Originally Posted by
Keyser Soze
Too many people are listening to journo hacks and people who don’t understand the legal system in the US. A lot of the comments on here are copy-paste or people just spouting random bullshit their mates tell them. A few facts…
*. This court case was a joke. The judge is a known big Democrat who admitted “hating Trump”. His daughter is also all over social media as a Biden campaign funder. The Attorney General is a Democrat and New York is a heavily Democrat state. The latter is less of an issue because the case would had to have happened ina Democrat or Republican state, but not even the most one-eyed Democrat supporter can sidestep the fact that all the Democrat-tilted odds does not make it an objective case.
Nothing here speaks to objectivity, and it seems a few leading legal Professor Emeritus people from Harvard and Yale (Democrat universities), who are themselves Democrats, believe this has conflicts of interest all over it, and breaks the legal ethics code. This in itself will not change the result but will be wide open to the appeal courts, on points of law.
With that in mind..
*. The Supreme Court will not be the final arbiters, because this particular case is not constitution-related nor federal law. Therefore it follows the New York state legal system.
*. The next stage is actually the New York Appelate court. This court will not have a jury. It will not have Cohen, Stormy Daniels nor details from the case to argue. It will only examine the legal process and points of law, how it was handled, and not the case details itself. It is how the case was done that is examined. So the way in which it was approached will be very much examined. The downside for Trump is that this is unlikely to be done until November, as the appeal case has to be written, papers filed with the court, court calendars updated and the people lined up.
In addition, unlike with the Court we have been through, the Appellate Court judges cannot be as bent as they are at state level, and less politicized. The reason is this: Appellate Court judges are incentivized to be promoted to the highest state court which is the Court of Appeal. In order to get there to get your higher pay, you need to have the lowest record of cases overturned by the higher court. If you have cases overturned because you were bent / made poor decisions, then it really goes against your promotion prospects. So it doesn’t pay to be bent. Unlike in the lower court, there is no dis-incentive if you get it wrong.
*. If the Appellate Court overrules the appeal then the fina destination is highest, which is The Court of Appeal. But again, this court is also only concerned with points of law and the process.
*.All the chatter around the Supreme court is only likely to come into play with the matters of the other cases such as the incidents around the White House, as the Supreme Court is only interested in legal incidents affecting the Constitution.
So much bollocks is spoken about The Supreme Court. It won’t even be a factor in this case. Seriously. Armchair gum-bumpers are talking shite. Whoever is saying that - they are talking through their Ringo Starr.
Reply With Quote