All Episodes
Previous Next
June 6, 2024 - Lionel Nation
15:23
Could Trump Possibly Win on Appeal?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin, dirty man safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your Dirty Man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man underground safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man underground safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
Okay, the question is very simply, is Trump going to win an appeal?
Can he appeal?
Does he have a shot at an appeal?
Is there anything he can do about this New York verdict?
What's going to happen?
Listen to me.
I've got the best advice.
Why?
Very simply this.
I'm not trying to kiss the arse of the individual who's putting me on their show.
Whenever you see a legal commentator who's on a show, let's say it's CNN or Fox News, remember their legal commentary has to comport, has to comply, has to fit in with the overall tenor of the show.
If all of a sudden I went on, let's say, Fox News and said, oh, Trump doesn't have a chance, he's through, he's finished, he's done, they're going to pack him away, he's going to be doing hard times and sing-sing, they won't have me on again.
Even though I might be saying the truth, but they won't have me on again because that does not comply and comport with their audience.
So I'm telling you the truth, whether you like it or not.
I'm only here to tell you, you're my audience, and I'm going to tell you what's the truth and the reason why you come to me is very simply because you trust me.
Because I tell you the truth.
And sometimes you don't like the truth.
But I'm going to tell you the truth.
First of all, what's going to happen?
I've got a May 30th conviction.
And we're not really sure who gets to hear why they have 30 days of filing an appeal.
The way it goes is you would first go to the appellate division for the first department, which is Manhattan.
And the question is, is Trump going to get...
Is Trump going to get a deal from elected judges or appointed judges from the appellate division who have to live in this city and in this county and they're going to have to meet their friends and people are going to know they're the judge who ruled in favor?
This is the age-old story?
We've been doing it for years about appointed versus elected judges.
I don't think judges care one way or the other.
I'm sorry.
I know this doesn't mean anything.
They will rule as to what they think is important, and what they think is important may not necessarily involve itself specifically with the law, but they don't care what you think.
They really don't.
You know, when you talk about, have you met judges?
Do you know judges?
Have you ever met them?
You think a Karen is obstinate?
You haven't met a judge.
You don't care what you think.
I mean, some may be more politically sentient than others.
And by the way, it's not going to the Supreme Court.
So the best thing is going to be, in Albany, the Court of Appeals.
In New York, we have a very odd name.
We have the trial court, it's called the Supreme Court.
Intermediate is called the Appellate Division.
And then the Supreme Court in...
New York is a court of appeals.
Okay.
Would they rule in his favor?
They just ruled in Harvey Weinstein's favor.
But that might be for a different reason.
It's unclear.
Okay?
So, they're going to appeal.
And they're going to be looking at this.
But remember, irrespective of the court, irrespective of whatever it is, an appellate court does not look for error.
The appellate court looks for reversible error.
Not a mistake, but a mistake that was so injurious, so problematic, that it has to overturn it.
That justice demands.
Michigan against Tucker, I think the case says, a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one.
So, here are the grounds.
First of all, let's talk about the indictment itself, the charging instrument.
Many people have criticized Alvin Bragg.
By the way, it's not Alvin Bragg.
Alvin Bragg signed it.
It's Matthew Colangelo.
It's the DOJ.
It's the others.
It's not Alvin Bragg.
It's not Tish James.
They're the figureheads.
But he gets credit or blame, so he has to sign off.
The first thing they wondered is whether the indictment actually specified the underlying crime or crimes that the president was alleged to have committed.
This felony falsification of laws, in fact, if you look at it right now, I always have on my computer right here at the top, we have the indictment itself, falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of Penal Law Section 175.1 committed as follows.
This is Donald Trump.
This is count one.
You have 34 counts are identical.
It says, and I'll paraphrase this, That Donald Trump, with the intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime, and A, to conceal the commission thereof, made and caused to be made a false entry in the business records to an invoice, it might be a check, it might be a voucher, it might be a lot of things.
But it says that he, with the intent to defraud whom, we don't know, and the intent to commit another crime.
Now, I believe this is absolutely fatal.
They should have granted a motion to dismiss right off the bat for, to use civil parlance, failure to state a cause of action.
I don't even know what this is.
The indictment has to tell you specifically what it is that I'm doing.
Think of it as a speeding ticket.
Think of it as a speeding ticket that you have to know where you were, how fast were you going, what was the cop's name, did he use radar, you know, the time.
And the first instance, of course, deals with an invoice that was entered.
And then later on, there was an entry in a ledger, specifically a voucher.
And then count three deals with another voucher.
And count four deals with a check.
And count five deals with an invoice.
And then count six...
Deals with another voucher.
So you have checks, vouchers, invoices that basically all say the same thing.
34 accounts of the following.
That Donald Trump, with the intent to defraud someone and the intent to commit another crime, and aid and concealed the commission of that crime.
So he aided and abetted his own crime, which we don't know what it is.
In addition to intending to defraud somebody.
Now, I don't care what anybody says.
I don't want to hear the stuff about notice pleading.
There's all this nonsense you hear about.
Well, you know, does it fairly apprise the defendant?
Don't give me this stuff.
This is ridiculous.
This is absolutely bogus on its whole.
But that's great that I said that.
Are they going to what?
Bounce it?
No.
No, of course not.
The indictment is intentionally vague, intentionally open, so that Bragg, not the grand jury, could basically cobble together something.
Some people have called it like a Frankenstein monster.
So anyway, that's interesting.
Next is the jury instructions.
The jury instructions deal with what exactly was he...
We're jurors told they had to unanimously agree with.
Now remember, you may think you know what's going on.
You may think you have an idea.
You may sort of, but when you take bench conferences, jury instructions, actual motions, all of the nitty-gritty stuff, it may play out.
It may indicate errors so egregious.
More than anything you've ever seen.
So anyway, so the question is, did the jury instructions do a good job?
Because that's critical.
Okay?
Makes sense.
Jury instructions are important because that's really where you can fine-tune their deliberation.
Next, what about Judge Mershon?
Was he impartial?
Was he impartial?
Does the fact that his daughter was involved in some type of Democratic political consulting firm...
I think that's the weakest of them all because Judge Alito is claiming that he, by the way, Judge Alito is claiming that he's not going to recuse himself because of any kind of activities of his wife flying a flag.
Jenny Thomas, Judge Clarence Thomas' wife, was involved in various conservative efforts.
He's not recusing himself, but they're lifetime-tenured judges.
They're Supreme Court justices.
I think that's the weakest of them all.
This is New York, for God's sakes.
And the fact that he gave $35 here, or that his daughter...
No, no, no.
And also, a lot of these folks came from Alvin Bryant's office.
They're Democrats.
They were appointed because they're Democrats.
If you want to play that game, then the entire bench will be wiped out.
Okay.
Testimony, evidence.
This is important.
What about a couple of things here?
Did Stormy Daniels actually...
Contaminate stuff?
Well, that's one of the mistakes you make when you didn't stipulate to her testimony.
Why did Trump in the first place say he never had sex with her?
Why was that important?
Because he called into question Ever having known her.
So they're going to say, okay, now you've opened the door, and now in order to validate and provide the proper predicate for introducing the NDA, we're going to introduce Stormy Daniels.
And hear everything about condoms and missionary positions and all this other kind of stuff.
And that's a problem because of the fact that the question is whether Necklace, her, excuse me, the president's lawyer, did she...
Object enough?
Does she preserve these issues on appeal?
Remember, if you don't object, you waive any kind of appellative review.
That's why.
Object, object, object.
Or you can have a standing objection.
You can ask the judge.
You can say, listen, so that I don't become a royal pain in the ass, Your Honor, this is the standing objection to everything and anything this witness says.
Okay, duly noted.
So you can sit down and let them speak.
The problem is the jury's hearing this.
But the real problem is Michael Cohen.
They're introducing all this evidence about what he pled to, election fraud, Pecker, he did a non-prosecution agreement, basically an immunity agreement.
So they're making it sound like these two guys are guilty of something.
But Judge Merchant said, no, no, no, no, don't think anything about this.
Don't think that they are in any way guilty.
This is merely for you to weigh the credibility.
Come on.
He's trying to bootstrap this.
He wants the jury to understand or to think, well, if they're guilty and they've made agreements, they may be guilty of something and therefore everybody's guilty of something.
Yeah, yeah.
You got it?
It's ridiculous.
Now, finally, How about the fact that Brad Smith, the former elections commissioner, why he wasn't allowed?
I think that would have been critical testimony.
You know, when you're a defendant, you're given great leeway, great leeway, in terms of what you can and can't put on.
This is a guy who could have testified as to, especially since you're considering other crimes, And other election crimes and the like.
These were behaviors or things that he could testify are not against the law.
That could have affected them tremendously.
You see, the issue which is the most important is when you're running for office, you may...
Either involve yourself in a particular type of behavior or an expenditure.
You might call it this.
You might call it that.
But it doesn't matter what you think.
It's not a subjective test.
It's an objective test.
Meaning it's not what you thought.
It's what reality dictates.
And that means simply this.
Anybody could have said, I'm going to pay Stormy Daniels this amount of money so that I don't want my wife to find out.
That is what a person off the street could do, or a person running for president.
That is not necessarily an election expenditure.
That is not an election expenditure, because it could be paid elsewhere.
That's all.
That's all it means.
Now, offices and secretaries, polling committees, yeah, that's election.
So there's a lot, a lot of error.
And frankly, I'm sorry to say, a lot of error on both sides.
This Todd Blanche, I am not...
This has nothing to do with the appeal, but why would he go on CNN in the first place?
Why?
So in any event, dear friends, don't expect anything from this.
Don't expect any of this to change any of this.
And it's not...
I hate to say this, not because the system is rigged or because the system is fixed.
It's that it is so imperfect that if you wanted to rig it, you could.
It's like courts are like our election system.
You can't believe how much you can get away with under the rules, how much you can cheat legally.
I hope that makes some sense.
Please subscribe and comment.
What do you think about this?
What are your thoughts and comments?
I always love viewer and follower comments.
▲
Export Selection