Predict the Trump verdict. (Poll)

[rampart]

Yup, and two lawyers on that jury are wondering how they would be able to defend against such overreaching and vague notions. That's only if they can find employment should they convict.

the 2 lawyers on that jury are thanking whatever gods they worship that they do not have the defense brief in this one.

 

[kyzr]

Based on the evidence, the only way there is a hung jury is if a Trump cultist snuck on to the jury.

So what "evidence" do you see as "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

1. The bookkeeping crime was concocted by Cohen and Weisselberg. There is no evidence that Trump knew what Cohen was up to, which is how Cohen stole $60,000. From Cohen's recording Trump said lets pay cash, and Cohen said "no,no,no, I got this". The two missing witnesses, Weisselberg and Shiller disproves the prosecution's case.

2. The super-secret crime is a Marchan joke. Without a "coverup" there is no crime, just an expired misdemeanor.
From Jonathan Turley:
"For many of us, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has created a new school of abstract law where there is no need for objective meaning. The jury is simply supposed to enjoy it for what it is: a chance to convict Donald Trump.
Merchan has ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation (which Bragg cannot enforce), and a third believing there was a tax violation, respectively. Nonetheless, Merchan will treat that as a unanimous verdict."

 

[kyzr]

I don’t see anything supporting your prior claim that the NY law is not Constitutional because it doesn’t require a conviction of the secondary law violation.

Prosecuting the super-secret crime being covered up is clearly unconstitutional. It violates the 6th Amendment.

Sixth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving terrorism, but much more often figures in cases that involve (for example) jury selection or the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses in need of protection from retaliation.

 

[berg80]

Trey Gowdy (who I'm not a fan of) mentioned it's odd 2 lawyers were seated and that he would seat a "defendants mother before a lawyer". So that makes me question if the lawyers were intentionally seated to influence the other members of the jury. We now the judge wasn't a random pick, so does anyone think the same wasn't done with the jury?

I have to admit I'm not up on the latest conspiracy theories about the case. Could you elaborate.

 

[berg80]

Prosecuting the super-secret crime being covered up is clearly unconstitutional. It violates the 6th Amendment.

Sixth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving terrorism, but much more often figures in cases that involve (for example) jury selection or the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses in need of protection from retaliation.

Just wondering, do you see the hypocrisy of Trump claiming this trial is about election interference of his campaign for the presidency when a major aspect of it is about his own election interference by keeping his adulterous, sexual affair a secret from the voting public?

 

[Hellokitty]

I have to admit I'm not up on the latest conspiracy theories about the case. Could you elaborate.

LOL, the case is based on democrat conspiracy, so I can understand it being hard to keep up.

 

[MagicMike]

the trial is being held in a district that voted nearly 90% for Briben .

So what?
These jurors aren't voting in a general election in this trial. It is possible for someone who voted for your President (Biden) to do their job and remain impartial when considering the facts of this trial.
It wouldn't be the same if it was the other way around and the jury was made up of Trump voters.
You must know that.

 

[AntonToo]

So what "evidence" do you see as "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

1. The bookkeeping crime was concocted by Cohen and Weisselberg. There is no evidence that Trump knew what Cohen was up to

Thats just a silly strawman considering that is was done to help Trump himself, that he was a notorious micromanager and that 8 out of the exactly 12x$35k paychecks agreed to had his signature on them.

This aside from Trump being on tape discussing payments of this type for McDougal story, this aside from Cohen's uncontradicted sworn testimony that him and Weisellburg took the repayment plan straight to Trump that very same day and he aproved it.

No way in hell the jury buys that bs, especially considering Trump coudn't be bothered to testify to contradict Cohen.

 

[MagicMike]

It's NYC, with NYC prosecutors, NYC judges, and NYC jurors.

Also where Trump has lived and worked almost his whole life and where most of his crimes have been committed.

So I will assume Trump will be found guilty,

Good

and will be sentenced to a longer prison sentence, than someone who pushes someone off the gutter they call the NYC subway system!

He is facing a maximum of 136 years in prison if convicted on all felony counts.
It is highly unlikely he'll see any hard prison time. He's gotten defferential treatment throughout this whole trial so sententencing probably won't be much different.
It's a two-tiered justice system when it comes to trump. Who else could be found in contempt of court ten frigging times and not have his ass hauled to lockup for the remainder of the trial.
Or,
Merchan could take into account Trump's public statements toward the court into account (lack of remorse) and consider him likely to offend again, in addition to his history of sexual assault and the fact that he has other feliny cases pending against him and decide that a slap on the wrist is not enough.
Even if Merchan sentenced Trump to four years MAGAts should consider that a LUGHT sentence compared to 136 max.

I'll be stunned if even one juror tries to show some objectivity,

You spelled bias wrong.

and gives us a hung jury.

That would mean a retrial.

We'll see, but there is little reason to be optimistic IMO. Hope I'm wrong, but the DNC is all set with a series of commercials to run with the theme of course, of being able to refer to Trump as a 'convicted felon'.

Good.

 

[AntonToo]

From Jonathan Turley:
"For many of us, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has created a new school of abstract law where there is no need for objective meaning. The jury is simply supposed to enjoy it for what it is: a chance to convict Donald Trump.
Merchan has ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation (which Bragg cannot enforce), and a third believing there was a tax violation, respectively. Nonetheless, Merchan will treat that as a unanimous verdict."

Turley is full of crap. The MEANING is objective - if Trump falsified records to break any of those laws then he did so criminaly.

It doesn't matter to the criminal charge which one it was and in fact the jury may unanimously narrow down on the same secondary crime(s) in their verdict.

 

[berg80]

LOL, the case is based on democrat conspiracy, so I can understand it being hard to keep up.

Wait, Trump paying for Daniels' silence weeks before the election to keep the public from learning he fucked a porn star while his wife was home with their infant child is a Dem conspiracy? Were there any Dems in the room when the plan was formed? Are you saying Weisselberg is a Dem?

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats are desperate for Trump to be found guilty of something. They long for revenge on the guy who has tormented them for years.

 

[berg80]

Here's another prediction. Trump will whine like a little ***** over Merchan's instructions to the jury.

 

[berg80]

Democrats are desperate for Trump to be found guilty of something. They long for revenge on the guy who has tormented them for years.

If by tormented you mean confounded Dems by him doing unspeakably traitorous things for which his cult forgives him, then yes.

 

[BluesLegend]

If by tormented you mean confounded Dems by him doing unspeakably traitorous things for which his cult forgives him, then yes.

LMAO so ah tormented.

 

[Rogue AI]

I don’t see anything supporting your prior claim that the NY law is not Constitutional because it doesn’t require a conviction of the secondary law violation.

There is no due process for a mystery crime, nor any requirement to even prove the charges relate to said mystery crime. 175-10 was never intended to be used in such a farcical manner.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Over and over and over.

 

[AntonToo]

There is no due process for a mystery crime

There is absolutely a due process for the charges against Trump, which are all Falsifying Bussiness Records In The First Degree.

 

[berg80]

There is no due process for a mystery crime, nor any requirement to even prove the charges relate to said mystery crime. 175-10 was never intended to be used in such a farcical manner.

Some people don't really think the illegal hush money payments, that potentially allowed Trump to win, were farcical. They were part of a series of events leading to the tragedy of Individual 1's term in office.

 

[berg80]

There is absolutely a due process for the charges against Trump, which are all falsification of bussiness records in the first degree.

In Trumpworld if he does it it's not a crime.