I see that this professional misconduct is a crime in itself if it is never considered to review. However, a person judged guilty under law with exculpatory evidence untried does not care how he is found innocent. (Especially in a case where his due process rights were trampled on, and no crime was found unanimously, or beyond a reasonable doubt.) The word “entry” was used incorrectly to mean categorizing instead of calculating amounts. (This is from Black’s Law Dictionary.) My point is there are so many judicial mistakes in this trial which ruined a man’s reputation, and perhaps will rob him of his freedom, that the most likely argument to be heard should be heard first. I think SCOTUS has no inclination to add work to their schedules and admit they didn’t do a complete review of the case and the RPC’s application to it.
Disgusting. However, I think this was before the ruling on Presidential Immunity. The business was private acts, however the dates of bookkeeping were 2017, which places his bookeeper in the Oval Office several times per month for the President to sign checks. She testified at the trial, as did his adviser Hope Hicks. The staff of the President are off limits as witnesses in a case considered personal. The Oval Office is where the President conducts official duties, sometimes with other officials. The testimony of witnesses who served there or who were in the Office despite having employment in the business, would need to be struck from the record. SCOTUS may need to review the new evidence, jury instructions, witnesses and Decision to know if it conforms to the new standard providing if presumptive immunity applies.
Thank you for replying Michelle. You make great points. However, whether the immunity ruling was before or after the professional misconduct, would not change the illicit action. Moreover, it actually serves to bury the wrongful action even more particularly where the wrongs are not even addressed as being wrong. Nonetheless, I appreciate the dialogue that you always present, Michelle.
I see that this professional misconduct is a crime in itself if it is never considered to review. However, a person judged guilty under law with exculpatory evidence untried does not care how he is found innocent. (Especially in a case where his due process rights were trampled on, and no crime was found unanimously, or beyond a reasonable doubt.) The word “entry” was used incorrectly to mean categorizing instead of calculating amounts. (This is from Black’s Law Dictionary.) My point is there are so many judicial mistakes in this trial which ruined a man’s reputation, and perhaps will rob him of his freedom, that the most likely argument to be heard should be heard first. I think SCOTUS has no inclination to add work to their schedules and admit they didn’t do a complete review of the case and the RPC’s application to it.
That first sentence is absolutely priceless, Michelle Dostie!
Disgusting. However, I think this was before the ruling on Presidential Immunity. The business was private acts, however the dates of bookkeeping were 2017, which places his bookeeper in the Oval Office several times per month for the President to sign checks. She testified at the trial, as did his adviser Hope Hicks. The staff of the President are off limits as witnesses in a case considered personal. The Oval Office is where the President conducts official duties, sometimes with other officials. The testimony of witnesses who served there or who were in the Office despite having employment in the business, would need to be struck from the record. SCOTUS may need to review the new evidence, jury instructions, witnesses and Decision to know if it conforms to the new standard providing if presumptive immunity applies.
Very thankful for the fact that you saw what was done was “disgusting” which it surely is.
Thank you for replying Michelle. You make great points. However, whether the immunity ruling was before or after the professional misconduct, would not change the illicit action. Moreover, it actually serves to bury the wrongful action even more particularly where the wrongs are not even addressed as being wrong. Nonetheless, I appreciate the dialogue that you always present, Michelle.
In this instance it looks like the “ fruits of the poisonous publicity.” As Biden would say, “ not a joke.”