Alvin Bragg’s Team Is Pushing for Jurors to Use a Lower Standard of Proof in Order to Convict Trump No Matter What

excalibur

Diamond Member
Mar 19, 2015
19,994
38,528
2,290
Ah, from a made up, BS charge to this.

🤔

Yep, lawfare.



George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he was concerned about jury instructions related to intent which could allow the 12 members to use a lower standard of proof to convict former President Donald Trump.

New York Judge Juan Merchan, attorneys with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Trump’s lawyers met Tuesday to discuss what instructions would be given to the jury after former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, finished his testimony. Turley expressed his concern to Fox News host Neil Cavuto, citing Merchan’s pattern of granting Bragg’s prosecutors leeway.

“The government is arguing some pretty sweeping positions,” Turley told Cavuto. “Among them, they are arguing ‘I don’t have to prove willful intent on all of the elements on all of these actions.’ They’re suggesting that things like unlawful means which is really an important term of influencing election can be satisfied by less than the criminal standard and the defense [is], I think, legitimately saying ‘Whoa, you know, you’re going to convict someone on a lower than criminal standard on an important element.’”

“And this is really the result of this sort of Frankenstein case, you know… Bragg took this dead misdemeanor and zapped that back to life as a felony by sort of stitching together different crimes,” Turley continued. “And now, the government is trying to use that to say, ‘Yeah, we did that, but it also means we don’t have to prove the full criminal standard on all elements.’”


WATCH:​





... “Some of the most important decisions he is taking on advisement, but some of the decisions he’s made today, quite frankly, are hard to figure out, you know, you – for example, with Costello the former attorney for Cohen and the prosecutors stopped Costello from fully answering a question on what he meant in an E-mail. And so when the defense got the chance, they said, ‘Would you like to explain”’ and the prosecution said ‘No, you know, it’s beyond the scope.’ That should have been a ridiculous objection and Merchan, however, sustained it. It was the same scope, he was being asked what did you mean by that, and the judge sustained.”

“So it’s moments like that where you really feel like there might be a thumb on the scale,” Turley continued. “The most important stuff going on right now is probably the least engaging for a passerby. It deals with how the jury will be instructed. That could very well determine the outcome in this case.”[/b]​



 
Ah, from a made up, BS charge to this.

🤔

Yep, lawfare.


George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he was concerned about jury instructions related to intent which could allow the 12 members to use a lower standard of proof to convict former President Donald Trump.​
New York Judge Juan Merchan, attorneys with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Trump’s lawyers met Tuesday to discuss what instructions would be given to the jury after former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, finished his testimony. Turley expressed his concern to Fox News host Neil Cavuto, citing Merchan’s pattern of granting Bragg’s prosecutors leeway.​
“The government is arguing some pretty sweeping positions,” Turley told Cavuto. “Among them, they are arguing ‘I don’t have to prove willful intent on all of the elements on all of these actions.’ They’re suggesting that things like unlawful means which is really an important term of influencing election can be satisfied by less than the criminal standard and the defense [is], I think, legitimately saying ‘Whoa, you know, you’re going to convict someone on a lower than criminal standard on an important element.’”​
“And this is really the result of this sort of Frankenstein case, you know… Bragg took this dead misdemeanor and zapped that back to life as a felony by sort of stitching together different crimes,” Turley continued. “And now, the government is trying to use that to say, ‘Yeah, we did that, but it also means we don’t have to prove the full criminal standard on all elements.’”​

WATCH:​



... “Some of the most important decisions he is taking on advisement, but some of the decisions he’s made today, quite frankly, are hard to figure out, you know, you – for example, with Costello the former attorney for Cohen and the prosecutors stopped Costello from fully answering a question on what he meant in an E-mail. And so when the defense got the chance, they said, ‘Would you like to explain”’ and the prosecution said ‘No, you know, it’s beyond the scope.’ That should have been a ridiculous objection and Merchan, however, sustained it. It was the same scope, he was being asked what did you mean by that, and the judge sustained.”​
“So it’s moments like that where you really feel like there might be a thumb on the scale,” Turley continued. “The most important stuff going on right now is probably the least engaging for a passerby. It deals with how the jury will be instructed. That could very well determine the outcome in this case.”[/b]​



Not even remotely true.
 
Ah, from a made up, BS charge to this.

🤔

Yep, lawfare.


George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he was concerned about jury instructions related to intent which could allow the 12 members to use a lower standard of proof to convict former President Donald Trump.​
New York Judge Juan Merchan, attorneys with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Trump’s lawyers met Tuesday to discuss what instructions would be given to the jury after former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, finished his testimony. Turley expressed his concern to Fox News host Neil Cavuto, citing Merchan’s pattern of granting Bragg’s prosecutors leeway.​
“The government is arguing some pretty sweeping positions,” Turley told Cavuto. “Among them, they are arguing ‘I don’t have to prove willful intent on all of the elements on all of these actions.’ They’re suggesting that things like unlawful means which is really an important term of influencing election can be satisfied by less than the criminal standard and the defense [is], I think, legitimately saying ‘Whoa, you know, you’re going to convict someone on a lower than criminal standard on an important element.’”​
“And this is really the result of this sort of Frankenstein case, you know… Bragg took this dead misdemeanor and zapped that back to life as a felony by sort of stitching together different crimes,” Turley continued. “And now, the government is trying to use that to say, ‘Yeah, we did that, but it also means we don’t have to prove the full criminal standard on all elements.’”​

WATCH:​



... “Some of the most important decisions he is taking on advisement, but some of the decisions he’s made today, quite frankly, are hard to figure out, you know, you – for example, with Costello the former attorney for Cohen and the prosecutors stopped Costello from fully answering a question on what he meant in an E-mail. And so when the defense got the chance, they said, ‘Would you like to explain”’ and the prosecution said ‘No, you know, it’s beyond the scope.’ That should have been a ridiculous objection and Merchan, however, sustained it. It was the same scope, he was being asked what did you mean by that, and the judge sustained.”​
“So it’s moments like that where you really feel like there might be a thumb on the scale,” Turley continued. “The most important stuff going on right now is probably the least engaging for a passerby. It deals with how the jury will be instructed. That could very well determine the outcome in this case.”[/b]​




They're sleaze and a crime syndicate. They have nothing to lose at this point; they need to get Trump into an isolated prison cell to Epstein him at this point, since it's clear they can't win the election.
 
There was this Manhattan dude on TV the other day, explaining how these Manhattan jurors are highly educated and savvy and wouldn't be bamboozled by any strong-armed, totalitarian judge. Now we'll see how intelligent and savvy they really are. It should be a unanimous acquittal, but something tells me these jurors aren't as intelligent and savvy as advertised. MAGA
 
There was this Manhattan dude on TV the other day, explaining how these Manhattan jurors are highly educated and savvy and wouldn't be bamboozled by any strong-armed, totalitarian judge. Now we'll see how intelligent and savvy they really are. It should be a unanimous acquittal, but something tells me these jurors aren't as intelligent and savvy as advertised. MAGA
lol New Yorkers are the biggest hicks in the U.S. They never even visit their own libraries and museums, and many never leave their own neighborhoods. Like Asians in Silly Con Valley, they think everything outside their little bubble is like the 1850's. These are people who have riots over Jewish ambulances and convictions of mafia thugs like John Gotti.
 
I'd take 50 John Gottis or 50 Vinnie the Chins running NYC before I'd take 50 so called intelligent Manhattanites. Just look at what de Blasio and Adams have done to that once great city. MAGA
 
There was this Manhattan dude on TV the other day, explaining how these Manhattan jurors are highly educated and savvy and wouldn't be bamboozled by any strong-armed, totalitarian judge. Now we'll see how intelligent and savvy they really are. It should be a unanimous acquittal, but something tells me these jurors aren't as intelligent and savvy as advertised. MAGA
I know plenty of intelligent liberals with high-level jobs right here in liberal DC. In fact, I’m amazed that they could have gone to competitive boarding schools, then on to Ivy Leage undergrad, then on to law school or med school, and then be bamboozled by the lying media.
 
Ah, from a made up, BS charge to this.

🤔

Yep, lawfare.


George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he was concerned about jury instructions related to intent which could allow the 12 members to use a lower standard of proof to convict former President Donald Trump.​
New York Judge Juan Merchan, attorneys with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Trump’s lawyers met Tuesday to discuss what instructions would be given to the jury after former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, finished his testimony. Turley expressed his concern to Fox News host Neil Cavuto, citing Merchan’s pattern of granting Bragg’s prosecutors leeway.​
“The government is arguing some pretty sweeping positions,” Turley told Cavuto. “Among them, they are arguing ‘I don’t have to prove willful intent on all of the elements on all of these actions.’ They’re suggesting that things like unlawful means which is really an important term of influencing election can be satisfied by less than the criminal standard and the defense [is], I think, legitimately saying ‘Whoa, you know, you’re going to convict someone on a lower than criminal standard on an important element.’”​
“And this is really the result of this sort of Frankenstein case, you know… Bragg took this dead misdemeanor and zapped that back to life as a felony by sort of stitching together different crimes,” Turley continued. “And now, the government is trying to use that to say, ‘Yeah, we did that, but it also means we don’t have to prove the full criminal standard on all elements.’”​

WATCH:​



... “Some of the most important decisions he is taking on advisement, but some of the decisions he’s made today, quite frankly, are hard to figure out, you know, you – for example, with Costello the former attorney for Cohen and the prosecutors stopped Costello from fully answering a question on what he meant in an E-mail. And so when the defense got the chance, they said, ‘Would you like to explain”’ and the prosecution said ‘No, you know, it’s beyond the scope.’ That should have been a ridiculous objection and Merchan, however, sustained it. It was the same scope, he was being asked what did you mean by that, and the judge sustained.”​
“So it’s moments like that where you really feel like there might be a thumb on the scale,” Turley continued. “The most important stuff going on right now is probably the least engaging for a passerby. It deals with how the jury will be instructed. That could very well determine the outcome in this case.”[/b]​



You weren't supposed to notice that.
 
A desperate matter of lawfare by the Dems / Socialists.

A phony case that was brought by Bragg who campaigned on a promise to launch a Jihad against Trump.
 
I know plenty of intelligent liberals with high-level jobs right here in liberal DC. In fact, I’m amazed that they could have gone to competitive boarding schools, then on to Ivy Leage undergrad, then on to law school or med school, and then be bamboozled by the lying media.
Or maybe you’re bamboozled by lying media.
 
lol New Yorkers are the biggest hicks in the U.S. They never even visit their own libraries and museums, and many never leave their own neighborhoods. Like Asians in Silly Con Valley, they think everything outside their little bubble is like the 1850's. These are people who have riots over Jewish ambulances and convictions of mafia thugs like John Gotti.
:auiqs.jpg:
 
I know plenty of intelligent liberals with high-level jobs right here in liberal DC. In fact, I’m amazed that they could have gone to competitive boarding schools, then on to Ivy Leage undergrad, then on to law school or med school, and then be bamboozled by the lying media.
And yet you’re the supposed doctorate holder who didn’t know the difference between bail and an appeal bond.

Here is your quote:

Address the point:

Madoff: bilked 40,000 investors of billions of dollars - $10 million bond
Trump: no victim. no damages - $400 million bond
Really.

You are an idiot.
 
I know plenty of intelligent liberals with high-level jobs right here in liberal DC. In fact, I’m amazed that they could have gone to competitive boarding schools, then on to Ivy Leage undergrad, then on to law school or med school, and then be bamboozled by the lying media.
It won't, but that should tell you something, thanks!
 
It won't, but that should tell you something, thanks!
Nope. Just shows how effective an “enslaved media” can be. It allows a tyrannical government to oppress.

(Paraphrase of James Madison‘s quote, although the phrase “enslaved media” was his.)
 
There was this Manhattan dude on TV the other day, explaining how these Manhattan jurors are highly educated and savvy and wouldn't be bamboozled by any strong-armed, totalitarian judge. Now we'll see how intelligent and savvy they really are. It should be a unanimous acquittal, but something tells me these jurors aren't as intelligent and savvy as advertised. MAGA
Highly educated means left leaning. Highly educated is not a synonym for highly intelligent by the way.
 
Highly educated means left leaning. Highly educated is not a synonym for highly intelligent by the way.
IKR? Just look at the students at Harvard. They’re screaming about the river to the sea and don’t even know what it means. They call for intifada and don’t know what that means, either

Intelligent people know to keep their mouth shut when they lack knowledge in a particular area.
 

Forum List

Back
Top