Why the Sudden Doubts about the Verdict?

[Seymour Flops]

At the beginnng and through most of the trial, Democrats on her were crowing about Trump going to prison, Republicans being forced to vote for a felon, etc. Now the attitude seems to be "wait and see," and the moral cowardice of, "I'll respect the jury's verdict."

Even the WaPo is lowering expectations - they defining "high expectations" as a former president and current frontrunner literally imprisoned by the opposition party, banana republic style.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/21/forget-everything-you-think-you-know-about-what-trump-jury-will-do/

I would caution people, based on my own experience, to remember that their experience from the outside is as different than the jury’s as the courtroom sketches are from the reality of being there in person. And I would note that Trump’s guilt will ultimately be decided not on whether the public thinks the case has been made or even on whether the jury does, but instead on the conversation the jury has within the constraints of evidence and the law to which they have been exposed.

And no one can reliably predict how that conversation will unfold.

I don't get it. If the evidence is so strong, and the judge so fair, and the Jury made of savvy New Yorkers who won't be put off by the likes of fellow New Yorker Michael Cohen, why doubt the outcome? If Trump's actions are so proven, and they fit so well into a clearly defined crime, and the witnesses so credible, why would you not predict a swift verdict of guilty on all counts?

Team Trump barely responded to the prosecution's case. Two witnesses, both of whome the fair judge cut off from answering. The jury will consider only the prosecution's examinations, the defense's cross, and the closing arguments. How can you doubt a victory for your side?

Is is possible that this is the answer, incredible as it may seem:

Did you really and truly not know what a farce this trial was from the beginning? Did you believe your own nonsense about no one being above the law, and this case being a simple example of Donald Trump finally facing trial for his crimes as anyone else would? Now, having seen how absurdly weak and counter to the law, this prosecution is, you pretend that you only care that the process was carried out, and you were never expecting a particular outcome?

I'm disappointed in you, really. I would have expected you to keep up the cry of "Felon Trump" right up until the hung jury was announced and then to denounce the sneaky Trumpers who must have lied their way onto the jury.

But, you will respect the findings, eh?

I look forward to seeing you keep that promise.

 

[pknopp]

Guilty or not, he is and always still will be a sleazeball.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Guilty or not, he is and always still will be a sleazeball.

But if he’s not guilty, then he’s . . . Not guilty.

Agreed?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

But if he’s not guilty, then he’s . . . Not guilty.

Agreed?

It was said by the great Rush Limbaugh "It isnt the fact that someone is found not guilty, but the seriousness of the charge" that matters. Unless it is a Democrat, then it is time to circle the wagons.

Joe Bribem took millions of dollars from China. No charges.
Joe Bribem left Top Secret Documents in an unsecured garage. No Charges.
Joe Bribem touched his 14 year old daughter inappropriately. No Charges.


Without double standards, Marxists/Demofascists would have no standards at all.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I know! Democrats on here should “read the indictment.”

 

[SweetSue92]

Guilty or not, he is and always still will be a sleazeball.

Gosh, I remember a time we didn't put people on trial for being a sleazeball.

But then you liberals did and I stopped giving two craps about this so-called nation.

 

[JoeB131]

But if he’s not guilty, then he’s . . . Not guilty.

Agreed?

You mean if all 12 jurors vote to acquit him? Then you might have a point, but that's not going to happen.

The best that Trump can hope for is one Juror hanging the jury.

But I doubt that will happen, given the disastrous case his lawyers put on.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

At the beginnng and through most of the trial, Democrats on her were crowing about Trump going to prison, Republicans being forced to vote for a felon, etc. Now the attitude seems to be "wait and see," and the moral cowardice of, "I'll respect the jury's verdict."

Even the WaPo is lowering expectations - they defining "high expectations" as a former president and current frontrunner literally imprisoned by the opposition party, banana republic style.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/21/forget-everything-you-think-you-know-about-what-trump-jury-will-do/

I would caution people, based on my own experience, to remember that their experience from the outside is as different than the jury’s as the courtroom sketches are from the reality of being there in person. And I would note that Trump’s guilt will ultimately be decided not on whether the public thinks the case has been made or even on whether the jury does, but instead on the conversation the jury has within the constraints of evidence and the law to which they have been exposed.

And no one can reliably predict how that conversation will unfold.

I don't get it. If the evidence is so strong, and the judge so fair, and the Jury made of savvy New Yorkers who won't be put off by the likes of fellow New Yorker Michael Cohen, why doubt the outcome? If Trump's actions are so proven, and they fit so well into a clearly defined crime, and the witnesses so credible, why would you not predict a swift verdict of guilty on all counts?

Team Trump barely responded to the prosecution's case. Two witnesses, both of whome the fair judge cut off from answering. The jury will consider only the prosecution's examinations, the defense's cross, and the closing arguments. How can you doubt a victory for your side?

Is is possible that this is the answer, incredible as it may seem:

Did you really and truly not know what a farce this trial was from the beginning? Did you believe your own nonsense about no one being above the law, and this case being a simple example of Donald Trump finally facing trial for his crimes as anyone else would? Now, having seen how absurdly weak and counter to the law, this prosecution is, you pretend that you only care that the process was carried out, and you were never expecting a particular outcome?

I'm disappointed in you, really. I would have expected you to keep up the cry of "Felon Trump" right up until the hung jury was announced and then to denounce the sneaky Trumpers who must have lied their way onto the jury.

But, you will respect the findings, eh?

I look forward to seeing you keep that promise.

Sorry, I don't think anyone was banking on Trump going to prison. That was never going to happen. There's just a different set of rules for the privileged and well-connected. But the prosecution has proven its central case of falsification of business records. Chances are, he'll be found guilty on a few of the counts. And he'll get to appeal and avoid sentencing while that happens. One way or another, it won't affect his ability to lose come November.

 

[mudwhistle]

At the beginnng and through most of the trial, Democrats on her were crowing about Trump going to prison, Republicans being forced to vote for a felon, etc. Now the attitude seems to be "wait and see," and the moral cowardice of, "I'll respect the jury's verdict."

Even the WaPo is lowering expectations - they defining "high expectations" as a former president and current frontrunner literally imprisoned by the opposition party, banana republic style.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/21/forget-everything-you-think-you-know-about-what-trump-jury-will-do/

I would caution people, based on my own experience, to remember that their experience from the outside is as different than the jury’s as the courtroom sketches are from the reality of being there in person. And I would note that Trump’s guilt will ultimately be decided not on whether the public thinks the case has been made or even on whether the jury does, but instead on the conversation the jury has within the constraints of evidence and the law to which they have been exposed.

And no one can reliably predict how that conversation will unfold.

I don't get it. If the evidence is so strong, and the judge so fair, and the Jury made of savvy New Yorkers who won't be put off by the likes of fellow New Yorker Michael Cohen, why doubt the outcome? If Trump's actions are so proven, and they fit so well into a clearly defined crime, and the witnesses so credible, why would you not predict a swift verdict of guilty on all counts?

Team Trump barely responded to the prosecution's case. Two witnesses, both of whome the fair judge cut off from answering. The jury will consider only the prosecution's examinations, the defense's cross, and the closing arguments. How can you doubt a victory for your side?

Is is possible that this is the answer, incredible as it may seem:

Did you really and truly not know what a farce this trial was from the beginning? Did you believe your own nonsense about no one being above the law, and this case being a simple example of Donald Trump finally facing trial for his crimes as anyone else would? Now, having seen how absurdly weak and counter to the law, this prosecution is, you pretend that you only care that the process was carried out, and you were never expecting a particular outcome?

I'm disappointed in you, really. I would have expected you to keep up the cry of "Felon Trump" right up until the hung jury was announced and then to denounce the sneaky Trumpers who must have lied their way onto the jury.

But, you will respect the findings, eh?

I look forward to seeing you keep that promise.

If he's found innocent, leftists will protest in force.
If he's found guilty, Trump supporters will climb onto the Trump Bandwagon in force.

It's absolutely peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerfic for an election debate (argument).

Course if you're a Democrat you can lie about what really happened all you want. Either way, Biden (The Walking-Dead) will use it in the debate.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry, I don't think anyone was banking on Trump going to prison.

Why not though, if the case is so real?

That was never going to happen. There's just a different set of rules for the privileged and well-connected.

Who is giving Trump this privilege? Bragg? Merchan?

But the prosecution has proven its central case of falsification of business records. Chances are, he'll be found guilty on a few of the counts. And he'll get to appeal and avoid sentencing while that happens. One way or another, it won't affect his ability to lose come November.

Then in October, when a landslide by Trump is imminent, youll say no one predicted Biden would win.

 

[JoeB131]

If he's found innocent, leftists will protest in force.
If he's found guilty, Trump supporters will climb onto the Trump Bandwagon in force.

But you guys are already on the bandwagon. Why would that matter. What it will do is give sensible independents and Republicans pause if they really want to elect a felon to the White House. That should give us all pause.

 

[JoeB131]

Why not though, if the case is so real?

Because at the end of the day, it's still a non-violent offense. We usually don't send people to prison for non-violent offenses.

Then in October, when a landslide by Trump is imminent, youll say no one predicted Biden would win.

Not going to happen. Have you watched Trump's speeches? The man is clearly losing it, with his slurring, long rants, and meandering speeches.

 

[mudwhistle]

But you guys are already on the bandwagon. Why would that matter. What it will do is give sensible independents and Republicans pause if they really want to elect a felon to the White House. That should give us all pause.

Thanks for revealing the only purpose for this POS case.

The problem with you is you actually think this is good.

I bet you get really mad when somebody waves our flag out in the open too.

 

[mudwhistle]

Because at the end of the day, it's still a non-violent offense. We usually don't send people to prison for non-violent offenses.



Not going to happen. Have you watched Trump's speeches? The man is clearly losing it, with his slurring, long rants, and meandering speeches.

Corporate theft is a non-violent crime, and people go to prison all the time for non-violent crimes.

You really are a stupid retard.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Corporate theft is a non-violent crime, and people go to prison all the time for non-violent crimes.

You really are a stupid retard.

Unless you are a star witness in a 3rd world nation show trial.

 

[mudwhistle]

Unless you are a star witness in a 3rd world nation show trial.

Problem is civil suits don't have a statute of limitations.

Trump is going to sue his balls off.

I bet they already have all of the documents waiting to file after the trial.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

Why not though, if the case is so real?

Because there are different rules for the wealthy and privileged. If it were you and me and we were found guilty?...yeah, we'd be going to prison.

Who is giving Trump this privilege? Bragg? Merchan?

The system. Two tiers.

Then in October, when a landslide by Trump is imminent, youll say no one predicted Biden would win.

That's not gonna happen.
But you can hope.

 

[JoeB131]

Thanks for revealing the only purpose for this POS case.

The problem with you is you actually think this is good.

I bet you get really mad when somebody waves our flag out in the open too.

I think this is fantastic. We should hold presidents to the law.

The worst thing that happened in American Politics was when Ford Pardoned Nixon. Nixon was clearly guilty of crimes, but was never held to account for them.

If you make the Presidency an immunity from prosecution, you will have lawless presidents.

 

[JoeB131]

Problem is civil suits don't have a statute of limitations.

Trump is going to sue his balls off.

I bet they already have all of the documents waiting to file after the trial.

Trump has already sued Cohen for $500 Million. Then he dropped the suit when he found out he'd have to testify in a deposition.

The last thing Trump wants it to have to testify under any circumstances. Because he can't help himself and will lie.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think this is fantastic. We should hold presidents to the law.

The worst thing that happened in American Politics was when Ford Pardoned Nixon. Nixon was clearly guilty of crimes, but was never held to account for them.

If you make the Presidency an immunity from prosecution, you will have lawless presidents.

Oh, so you think you can make up laws and rules all by yourself?

Sorry, but that's not how this works.

Ask yourself why other countries like Venezuela collapsed into anarchy?

Because their governments stopped being fair to their people. They lied to their people so obviously that it angered a large swath of the populous. Their governments became abusive and corrupt, forcing the people to take matters into their own hands. The people became their own police because the police force and the courts were filled with diversity hires who refused to enforce the law fairly. A two-tiered justice system is the quickest way to turn your country into a mess and bring down any form of order. I've been in a lot of countries that were good places to live at one time, but because of government corruption they descended into a Banana Republic.

On one hand there are you angry folks (who watch CNN & MSNBC, etc) who want what you've been told is justice, and on the other hand there's over 75 million who can see this for what it is and we don't like it one bit. You think you're on the right side of history, but in reality you're cheering corruption and selective-prosecutions. I bet you are even on board if someone decides that putting Jews on trains is a very good idea.

Congrats. You are now an official member of the Nazi Party.