Why the Sudden Doubts about the Verdict?

[Man With A Plan]

So we’ve gone from none to too many?

You've gone from none...to still none! The prosecution promised a crime. They didn't deliver.

 

[AntonToo]

Produce that for us, Fort...

... you seriously can't google it?

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

 

[Rawley]

Actually. The law was written to stop people from taking their secretaries and mistresses on vacation and calling it a business expense.

LOL good one.

 

[Man With A Plan]

... you seriously can't google it?

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

Dude...pay attention! Those are the misdemeanors that had expired under the statute of limitations...in order for Bragg to use those and bump them up to a felony he needs to show another crime that hasn't expired. Bragg refused to name said crime in the indictments saying that he wasn't required to do so until trial. So now that the trial is basically over...where is the crime that Bragg promised?

 

[MagicMike]

At the beginnng and through most of the trial, Democrats on her were crowing about Trump going to prison, Republicans being forced to vote for a felon, etc. Now the attitude seems to be "wait and see," and the moral cowardice of, "I'll respect the jury's verdict."

Even the WaPo is lowering expectations - they defining "high expectations" as a former president and current frontrunner literally imprisoned by the opposition party, banana republic style.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/21/forget-everything-you-think-you-know-about-what-trump-jury-will-do/

I would caution people, based on my own experience, to remember that their experience from the outside is as different than the jury’s as the courtroom sketches are from the reality of being there in person. And I would note that Trump’s guilt will ultimately be decided not on whether the public thinks the case has been made or even on whether the jury does, but instead on the conversation the jury has within the constraints of evidence and the law to which they have been exposed.

And no one can reliably predict how that conversation will unfold.

I don't get it. If the evidence is so strong, and the judge so fair, and the Jury made of savvy New Yorkers who won't be put off by the likes of fellow New Yorker Michael Cohen, why doubt the outcome? If Trump's actions are so proven, and they fit so well into a clearly defined crime, and the witnesses so credible, why would you not predict a swift verdict of guilty on all counts?

Team Trump barely responded to the prosecution's case. Two witnesses, both of whome the fair judge cut off from answering. The jury will consider only the prosecution's examinations, the defense's cross, and the closing arguments. How can you doubt a victory for your side?

Is is possible that this is the answer, incredible as it may seem:

Did you really and truly not know what a farce this trial was from the beginning? Did you believe your own nonsense about no one being above the law, and this case being a simple example of Donald Trump finally facing trial for his crimes as anyone else would? Now, having seen how absurdly weak and counter to the law, this prosecution is, you pretend that you only care that the process was carried out, and you were never expecting a particular outcome?

I'm disappointed in you, really. I would have expected you to keep up the cry of "Felon Trump" right up until the hung jury was announced and then to denounce the sneaky Trumpers who must have lied their way onto the jury.

But, you will respect the findings, eh?

I look forward to seeing you keep that promise.

It could come down to a hung jury in which case we'll all have to just respect the legal process and the jury's decision....even if we don't like it.

 

[Robert W]

Actually. The law was written to stop people from taking their secretaries and mistresses on vacation and calling it a business expense.

I believe such laws come from Democrats. It is the system used to control humans in the USA.

In better words, it is the invention of laws. Where none exist, the democrats impose them to control The USA.

 

[SweetSue92]

Did you watch the same trial?

Witness described conversations with Trump where they talked about doing what Trump is accused of doing. Audio recordings show Trump telling people to do what he is accused of doing. Documentation was presented where Trump did what he is accused of doing.

Next question?

You can't explain it clearly because there's no THERE there. But we knew this

 

[SweetSue92]

Typhoid Sue, your trolling is low grade. And kind of stupid. "Nuh uh" is not a good defense.

Okay Turbo Cancer Indiana

 

[AntonToo]

Dude...pay attention! Those are the misdemeanors

DUDE learn how to google.

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10

That's a felony.

NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov

www.nysenate.gov

 

[Seymour Flops]

The mainstream media is acknowledging the likelihood of a hung jury. As I figured, they are speculating about a lone jury holdout.



I think that is a tactical error. No doubt, a big part of the reason the judge gave the jurors so many days off after testimony ended was so that they could be exposed to as much media spin as possible before reconvening.

Just by the medias mentioning of a hung jury so many times, they will be conditioned to believe that a hung jury is not only acceptable, but likely.

No doubt, the judge will try to convince them otherwise, if he still believes the majority would convict.

However strong their feelings are about Trump and in whatever direction, they must be tired of this whole nonsense by now. Not tired enough for either side to simply give up though. But, either side could convince themselves that a hung jury would be a victory. Anti-Trump jury members can tell themselves that at least he wasn’t found innocent.

At this point, against a poster with whom I have wagered before, I would be willing to lay odds that the jury will be hung.

 

[Batcat]

And Litman says that the Prosecution has proven the case while the defense was scattershot.

Litman: Trump's hush money trial is about to go to the jury. What's the most likely verdict?

New York prosecutors presented a credible narrative. The defense relied mainly on undermining prosecution witnesses such as Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

www.latimes.com

Time will tell who is right. Of course that may be determined in the higher courts on appeal.

 

[para bellum]

They provided three qualifying crimes for the jury. If you haven’t heard that, then you should stop reading radical RW sites in lieu of news.

Well, the jury has not heard them, only the judge and the parties know the object crime (in theory). Bragg is claiming a criminal conspiracy to influence an election by violating FECA campaign contribution limits.

Hypothetical- A candidate writes an autobiography. Some people who are not connected to his campaign get together and buy thousands of copies of the book, and boost it to the NYT "best sellers" list. Say it's $25 per copy, maybe they spend $1 Million and buy 40,000 copies.

They didn't really want the books- they end up in a storage locker somewhere, maybe they donate some to libraries, or give them away at events, whatever. They just wanted to boost the candidate's stature in the public eye, and it worked. The media are all talking about it, the candidate is a "NYT Best Selling author", etc, etc.

Did they break the law? Was that an illegal campaign contribution? Did they conspire to influence an election by unlawful means?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bullshit. You've posted the misdemeanors that Bragg shoehorned onto an alleged "crime" that he wouldn't name in the indictments...stating that he didn't need to name it! Now the trial is almost over and we STILL don't know what the crime is!

No, the secondary crime has been posted to you. More than once. My little sealion troll.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Okay Turbo Cancer Indiana

Haha... still licking doorknobs?

 

[iku]

Guilty or not, he is and always still will be a sleazeball.

Is he a bigger sleazeball than Biden?

 

[Winco]

I believe such laws come from Democrats. It is the system used to control humans in the USA.

In better words, it is the invention of laws. Where none exist, the democrats impose them to control The USA.

Who is paying YOU to post the nonsense that you post?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Is he a bigger sleazeball than Biden?

Are you asking normal adults, or trump.cultists?

 

[Robert W]

Who is paying YOU to post the nonsense that you post?

I am reporting lessons I learned as a Democrat and why I changed and why Democrats are the problem Coach the Teacher.

 

[iku]

Are you asking normal adults, or trump.cultists?

I am asking a Biden.cultist

 

[Robert W]

I am asking a Biden.cultist

Here is how a real cult operates.

Our Manifesto

In this hour of general apostasy – when the brethren of our Lord (on every hand) are committing themselves in unholy unions with infidels, when the table of the Lord is turned into the table of...

www.thechurchofwells.com

Statement of Faith

I. The Holy Scriptures We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the verbally and plenary inspired words of God. The Scriptures are inerrant, infallible and God-breathed,...

www.thechurchofwells.com