New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week

[AlexB23]

Yet the only evidence you have to base that opinion on is junk reports from rags like the New York Post.

Don't you see the difference in views being presented? Most people, even if they wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstances whatsoever and would consider his character to be...well, let's just saying lacking, will accept whatever verdict is delivered. If he is innocent, or even if he isn't but is declared to be innocent, then so be it.

You? Whatever is presented you'll accept nothing if it doesn't align with some fantasy world in which some people imagine we're living.

Agreed. The New York Post is one of the most biased news organizations on the media bias chart. @Valletta needs to understand that whatever verdict happens, we must listen to the judges and jury.

 

[rambot]

New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week – Update

Trump's attorneys asked for him to be excused from his hush money trial on that date.

deadline.com

There is no valid reason why Trump must be forced to attend this farce of a trial. It has been quite common to have no-disclosure agreements and people don't get charged for keeping such agreements quiet. That is, people don't get charged in such cases until Trump. The judge is seeking control to keep Trump there, and keep Trump off of the campaign trail if he can.

If that is true and factual lawyers will do just fine!

 

[AlexB23]

Donald Trump reveals if he will make it to Barron Trump’s high school graduation​

Donald Trump reveals if he will make it to Barron Trump’s high school graduation

Barron Trump is preparing to graduate from high school.

news.yahoo.com

I just found out that the judge had decided not to let Trump attend the graduation. Also, I think Trump (watch the video) accurately described the trial motives and the reason for the judge not letting Trump go to the Supreme Court hearing.

The Miami Herald is a good source. Thank you. If Trump attended Barron's graduation, do you think that Trump would make the ceremony all about himself?

 

[rambot]

I've worked with an Associated Press bureau chief at the request of he subject on a lengthy article, and the article was anything but balanced. Not one word, not even a hint, of government misconduct. I spoke with the guy after he published the story and asked why. Dead silence. Likewise the Wall Street journal published an outrageously false statement as a reason to end a discussion. That false statement aligned with U.S. government propaganda. Fox too has some bad ones who are not interested in the truth. A lot of "news media" organizations simply have virtually no one with alternate views. Most importantly there are few real investigative reporters left. Don't for one minute trust that the organizations are giving an accurate story based on such a chart.

It's hard for this to be addressed given the lack of details.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In criminal trials where there exists a flight risk bail can be denied etc.

But usually once the requirements of the law is met and the defendant is deemed not a flight risk it's a completely different scenario.

But even a jailed individual would be allowed the right to attend Supreme Court arguments being made on their behalf... They pull people out of jail for court stuff.

Trump isn't asking for a day pass to attend a session of appeals court instead of idling his time away at Riker's. He is asking the judge in another trial (not related to court session in question) to cancel court for the day so he can attend.

Denying Trump the right to attend the Supreme Court is baseless and an abuse of power. It's not like there's some concern he's gonna skip the country if allowed to go to the Supreme Court.

Lawyers argue cases, if Trump skips out a few days is perfectly normal. Only jailed individuals have to sit there for every event, and they probably just want to, given they are in jail and will be soon staying.

This is not just any event in a case, it is the TRIAL. If Trump wants to get specific days off his lawyers are going to need to be cooperative and not slow down the trial. (Slowing things down has been their main strategy to date, so good luck with that.)

I'd want to be there but I would have the face your accusers thing... Thing with Trump is we know who the accusers are. That's settled. No point being there probably.

He could have the best defense in the world and still be found guilty. This isn't a fair trial by any stretch.

You seem to have your mind made up. Exactly what they are now spending time to keep off the jury.

For Trump the Supreme Court is where he needs to be. It's likely the only place he'll see fairness out of.

He didn't attend the *last* Supreme Court argument related to him.

 

[SimplyMe]

In criminal trials where there exists a flight risk bail can be denied etc.

But usually once the requirements of the law is met and the defendant is deemed not a flight risk it's a completely different scenario.

But even a jailed individual would be allowed the right to attend Supreme Court arguments being made on their behalf... They pull people out of jail for court stuff.

No, defendants are not released from jail to attend Supreme Court (or other appellate court) hearings. Yes, people will be brought from jail for their trials but not for the appeals, as no testimony is given during appeals. Interestingly, I don't recall Trump attending any of his other Supreme Court (or other appellate court) hearings in person. If you have evidence of it, I'd love to see it.

It is also worth noting that Trump has never been jailed while awaiting trial, so this idea of "flight risk" is a bogus argument.

Denying Trump the right to attend the Supreme Court is baseless and an abuse of power. It's not like there's some concern he's gonna skip the country if allowed to go to the Supreme Court.

Again, Trump is out on bail -- so that has nothing to do with it. And, again, defendants (including Trump) rarely attend any appellate court hearings. At the same time, criminal defendants are expected to be at their trials (part of ensuring the Sixth Amendment, that defendants can face their accusers, is followed and to prevent them from claiming after the fact that they didn't attend so were denied that Right). What is occurring here is completely normal, where a defendant is in a trial while another of their cases is being appealed -- they always are required to attend the trial.

Lawyers argue cases, if Trump skips out a few days is perfectly normal. Only jailed individuals have to sit there for every event, and they probably just want to, given they are in jail and will be soon staying.

Nope, even those out on bail are required to attend (with the relevant laws posted on this thread).

I'd want to be there but I would have the face your accusers thing... Thing with Trump is we know who the accusers are. That's settled. No point being there probably.

He could have the best defense in the world and still be found guilty. This isn't a fair trial by any stretch.

For Trump the Supreme Court is where he needs to be. It's likely the only place he'll see fairness out of.

What difference does it make if Trump is at the Supreme Court, other than he can see the arguments his lawyers make? Trump isn't some legal expert that will help deliver the arguments; he has already worked with his lawyers in forming the appeal when they submitted the legal briefs to the court (to the extent a layman can help draft legal arguments). There is no testimony in appellate courts, so he won't be addressing the court. What exact difference would Trump being at the Supreme Court make?

 

[Valletta]

It's hard for this to be addressed given the lack of details.

It's just an example, the media has a narrative and so many "news stories" are pre-determined. I have many examples from experience. And they are wordsmiths as well, so on the rare occasion something is included that contradicts the narrative they can twist it all around. One that comes to mind is an incident where people I knew tried to file a complaint with a police department and the police would not accept the complaint. Any police department in the country is supposed to at least take a complaint. I think seven witnesses wrote statements. The reporter wrote that the police, to closely paraphrase, "would not take the case." So instead of the failure of the police department to take a complaint the story makes it sound like it was found to be a frivolous case.

 

[Valletta]

There is no clause in the constitution explicitly granting defendants the right to skip it either. The requirement for defendants to attend their own trial is in state and federal law. @Bradskii pointed this out to you in post #13.

Glad you understand that state laws require Trump to be present.

Here's a video clip from yesterday (Tuesday) of comments from a Democrat, Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz says Trump should not be forced to attend his New York criminal trial every day:

Dershowitz says: "And the statute is unconstitutional insofar as it present prevents the presidential candidate from from campaigning. But the statute itself says if the state doesn't object, the judge can allow the defendant to leave the courtroom."

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Here's a video clip from yesterday (Tuesday) of comments from a Democrat, Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz says Trump should not be forced to attend his New York criminal trial every day:

While Dershowitz may still be a registered Democrat (I neither know nor care), he's been shilling for Trump pretty hard for the last few years, so trying to present him as a voice from "the other side" is more than just a bit disingenuous.

Dershowitz says: "And the statute is unconstitutional insofar as it present prevents the presidential candidate from from campaigning. But the statute itself says if the state doesn't object, the judge can allow the defendant to leave the courtroom."

Yes - IF the defendant files a written and subscribed statement declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense. Did Trump file such a statement? Did the state acquiesce to the request?

And even if all the requirements were met, the law does not require the judge to excuse the defendant.

 

[Hank77]

Normal? Give me a break. There's a nice review of the facts in the opinion piece below:

"Lawyers have been scouring the civil and criminal codes for any basis to sue or prosecute Trump before the upcoming 2024 election. This week will highlight the damage done to New York’s legal system because of this unhinged crusade. They’ve charged him with everything short of ripping a label off a mattress.
Just a few weeks ago, another judge imposed a roughly half billion dollar penalty in a case without a single victim who lost a single cent on loans with Trump. (Indeed, bank officials testified they wanted more business with the Trump organization).
Now Bragg is bringing a case that has taken years to develop and millions of dollars in litigation costs for all parties. That is all over a crime from before the 2016 election that is a misdemeanor under state law that had already expired under the statute of limitations."

A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system

After an absurd $450 million decision against Trump courtesy of AG Letitia James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg will bring his equally controversial criminal prosecution over hush money paid to Stormy D…

nypost.com

Guess who wrote that opinion piece, Jonathan Turley.

 

[Hank77]

I am pleased that so many potential jurors honestly stated they would be biased.

How many of them do you suppose just didn't want to do jury duty?

 

[Hank77]

For Trump the Supreme Court is where he needs to be. It's likely the only place he'll see fairness out of.

Why should he be there? What can he do there?

 

[rambot]

Normal? Give me a break. There's a nice review of the facts in the opinion piece below:

"Lawyers have been scouring the civil and criminal codes for any basis to sue or prosecute Trump before the upcoming 2024 election. This week will highlight the damage done to New York’s legal system because of this unhinged crusade. They’ve charged him with everything short of ripping a label off a mattress.
Just a few weeks ago, another judge imposed a roughly half billion dollar penalty in a case without a single victim who lost a single cent on loans with Trump. (Indeed, bank officials testified they wanted more business with the Trump organization).
Now Bragg is bringing a case that has taken years to develop and millions of dollars in litigation costs for all parties. That is all over a crime from before the 2016 election that is a misdemeanor under state law that had already expired under the statute of limitations."

A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system

After an absurd $450 million decision against Trump courtesy of AG Letitia James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg will bring his equally controversial criminal prosecution over hush money paid to Stormy D…

nypost.com

You consistently quote from monstrosity sources..... and an OPINION piece even.

I get that some people say they knowingly read bias sources but if you choose to do that, don't put up your uselessly bias source in an attempt to say that it's evidence of something.

I wouldn't put up something by democracynow and say it's gospel truth?

 

[durangodawood]

I wouldn't put up something by democracynow and say it's gospel truth?

Democracy Now is pretty good, actually. Massively baised, but quite reliable.

 

[rambot]

Democracy Now is pretty good, actually. Massively baised, but quite reliable.

but due to bias alone, I wouldn't put it up.

 

[Valletta]

You consistently quote from monstrosity sources..... and an OPINION piece even.

I get that some people say they knowingly read bias sources but if you choose to do that, don't put up your uselessly bias source in an attempt to say that it's evidence of something.

I wouldn't put up something by democracynow and say it's gospel truth?

This is not the news article forum, this is the American Politics forum where alternative ideas are discussed. The major media is extremely biased against conservatives and there is no reason for anyone to fear an opposing view. How much of the media was involved in the Hunter Biden laptop hoax, or one of the new hoaxes, that Republicans killed helpful border legislation so that Trump would have an issue to campaign on? An opinion article can give highlights of legislation that the major media won't mention. Likewise the media narrative in this case is that Trump is charged with all of these crimes so obviously he is the criminal type and must be guilty (sometimes they add he has a shady history). Here it gets mentioned just how many Democrats previously passed on this crazy case, which I think people have a right to know.

 

[Bradskii]

...sometimes they add he has a shady history...

Yeah, it's called 'background.' There should be a web page where it numbers all the examples of his actions so we don't have to keep writing them out. We can just refer to the number.

'Well, what about 15, 48 and 124.3? They obviously prove my point!'

 

[Valletta]

Elon Musk is a libertarian, and is blunt about the case against Trump:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779891581551509970

Trump had every right to write a check to his attorney. What is the HUGE crime is that Joe Biden is out campaigning in swing states while the leading presidential candidate is prevented from campaigning by a Biden-supporting judge.

 

[rambot]

Elon Musk is very much a libertarian, and it is obvious to him what is going on:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779891581551509970

Much like him being a free speech absolutist, I'm sure that's a switch that goes on and off.

Although I guess if your onw of the richest people in the world it makes 100% sense to be a Libertarian.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Trump had every right to write a check to his attorney. What is the HUGE crime is that Joe Biden is out campaigning in swing states while the leading presidential candidate is prevented from campaigning by a Biden-supporting judge.

He doesn't have the right to record the purpose of his check incorrectly in his ledger.