Trump Guilty!

[Man With A Plan]

That's true, actually. ANYONE who breaks the law can face prosecution. Bragg just proved not even Don the Felon can escape that.

What Bragg has proven is that the rule of law doesn't exist in New York City.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Shit. Have you even figured out yet what the underlying crime was?

Beating Hillary in 2016? Trying to beat Joe Biden in 2024?

 

[Faun]

No one has

LOL

The jury did.

34 times.

 

[surada]

Of course...that's why the delay in bringing charges, Lisa! They wanted to use this against Trump in 2024. Drain his money. Keep him tied up in court so he couldn't campaign. Use the label "convicted felon" against him on a non stop loop to distract from how badly Joe Biden has screwed up this country!

Trump should have considered that when he was breaking the law.

 

[Faun]

What Bragg has proven is that the rule of law doesn't exist in New York City.

Poor baby.

He just won 34 convictions against a criminal.

 

[Faun]

Beating Hillary in 2016? Trying to beat Joe Biden in 2024?

Nope and nope.

 

[Flopper]

Shit. Have you even figured out yet what the underlying crime was?

You don't need to figure anything. Most of the trial was about Trump's violation of state and federal election laws and covering it up by falsifying business records.

 

[Lisa558]

Donald Trump knew exactly what the charges were. They were specified in the indictment.
New York Penal Law § 175.10: Falsifying business records in the first degree
A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

The statue does not require that the defendant actually commit the underlying crime, only that there was intent. Thus there is no requirement of a prior conviction of the underlying crime(s). In the juries deliberations, they will determine it the defendant committed the underlying crime(s) however, the defendant does not have to be charged with the underlying crimes. Such charges both state and federal could be forthcoming.

The underlying crimes, violation of federal and state election laws are in the prosecution's opening and closing statements and most likely in discovery documents.

The jury wasn’t given the facts to make a proper decision. The judge blocked Trump’s expert witness from testifying as to how Trump did not violate election law.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You don't need to figure anything. Most of the trial was about Trump's violation of state and federal election laws and covering it up by falsifying business records.

Indeed. Actually a pretty simple case. Didn’t take the jury long to wrap it up.

 

[Flopper]

The jury wasn’t given the facts to make a proper decision. The judge blocked Trump’s expert witness from testifying as to how Trump did not violate election law.

Since Smith had no knowledge of Trump's campaign expense reporting, he would not be allowed to render an opinion on his innocent are guilt. However, the Judge did not stop Smith from testifying. That decision was made by the Defense.

 

[Flopper]

Indeed. Actually a pretty simple case. Didn’t take the jury long to wrap it up.

Yes, it was a very simple case. It is only complicated by Trump supporters who choose to make it so.

 

[SweetSue92]

Bring it, dipshit.

Pedophile enabler Jim Jordan and Low-IQ James Comer have been trying for YEARS to find a crime committed by Joe Biden.

Even their own witnesses embarrassed them, admitting they have NOTHING.

We'll start with Mayorkas in the red states. Easy. Don't cry about it. "No one is above the law"

 

[SweetSue92]

Yes, it was a very simple case. It is only complicated by Trump supporters who choose to make it so.

Texas is gonna drag Mayorkas into court. Don't cry about it

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The jury wasn’t given the facts to make a proper decision. The judge blocked Trump’s expert witness from testifying as to how Trump did not violate election law.

He didn't block his so-called expert witness?

Why didn't Trump attorneys call witnesses?

Why didn't Trump testify? He always has plenty to say unless it is under oath.

 

[Boo Radley]

Why didn't Trump testify?

Take a guess.

 

[Lisa558]

Since Smith had no knowledge of Trump's campaign expense reporting, he would not be allowed to render an opinion on his innocent are guilt. However, the Judge did not stop Smith from testifying. That decision was made by the Defense.

The expert witness knew that what Trump was accused of doing was not illegal. So that means he didn’t have to know if Trump did it or not.

Ex: Lisa is accused of making a hamburger for dinner. The prosecutor is trying her for that and trying to prove it to the jury. An expert witness testifies that making hamburger is not illegal. End of case.

As far as the defense stopping the expert witness, that was because the judge refused to grant immunity. It was the judge’s way of blocking the testimony.

You libs are evil. This was a nothing case about a misdemeanor - if THAT - and used by the Dems to stop their #1 political rival for preventing the continued transformation of America. That they even got this far with a sham charge shows just how far into that transformation we have sunk.

 

[Lisa558]

You don't need to figure anything. Most of the trial was about Trump's violation of state and federal election laws and covering it up by falsifying business records.

The judge refused to grant the expert witness immunity. Trump violated no election laws, which is why he was never charged for it - before the SOROS-funded DA got his marching orders.

Answer me this: why did Bragg work so hard to come up with a novel theory to resurrect an expired misdemeanor and then turn it into multiple felonies when he works so hard to lower felony charges of violent thugs down to misdemeanors?

Or, more simply: Would Bragg have spent millions of taxpayer money if this had been anyone else but Trump?

 

[JoeB131]

There’s a requirement that….

1) a defendant gets to know what he’s charged with - not a selection of possibilities, and not first introduced at the point of jury instructions

He knew exactly what he was charged with. 34 counts of document fraud.

2) a defendant can present a defense, not have his expert witness blocked by a biased judge because the witness will explain why Trump did not election law was violated

He's entitled to bring on relevant witnesses. There's no doubt that election laws were violated, that's why they had to be covered up. If the whole scheme was on the up and up, he wouldn't have needed to hide it.

3) a defendant is entitled to an impartial judge - not one manipulating the trial for a predetermined outcome of guilty

Merchan was more than fair. Any other defendant acting like Trump would have gotten to spend the night at Rikers thinking about what he did wrong.

4) a defendant is entitled to an impartial jury, not one culled by a far-left libersl jurisdiction

Two of the jurors got their news from Fox News and Truth Social. That one doesn't fly.

5) a defendant is entitled to protection of his 1st amendment rights - NOT be the only individual under a “gag” order, especially when his adversary is a known liar and convicted perjurer and allowed to shoot his mouth off

Which Adversary is that? Cohen was also constrained by a gag order.

Why are you picking on Cohen, because he's Jewish? What kind of an anti-semite are you?

6) a defendant is entitled to protection from prosecutorial misconduct, in which a biased DA promises to “get“ him, but doesn’t yet have a crime he has identified

Well, good thing a crime was identified.

7) finally, a defendant is entitled to equal application of the law - not subjected to a novel, convoluted path to resurrecting an expired misdemeanor and elevating it to felony by the same DA who takes violent felonies committed by others and downgrades them to misdemeanors.

Um, it's called "Prosecutorial discretion".

 

[Billiejeens]

LOL

The jury did.

34 times.

They didn't
They Judge told them that they didn't have to.

 

[Faun]

He didn't block his so-called expert witness?

Why didn't Trump attorneys call witnesses?

Why didn't Trump testify? He always has plenty to say unless it is under oath.

Trump was NEVER going to testify, despite his earlier bravado to the contrary. Two questions he COULDN'T answer under oath...

Did you have sex with Karen McDougal?

Did you have sex with Stormy Daniels?