Trump formally appeals his New York hush money conviction

[Rawley]

If saying "I don't know whether it will or won't but at least it will be in a court of law." is a mark of confidence, all I can say is, thanks.

No, you claimed

"Obviously the "people" were not in the courtroom, and not sitting in the Jury Box of Jurors selected randomly and approved by Trump's defense team, and provable, as they did not exhaust objections to potential jurors. They simply were incompetent to defend, or else, Trump actually did commit the acts, beyond any doubt."

Your Alzheimers flaring up?

 

[BackAgain]

Because campaigns, candidates, the election, etc was not in any testimony during the trial, where a Jury (approved by the defense) found him guilty by unanimous verdict on 34 criminal counts, and will not be in the appeal, either.

A charade of a trial by far left liberals in a deep blue state on absurd charges.

It will fall flat.

 

[White 6]

No, you claimed

"Obviously the "people" were not in the courtroom, and not sitting in the Jury Box of Jurors selected randomly and approved by Trump's defense team, and provable, as they did not exhaust objections to potential jurors. They simply were incompetent to defend, or else, Trump actually did commit the acts, beyond any doubt."

Your Alzheimers flaring up?

Oh, that comment. Yes, I am extremely confident, "the people" in the jury box, did not think "people recognized the 34 felony convictions were 100% bullshit" or they would not have found him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt on all 34 felony counts charged, and equally confident the people that did/or do, think they were bullshit, were not sitting in the courtroom at all, except for the defense team, that failed to convince a jury of that. If you do not like jury trials, and you are charged with a crime, feel free to make a motion that it be a bench trial, instead of a jury trial, based on the advice of competent attorney, but of course, I would not recommend Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles, as Trump chose.

 

[gtopa1]

Because campaigns, candidates, the election, etc was not in any testimony during the trial, where a Jury (approved by the defense) found him guilty by unanimous verdict on 34 criminal counts, and will not be in the appeal, either.

Is "Approved by the defense" the same as being "not being challenged"?

No, "approved by the defense" is not the same as "not being challenged," although they can be related. "Approved by the defense" is a legal term implying a formal, active agreement or acceptance, while "not being challenged" suggests a lack of opposition, which could be due to a lack of effort or approval.

If you can find what the Defense did exactly then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din!!! lol

Greg

 

[Rawley]

Oh, that comment. Yes, I am extremely confident, "the people" in the jury box, did not think "people recognized the 34 felony convictions were 100% bullshit" or they would not have found him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt on all 34 felony counts charged, and equally confident the people that did/or do, think they were bullshit, were not sitting in the courtroom at all, except for the defense team, that failed to convince a jury of that. If you do not like jury trials, and you are charged with a crime, feel free to make a motion that it be a bench trial, instead of a jury trial, based on the advice of competent attorney, but of course, I would not recommend Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles, as Trump chose.

Given Merchan's unprecedented bias against Trump, what leads you to believe he would have fares any better in a bench trial?

 

[White 6]

Is "Approved by the defense" the same as being "not being challenged"?

No, "approved by the defense" is not the same as "not being challenged," although they can be related. "Approved by the defense" is a legal term implying a formal, active agreement or acceptance, while "not being challenged" suggests a lack of opposition, which could be due to a lack of effort or approval.

If you can find what the Defense did exactly then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din!!! lol

Greg

Correct. They had challenges remaining. If not challenged by defense, they were approved by defense.

 

[gtopa1]

And now from the BBC:

Sixty of 96 potential jurors were quick to say they could not be impartial after proceedings began on Monday.
Jury selection continues on Tuesday, and could take up to two weeks.
The dismissals on day one were an indication of how challenging it could be to find a group of 12 impartial jurors for such a unique case. It concerns a high-profile sex scandal that involves a former president who is running once again for the White House.
"I just couldn't do it," one prospective juror was heard saying as she left court.
The Manhattan District Attorney's Office alleges that Mr Trump directed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to pay Ms Daniels $130,000 (£104,000) in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter that the former president denies took place.
Prosecutors say he did so to "unlawfully influence" the 2016 election. Mr Trump has pleaded not guilty.
Jury selection began in the afternoon. The judge started by dismissing jurors who raised their hand to say they could not be impartial, leaving about 34 people.
Those left were then grilled on 42 questions in the jury questionnaire, including on their news-reading habits, whether they had attended any Trump rallies or read any of the former president's books.
Eighteen were placed at random in the jury box, and they answered the questionnaire one by one.
One man from Midtown Manhattan said that he read the Wall Street Journal. Another from the Upper West Side said his radio habits included listening to whatever was on when he was in the shower. He later clarified he meant NPR.
Neither was dismissed immediately.
A woman was asked: "Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former president Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president, that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"
She simply replied "yes" and was dismissed, although Mr Trump's team initially objected to excusing her for reasons they did not explain.
All jurors will remain anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, although Mr Trump's legal team and prosecutors will know their identities.

Trump trial: Dozens of jurors rejected as they say they cannot be impartial

The selection process continues on Tuesday - with dozens of potential jurors already dismissed on grounds of bias.

www.bbc.com

As clear as mud.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Correct. They had challenges remaining. If not challenged by defense, they were approved by defense.

BUT but but they are not THE SAME or so the reference says.

Greg

 

[Rawley]

Correct. They had challenges remaining. If not challenged by defense, they were approved by defense.

Dude, why are you making shit up? They exhausted all their peremptory challenges.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/19/donald-trump-jury-00153466

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Maybe he should not have paid the hush money to the women he was cheating on his wife with. If he wasn't a low moral piece of shit, he would not have run afoul of the Laws of New York.

He really is a dope. It did not even keep them quiet, so everybody found out what a scumbag he was, anyway.
View attachment 1178432

Paying hush money isn't illegal in New York

 

[gtopa1]

Is "Approved by the defense" the same as being "not being challenged"?

No, "approved by the defense" is not the same as "not being challenged," although they can be related. "Approved by the defense" is a legal term implying a formal, active agreement or acceptance, while "not being challenged" suggests a lack of opposition, which could be due to a lack of effort or approval.

If you can find what the Defense did exactly then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din!!! lol

Greg

From Rawley's sauce (lol)

One juror, who was seated after Trump’s legal team had used up all of their peremptory challenges, says that she “doesn’t like [Trump’s] persona, how he presents himself in public.” But she made sure to add, eliciting laughs in court, that “I don’t like some of my co-workers, but I don’t try to sabotage their work.”

 

[MagicMike]

It's still a Democrat lawfare witch hunt that will not stand. Trump won in part because of Democrat lawfare-
Trump's arrest, the FBI raid on Trump's home, the bullshit NY hush money case, and the insane sex freak's NY civil lawsuit.
It didn't work.

Do you honestly think this grifter conman is always innocent of every crime he is charged with?

 

[Marener]

The appeal calls it the "most politically charged prosecution" in U.S. history.

No, that would be the prosecution of James Comey.

 

[DonGlock26]

Do you honestly think this grifter conman is always innocent of every crime he is charged with?

The grifter was the last president who was shitting his pants in the Oval Office.

 

[Rawley]

No, that would be the prosecution of James Comey.

Yes, because as we all know COmey is the next Democratic Party Nominee for the Presidency of the United States. LOL You're hoot Mare, a hoot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Obviously the "people" were not in the courtroom, and not sitting in the Jury Box of Jurors selected randomly and approved by Trump's defense team, and provable, as they did not exhaust objections to potential jurors. They simply were incompetent to defend, or else, Trump actually did commit the acts, beyond any doubt.

Jurors selected “randomly” from a jury pool that votes 95% liberal democrats. Trump’s council used every preemptive challenge available to them but they didn’t have enough to winnow out all the liberal democrats who hated Trump. If I remember correctly, the judge banned the defense from using the social media posts of the jurors to impeach them for cause. Add in the open conflict of interest by the judge’s daughter, the horrible rulings from the bench and the jury instructions that sounded like ordering from the menu of a Chinese restaurant and there was no way Trump wasn’t going to be convicted.

 

[White 6]

Jurors selected “randomly” from a jury pool that votes 95% liberal democrats. Trump’s council used every preemptive challenge available to them but they didn’t have enough to winnow out all the liberal democrats who hated Trump. If I remember correctly, the judge banned the defense from using the social media posts of the jurors to impeach them for cause. Add in the open conflict of interest by the judge’s daughter, the horrible rulings from the bench and the jury instructions that sounded like ordering from the menu of a Chinese restaurant and there was no way Trump wasn’t going to be convicted.

Talk to trump's lawyers or trump himself. They did not run out of allotted number of challenges. They obviously were satisfied with jury selection. His defense team just thought they could convince that jury to disregard the evidence. They were wrong, and unprepared to meet the charges and evidence presented, hence the unanimous votes to convict on all charges. So, Trump is a felon. Moral: If you are on trial, do not pick lawyers better on FAUX NEWS and courthouse steps, than in a courtroom, in front of a judge. If you can afford it, and wish to spend the money, you should pick a dream team of top defense litigators in the country, unless too cheap to pay lawyers, have a history of not paying lawyers, or think you can skate, because of who you are.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Talk to trump's lawyers or trump himself. They did not run out of allotted number of challenges. They obviously were satisfied with jury selection. His defense team just thought they could convince that jury to disregard the evidence. They were wrong, and unprepared to meet the charges and evidence presented, hence the unanimous votes to convict on all charges. So, Trump is a felon. Moral: If you are on trial, do not pick lawyers better on FAUX NEWS and courthouse steps, than in a courtroom, in front of a judge. If you can afford it, and wish to spend the money, you should pick a dream team of top defense litigators in the country, unless too cheap to pay lawyers, have a history of not paying lawyers, or think you can skate, because of who you are.

TL;DR

In other words pull an OJ not a Trump.

WW

 

[HaShev]

I told you Soros was manipulating and controling the jury pools as with DA's and Judges, just as I described his antics liken to those in the movie "Devils Advocate"
which is loosely based on him and his control on the system.

Soros-linked DC activist group teaches how to be ‘skeptical jurors’ to combat Trump admin policies

“Jury duty is not just a civic responsibility; it’s a powerful tool for ensuring fairness and justice.”

thepostmillennial.com