Judge delays sentencing in Trump's New York criminal case, pushing decision past election

I vomited on Merchan's ruling. Typical of you to not correctly phrase my statement.

 

I admire the work of the philosopher of science Karl Popper (hence the signature). His most famous contribution to his field was suggesting that scientific theories need to be falsifiable. That is, that there needs to be some theoretical way to disprove an idea, or else it must be considered outside the bounds of science. It’s an attractive idea.

What spurred Popper toward this idea was a maddening tendency of the followers of three schools of thought: Marxism, Psychoanalysis, and Alderian psychology. No matter what happened in the world, these people would be able to fit it into their worldview. Here’s Popper:

The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which 'verified' the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation--which revealed the class bias of the paper--and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their 'clinical observations'. As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. 'Because of my thousandfold experience,' he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: 'And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold.'
…
I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child).

http://www.dpi.inpe.br/gilberto/cursos/cst-311/popper_conjectures_refutations.pdf
​

When reading this board, I can’t help but think of this problem of Popper’s. What would it take for some of us to accept a political loss? Is there some evidence that could in even theory prove Trump’s guilt? Or would all such evidence only demonstrate its own inadequacy?

 

What would it take for some of us to accept a political loss? Is there evidence that could even in theory prove Trump's innocence? Or would all such evidence only demonstrate its own inadequacy?

Harris Campaign Is Paying Trump Judge's Daughter. Yeah, That's Happening.

Merchan has a closet full of conflicts of interest in this case. Two things going against Merchan happened in the 24 hours leading up to Trump's sentencing postponement:

First, podcaster Steven Crowder revealed an undercover interview with the Public Affairs guy at the DOJ's Southern District of New York office showing that we're not the only ones who think this case is a total pile of dog poop.

My colleague Robert Spencer has details on the case here in which the top SUNY spokesman, Nicholas Biase, said the bogus case against Trump is "a perversion of justice," "It’s a travesty of justice," "a mockery of justice," "nonsense," and, stop me if you've heard this one before, a case in which DA Alvin Bragg stacked, "charges and rearranged things just to make it fit a case.”

Second:

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) has entered another ethics complaint against Merchan with conclusive proof that Merchan's daughter, who has made bank on her dad's case for her Democrat political consultancy, was paid directly by Trump's opponent, Kamala Harris.

Stefanik's complaint claims Harris's campaign switched web services over to Merchan's daughter's company after she became the presumptive candidate: On August 20, 2024, Vice President Harris’s campaign submitted its first Federal Election Commission (FEC) report that documented expenses and donations through July 31, 2024. In the report, specifically on Form 3P, line 232, a July 30, 2024, disbursement appears in the amount of $468.00 from Vice President Harris’s campaign to Authentic Campaigns Inc. (Authentic) for web hosting services. This indicates that one of the very first things that Harris did upon taking over the Biden campaign infrastructure is to hire this firm, Authentic.

 

Good post and the first reply to it serves to illustrate the depth of the problem; there is no losing in the minds of many, but an explanation, pivot or evasion.

 

Let's add the Fox News report on the Elise Stefanik ethics complaint she filed against Judge Merchan:

Stefanik files ethics complaint against Trump trial judge alleging Harris campaign paid his daughter’s company | Fox News

This trial is a hot mess from trumped up charges by Alvin Bragg with DOJ assistance, through conviction, and now sentencing. Any right-thinking person knows Trump isn't a criminal and this was a lawfare sham trial just like the other lawfare trials involving state prosecutors and judges.

"Authentic is a digital consulting and marketing firm that services Democrat candidates. Loren Merchan, Justice Merchan’s daughter, is its president," Stefanik added. "Vice President Harris changed web hosting companies from AWS to Authentic immediately after becoming the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee.

"This is merely the beginning of a new contract with a new campaign, regardless of the amount reimbursed. Sure, there’s an immediate benefit, but this is a play at a potential larger benefit for Authentic and Merchan down the road," Stefanik said in her complaint.

Stefanik continued by saying that the code of conduct "dictates that a judge must recuse from a case where a relative up to and including the sixth degree has a financial interest in the outcome of the case."

"Ms. Merchan is related to Justice Merchan in the first degree. Authentic has a newly active financial relationship with Vice President Harris’s campaign," Stefanik concluded.

 

My, my, my... how are the Democrats going to explain this away if indeed this goes in Trump's favor?

Where WAS THE FRAUD? I asked tha question noumerous times and yet the Liberals here just stayed silent. The fraud was the unjust case to begin with.

I called it 'CLARICAL ERROR' and that there was NO financial FRAUD committed by Trump. No one lost money... no one was defrauded. No crime was committed.

This New York judicial overreach and attempted fruad by the styate of New York is getting proper scrutany... and the truth shall set youy free...

 

You may not like the NY law about business records fraud but it exists and Bragg has prosecuted 135 people over it.

Everyone with a functioning brain stem knows they were hiding this payment as something else to avoid reporting it as a campaign expenditure and to avoid the negative publicity in a campaign year.

 

Did you hear the judges in that link? They basically said this was a PRIVATE MATTER where neither side felt defrauded, and this was (paraphrasing) NOT in their purview to call a crime in the first place.

No money was stolen, there was no fraud, and therefore no crime was committed... END OR STORY!

 

NO ONE EVER STOLE ONE SINGLE DIME, NO ONE WAS DEFRAUDED... How do you still not understand that? Clerical mistakes that are not financial mistakes are not felonies... You're just being obstinate for the sake of arguing a losing cause.

 

They weren't errors. They were intentional fraudulent actions taken to hide the reasons for these payments.

Were you aware you could get cited for speeding with no one else on the road but the cop who pulls you over? Even if you don't crash into a school bus because you were speeding?

 

In a private contract... none of the state's business/purview, especially since NO ONE WAS DEFRAUDED...

 

Again, you may not like NY state law but it was correctly charged and a jury agreed.

Per my example, you can get cited for speeding even if no one got hurt by you doing 85 in a 25 zone.

 

And will you still believe that when the higher court in New York STRIKES THAT CONVICTION DOWN, overturns it? Will you then capitulate?

 

It was an oral argument before an appeals court. You would expect the judges to ask probing questions. After watching the entire video, it seems that the judges were somewhat skeptical of the NY AG position but that does not mean they are automatically going to overturn the decision.

 

The sanctioning was discussing sanctioning Trump’s lawyers which is something that the judge in the case wanted/brought up since the Trump lawyers kept submitting motions that they wanted on issues they wanted to preserve for appeal. Apparently the judge that they did it so much it was unprofessional. I’ll let the lawyers correct me on that if I have it wrong. The second speaker was an advocate that was arguing in favor of not allowing that to happen to the Trump lawyers.

I think it is probably better than 50-50 that the decision is overturned but not a slam dunk.

 

I never realized that Trump added so many members added to his legal team that lack any knowledge of law

 

I’ve already watched it. Judges interrupting lawyers during oral arguments always happens. At the SCOTUS, Chief Justice Roberts implemented a policy where the lawyers get at least two minutes to plead their case before a Justice can interrupt them. Before that, it was common for lawyers to not make it more than 15 seconds before being interrupted. The judges were clearly less sympathetic to the AG’s office. They were asking for limiting principles and how they avoid mission creep.I’d say that is good news for the Trump team but the Judges could decide that the AG’s office gave them enough answers to form an opinion that rules in her favor.