Fair and Impartial Trump Jury

[rightwinger]

It's why you're a waste of time, Mr. Lacks Integrity. You can't even answer a simple question because you're afraid of what it shows.

Anyone who says “He just seems very selfish and self-serving so I don’t really appreciate that in any public servant, so I don’t know him as a person, so I don’t know how he is in terms of his integrity,” she added. “It’s just not my cup of tea.” should be disqualified as a jurist to assure a fair trial for the defendant.

She has already judged the defendant and in a normal trial would NEVER be seated. But we all know this is not a normal trial and simply shows democrats don't think Trump should be allowed a fair trial. To them he is BELOW the law.

Once again you prove what a waste of time you are.

She claims she does not respect Trump but will evaluate the evidence impartially.
The majority of the evidence has nothing to do with the Trump “persona”
It will involve business records, personal checks, testimony of key witnesses

That evidence will either support a crime or not

 

[Care4all]

It's why you're a waste of time, Mr. Lacks Integrity. You can't even answer a simple question because you're afraid of what it shows.

Anyone who says “He just seems very selfish and self-serving so I don’t really appreciate that in any public servant, so I don’t know him as a person, so I don’t know how he is in terms of his integrity,” she added. “It’s just not my cup of tea.” should be disqualified as a jurist to assure a fair trial for the defendant.

She has already judged the defendant and in a normal trial would NEVER be seated. But we all know this is not a normal trial and simply shows democrats don't think Trump should be allowed a fair trial.

To democrats, Trump is BELOW the law.

Once again you prove what a waste of time you are.

Why didn't the defense team use ONE of their allotted rejections, if she was that bad???

 

[buckeye]

She claims she does not respect Trump but will evaluate the evidence impartially.

Gawd but you're stupid.

If she doesn't respect Trump she has already judged him.

 

[rightwinger]

Gawd but you're stupid.

If she doesn't respect Trump she has already judged him.

Many, many criminals are not respected by juries.
Criminals are like that
As a rule, criminals are not likeable people

But juries still evaluate the evidence on its own merits and deliver a fair and impartial verdict

 

[buckeye]

Why didn't the defense team use ONE of their allotted rejections, if she was that bad???

I'm not following the trial but I would guess they had to use them on worst prospective jurors.

This will be overturned in appeals. Merchan likely knows this. He's delivering what his betters have demanded of him and the "lets destroy democracy democrats" are desperate to get so their Dementia Patient candidate will have a better chance to win.

 

[buckeye]

Many, many criminals are not respected by juries.

This is my last reply to you. You're a waste of time and too stupid.

If you were called to be a jurist and told the judge that you didn't respect the defendant you would immediately be dismissed.

It's how it works and its the only fair way for it to work.

 

[rightwinger]

This is my last reply to you. You're a waste of time and too stupid.

If you were called to be a jurist and told the judge that you didn't respect the defendant you would immediately be dismissed.

It's how it works and its the only fair way for it to work.

Jurys do not have to like the person on trial
Again, most criminals do not present well to a jury.

But this trial is mostly about evidence and will be quite boring.
Business records, checks, the law as it relates to the trial

She will be asked to decide whether the evidence supports a crime…..not whether she likes Trump or not

 

[Care4all]

I'm not following the trial but I would guess they had to use them on worst prospective jurors.

This will be overturned in appeals. Merchan likely knows this. He's delivering what his betters have demanded of him and the "lets destroy democracy democrats" are desperate to get so their Dementia Patient candidate will have a better chance to win.

No one demanded this from him.

Plus the investigation began long before trump decided to run and make his announcement.

And if Trump's attorney did not use one of his rejections on her, it makes it hard for him to use her, for an appeal.

 

[leftwinger]

Paul Ingrassia

Ingrassia: Alvin Bragg’s Case Against President Trump Is A Total Scam With No Basis In Law, Fact, Or Reality​

There is no such thing, really, in criminal law as “moral” damages – or damages afflicting one’s conscience because of moral scandal resulting from an illicit affair. But to the extent any damages at allstemming from the fraud perpetrated here exist, that would be it (what else could there possibly be?). The State cannot prosecute President Trump on economic damages resulting from the State being denied taxable money because of how the law was structured before the 2018 change in the law. At the time of President Trump’s tax filing, it was perfectly legal to write-off hush money payments for an affair – trying him now, on a theory of damages, based on the changed law encounters serious ex post facto and double jeopardy problems, both of which are obviously unconstitutional.

 

[leftwinger]

Paul Ingrassia
The weaponization of the rule of law has reached a point beyond repair in New York State, with the ongoing trial being waged by District Attorney Alvin Bragg against President Donald Trump. Even at this late hour, the State has failed to prove 1) how President Trump falsified business records; 2) how the alleged falsification of the business records scheme was criminal; and 3) why that alleged crime should be prosecuted as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, which is the typical charge for falsification schemes under New York State Law.

Given that President Trump’s alleged wrongdoing is being treated as criminal misconduct, the burden of proof is for the State to prove that Donald Trump is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for every single element of the asserted crime. The legal burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” means that the prosecution must convince the jury that “there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial.” That incredibly high evidentiary threshold must be established for every single element of the crime alleged. What is more, criminal trials require unanimity on part of the jury; a hung jury will result in a mistrial, ultimately pushing the case back until after the November election, which is not what Bragg wants.

Obviously, the goal of Alvin Bragg and Letitia James is to prosecute – and put President Trump behind bars – as soon as possible (before election day ideally) to sabotage his chances of winning re-election. President Trump’s re-election appears increasingly like a foregone conclusion with the latest polls consistently putting him in a significant lead over Joe Biden.


President Trump is currently being tried under New York Penal Law 175.05. The law ordinarily makes it a misdemeanor, not a felony, to falsify business records with “intent to defraud.” The law permits, however, the District Attorney to upgrade what ordinarily would be considered a misdemeanor to a Class E felony if the intent to defraud is combined with an intent to commit another crime.

 

[leftwinger]

Ingrassia: Alvin Bragg’s Case Against President Trump Is A Total Scam With No Basis In Law, Fact, Or Reality​

Of course, the State has a heavy burden of proof to show that President Trump intended to defraud in the first place, let alone defraud with an intent to commit some other yet undefinable crime. Paying off an adult film actress, if that even occurred, is not a crime under New York law. The idea, then, that a fraud was intended, let alone committed, by what is widely recognized to be, at worst, a mere “clerical error” in how the President’s accountant reported the alleged payment to the tax collector, is absurd.

Nobody seems to be asking who was lied to in this case – was it the public? The IRS? The FEC? Moreover, even if a reporting error constitutes a lie, the lie must have been done with the requisite intent to be considered a fraud under law. Errors in and of themselves hardly make a lie, let alone impute criminal fraud upon the one making the error.

If the State is attempting to argue, for instance, that President Trump’s accountant, lawyer, or (so the State’s theory goes) whoever intentionally misrepresented the hush money payment to defraud the public, the onus is still on Bragg and his team (which conveniently includes the Biden-DOJ political appointee, Matthew Colangelo) to show on what basis the injured party — here, “the people,” or public — would have relied on such fraud, resulting in a specified damage to them.

 

[rightwinger]

Paul Ingrassia

Ingrassia: Alvin Bragg’s Case Against President Trump Is A Total Scam With No Basis In Law, Fact, Or Reality​

There is no such thing, really, in criminal law as “moral” damages – or damages afflicting one’s conscience because of moral scandal resulting from an illicit affair. But to the extent any damages at allstemming from the fraud perpetrated here exist, that would be it (what else could there possibly be?). The State cannot prosecute President Trump on economic damages resulting from the State being denied taxable money because of how the law was structured before the 2018 change in the law. At the time of President Trump’s tax filing, it was perfectly legal to write-off hush money payments for an affair – trying him now, on a theory of damages, based on the changed law encounters serious ex post facto and double jeopardy problems, both of which are obviously unconstitutional.

There is the rub..

Can an individual Trump write off a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels as a TRUMP business expense?

Trump now wanting Melania to know or running for President has nothing to do with TRUMP business expenses

 

[Care4all]

Nah, I know all the tricks to get out of jury duty.

Wish I knew those tricks early on! In the beginning I was too naive to know the tricks...then later I felt it was my duty, as a citizen to serve, when asked.

I've never found a defendant guilty, so far....

 

[leftwinger]

Under New York law, in order to prove fraud, the State must show, by clear and convincing evidence, each and every one of the following elements:

(1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact;

(2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity;

3) and intent to defraud;

(4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and

(5) resulting damage to the plaintiff.


Another salient legal issue that Bragg appears to have just blithely swept under the rug with this case is why, exactly, should President Trump be held vicariously criminally liable for an alleged clerical error committed by his accountant or his attorney, Michael Cohen, or whoever might have been overseeing his tax filings at the time the write-off was made? If, as President Trump has said, that it was Michael Cohen, not him, who decided pay off Stormy Daniels, Bragg should be investigating Cohen and forcing him into court, not President Trump.

Bragg has also failed to establish how the alleged fraud rises to a felony. The District Attorney claims that President Trump somehow committed a felony – again, despite not having committed a fraud in the first place, for one, and not being the one to file his tax returns, for two – even though the black letter law (again, §175.05) incontrovertibly treats the alleged misconduct here as a misdemeanor, not a felony!

Under the relevant law, crimes brought under Penal Law 175.05 may arise to a felony if and only if the District Attorney can prove that the alleged misdemeanor occurred to perpetuate or cover up anothercrime. Bragg plainly states that another crime was committed concomitantly with the clerical error that he is calling a misdemeanor here. But what crime, pray tell, he interestingly, incredulously, does not say!
The reason he does not state the crime is that he is relying, ultimately, on the sensationalized aspect of a hush money payment to engender the public perception that adulterous activity, though immoral, constitutes a felony under the law, even though that is patently not the case! The idea is to exploit and manipulate public opinion, naturally recalcitrant (though perhaps less so nowadays than in years past) to the concept of extramarital affairs — and then conflate those received public biases and strong emotions with tangled legal theories of criminality, distorting the law and sowing both legal and moral confusion in the process.

If it were truly the case that extramarital conduct should be imputed with legal significance, then hush money payments, which necessarily run downstream from such misconduct, would likewise be treated as unlawful. But hush money payments are permissible under law, and have been permissible for ages. Because hush money payments are lawful, Bragg’s legal theory is dead in the water.

But, for Bragg, et al., it does not matter what the law actually says. For Bragg, all he has to rely upon is how the public feels about certain allegations – which he is hoping will be enough of a foundation to prosecute the President’s alleged misdemeanor as a felony, and therefore put him behind bars, even though there is absolutely no basis for any of his hogwash theory whatsoever in either fact or law!

 

[leftwinger]

The reason he does not state the crime is that he is relying, ultimately, on the sensationalized aspect of a hush money payment to engender the public perception that adulterous activity, though immoral, constitutes a felony under the law, even though that is patently not the case! The idea is to exploit and manipulate public opinion, naturally recalcitrant (though perhaps less so nowadays than in years past) to the concept of extramarital affairs — and then conflate those received public biases and strong emotions with tangled legal theories of criminality, distorting the law and sowing both legal and moral confusion in the process.

If it were truly the case that extramarital conduct should be imputed with legal significance, then hush money payments, which necessarily run downstream from such misconduct, would likewise be treated as unlawful. But hush money payments are permissible under law, and have been permissible for ages. Because hush money payments are lawful, Bragg’s legal theory is dead in the water.

But, for Bragg, et al., it does not matter what the law actually says. For Bragg, all he has to rely upon is how the public feels about certain allegations – which he is hoping will be enough of a foundation to prosecute the President’s alleged misdemeanor as a felony, and therefore put him behind bars, even though there is absolutely no basis for any of his hogwash theory whatsoever in either fact or law!


suck on that maggots. Not so smart are ye!

 

[Cellblock2429]

It looks like he NYC Jury will be fair and impartial in judging Trump

I don’t like his persona,” she said. “I don’t like some of my coworkers, but I don’t try to sabotage their work.”

“He just seems very selfish and self-serving so I don’t really appreciate that in any public servant, so I don’t know him as a person, so I don’t know how he is in terms of his integrity,” she added. “It’s just not my cup of tea.”

In denying Trump’s challenge, Merchan said it’s not enough that she doesn’t like his persona because she said she was certain she could set that aside to be fair and impartial.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/politics/takeaway-day-3-trump-hush-money-trial/index.html

/—-/ The girls on trial in the Salem Witch Trials had a fairer jury pool.

 

[leftwinger]

There is the rub..

Can an individual Trump write off a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels as a TRUMP business expense?

Trump now wanting Melania to know or running for President has nothing to do with TRUMP business expenses

no time for witch hunts you dumb OX.

The State cannot prosecute President Trump on economic damages resulting from the State being denied taxable money because of how the law was structured before the 2018 change in the law. At the time of President Trump’s tax filing, it was perfectly legal to write-off hush money payments for an affair – trying him now, on a theory of damages, based on the changed law encounters serious ex post facto and double jeopardy problems, both of which are obviously unconstitutional.

 

[The Duke]

Wish I knew those tricks early on! In the beginning I was too naive to know the tricks...then later I felt it was my duty, as a citizen to serve, when asked.

I've never found a defendant guilty, so far....

Meh, who doesn't have something better to do than jury duty?

 

[rightwinger]

no time for witch hunts you dumb OX.

The State cannot prosecute President Trump on economic damages resulting from the State being denied taxable money because of how the law was structured before the 2018 change in the law. At the time of President Trump’s tax filing, it was perfectly legal to write-off hush money payments for an affair – trying him now, on a theory of damages, based on the changed law encounters serious ex post facto and double jeopardy problems, both of which are obviously unconstitutional.

They are not suing for economic damages
They are prosecuting for falsifying business records

It is legal to write off hush money as a business expense.
But not for your personal conduct outside of TRUMP international

Trump did not Fuk Stormy Daniels on behalf of TRUMP international
The hush money was to save personal embarassment and political damage to his campaign not to protect TRUMP International

 

[rightwinger]

. But hush money payments are permissible under law, and have been permissible for ages. Because hush money payments are lawful, Bragg’s legal theory is dead in the water.

If only Trump had paid the hush money from his personal account, he would not be on trial

But hiding it as a TRUMP business expense broke the law

The Jury will be instructed that this is not a trial of marital infidelity but one of falsifying business records