claim that Trump’s defense did not know until closing arguments the legal theory underlying the predicate offence or the paths to finding unlawfulness is bunk. They knew the case to be met at trial because the DA told them well in advance. The prosecution put it all on paper at length months before the trial. Pages 21-44.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432843/2023-11-09-das-mem-opp-defs-omnibus-motions-redacted.pdf

 

[Lumber]

"It should also not be denigrated or called into question if a decision doesn’t go the way one wants it to"

While I understand the nuance of what you mean by this (and I agree with you) this is of course the basis of the entire concept of an appeals system.

That's not the basis of the appeal system. You don't appeal the actual decision it

Oh, just to close one of the remaining loops: here’s a lengthy memorandum of law filing from November 2023 where these legal theories and the specific predicate offense were laid out for the court in response to defense motions. The idea or claim that Trump’s defense did not know until closing arguments the legal theory underlying the predicate offence or the paths to finding unlawfulness is bunk. They knew the case to be met at trial because the DA told them well in advance. The prosecution put it all on paper at length months before the trial. Pages 21-44.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432843/2023-11-09-das-mem-opp-defs-omnibus-motions-redacted.pdf

Whats that saying the right love to throw around? Facts don't care about your feelings?

 

[Lumber]

You are convinced of his guilt, without actually having any real notion of what you think he is guilty of. You are just convinced of his guilt - and apparently on a somewhat emotional level.

I just realized this was directed at me.

No. I'm convinced of his guilt because I read everything @brihard posts .

 

[brihard]

That's not the basis of the appeal system. You don't appeal the actual decision it

Whats that saying the right love to throw around? Facts don't care about your feelings?

Something else about our feelings that starts with ‘f’ I think, I just can’t for the life of me remember exactly what it was.

I just realized this was directed at me.

No. I'm convinced of his guilt because I read everything @brihard posts .

Careful with that, I’m just one dude and equally vulnerable to being full of shit. That’s why I try to show receipts for anything that matters so people can check for themselves.

 

[dapaterson]

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them are full of shit.

All the folks sharing their opinions here with backing them up with facts are proving that point.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/02/supreme-court-justice-math-00152188

for some slightly non Trump stuff a look at the decisions on the current USSC