- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@no1marauder said😂
I represented hundreds of felony defendants in NY State.
That makes me an "expert" according to the usual definitions:
"ex·pert ˈek-ˌspərt ik-ˈspərt
1
: having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expert
But hey I don't care if you believe that or not.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@no1marauder saidyou do realize this thread asked a yes or no question?
You do realize this is a "Debates" Forum, don't you?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThen it doesn't belong in "Debates" if you have no interest in actually debating it.
you do realize this thread asked a yes or no question?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@no1marauder saidthe little queer boy is afraid to say if this case will hold up😂
Then it doesn't belong in "Debates" if you have no interest in actually debating it.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou really are a pathetic POS.
the little queer boy is afraid to say if this case will hold up😂
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@no1marauder saidwhy are you afraid to say whether this case will hold up under appeal?
You really are a pathetic POS.
you know damned well it wont
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWhat information do you have that would suggest that an appeals court would overturn the convictions?
the little queer boy is afraid to say if this case will hold up😂
Or, maybe start with: do you know what an appeals court does?
To be honest, in the US I don’t really know.
Generally speaking, in the EU, an appeals court doesn’t look at evidence, it judges if the the proper steps were taken to reach a judgement. I presume it’s the same in the US.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWell, you're an idiot, so...
how many think this sham trial by a liberal judge and jury will be overturned?
I do
@shavixmir
So I guess you're saying 'no'? Ok.
I think that Trump's case could be overturned. everybody knows that the dems only used the judicial system
to get to a leading opposition candidate. "Dirty pool" in anyone's world
@Sleepyguy saidBecause, more than any other state, New York knows Trump. They're onto him.
I'm not interested in your legal opinions or evaluations. This is just hardball politics, and I would never expect anything to go Trump's way in New York.
Something you can't even say yourself.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidJesus... no wonder you vote for Trump.
“Actually, I am in NY Criminal Law, so I don't have to "pretend". “
which side?
So, you ARE NOT a lawyer?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWell, it depends. Are the Appeals courts full of dumbasses like you?
why are you afraid to say whether this case will hold up under appeal?
you know damned well it wont
@Earl-of-Trumps saidThe courts exist for one reason.
@shavixmir
So I guess you're saying 'no'? Ok.
I think that Trump's case could be overturned. everybody knows that the dems only used the judicial system
to get to a leading opposition candidate. "Dirty pool" in anyone's world
To prosecute those who break the law.
Only fools think every department in government is after Trump for political reasons. Do you think Trump is as pure as the driven snow? No, he broke the law and got prosecuted. Just like everyone else in the system.
Rikers is full of "innocent" people.
@Earl-of-Trumps saidIt didn’t look that way from Europe.
@shavixmir
So I guess you're saying 'no'? Ok.
I think that Trump's case could be overturned. everybody knows that the dems only used the judicial system
to get to a leading opposition candidate. "Dirty pool" in anyone's world
There’s a great many things wrong with trump and using political funds as hush money to silence a porn star doesn’t seem quite the sort of trustworthy behaviour one should demand from a politician.
So, that it becomes a court case is understandable. In Britain, if you’re caught you generally just get fired…
And the court case itself looked like it followed the books correctly. Even the gag orders; one cannot have a defendant (or any person in the case) threatening, belitteling or offending the judge, workers or jury.
The judge gave objective instructions to the jury (which was picked accordingly) and they decided, based on the evidence.
And so, Marauder’s question to Mott is justified: what exactly needs over-turning?
What part of the process was wrong?
And that’s where the alt-ring starts stuttering: democrats! Rigged! False! No crime!
Utter rubbish. What exactly, in the process, was wrong?
@Sleepyguy saidBut you rely that on teh Appellate Court sit Trump-Fans, who will just do as the Master says?
Well, yeah, he's a lawyer but his batting average is a little low with juries. Ask Trayvon and Michael Brown. But hey get a crooked leftist judge and a jury from a 90% Democrat district and no1's a great lawyer LOL.