Conviction is better.
- Thread starter Marshall Jeff
- Start date
You expect the New York appeals court to take up the appeal quickly?!?
Unfortunately, any Appeal decision or reversal would probably not happen until after the Election and after the damage has been done. That’s why they didn’t give a crap if they trashed the Constitution and broke all the rules.
In the long run, for all practical purposes, it won’t matter if it’s reversed wrt the Election. It will be too late. That’s the whole idea.
Last edited:
A conviction is all but guaranteed given the jury instructions that basically say “the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything “ for you to say guilty.
Plus, you can make up your own crime. Per the crooked jury instructions, members don’t even have to agree on what the crime is to be considered, in this case, unanimous.
Totally not American. Judge should be put in jail.
No. That’s just make believe bullshit.
Literally the absolute opposite of reality.
trumptard...is a trumptard. Is talking about trashing the Constitution while defending and supporting an ex president who engaged in insurrection against the Constitution of the United States and attempted to illegally overturn a free and fair election. Then there are those 88 FELONY indictments. You...stupid...punk.
Do yourself a favor and read the jury instructions Einstein.
They can claim he:
1.) Falsified Business Records (By listing Cohen’s attorney’s fee as a “Legal Fee”).
2.) Breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act (A Law which Bragg has no jurisdiction over because it is a Federal Charge and would have already passed the Statute of Limitations requirement).
3.) Submitting false information on a tax return (Because even though the Government received MORE tax revenue because of how Trump structured the payments to Cohen, Trump listed the payments to Cohen as “legal fees”-taxable, instead of as a REIMBURSEMENT for a non deductible payment - nontaxable).
The jurors don’t all have to agree unanimously on what the crime was he was INTENDING to commit. That was never defined or specified in testimony. They only have to unanimously agree that he INTENDED to commit a crime, and name the crime of their choosing.
Last edited:
You libs live in LA LA land. The judge did what he did.. it goes against our court system.
Hell the White House says they're going to speak after a verdict. They were hosting campaign conferences there.
What planet do you all live on? We live in a real banana Republic now.
The judge is a democrat operative...literally.
Do you all even pay attention to the world around you?
Hell the White House says they're going to speak after a verdict. They were hosting campaign conferences there.
What planet do you all live on? We live in a real banana Republic now.
The judge is a democrat operative...literally.
Do you all even pay attention to the world around you?
Never been a trial like this. Judges instructions are bizarre.
This country is turned upside down.
This country is turned upside down.
Reimbursement for making a payment to a porn star is not a legal fee.
Maybe you ought to read the charges in the indictment. trumptard.
In order to conceal the payments
They can choose from:
tax crime
breaking federal election law
breaking state election law
They aren’t bizarre at all. Jury instructions are as boiler plate as they can be. You can read the whole thing here:
Read the Jury Instructions in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial
The judge in former President Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, Juan M. Merchan, issued instructions to jurors on Wednesday that serve as a guide to applying the law in deliberations.
The relevant stuff starts around page 24. If you actually take the time to read it and don’t just regurgitate bad Twitter takes you’ll see that it’s 1) very boring and 2) very fair.
“They can chose from”????? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Good for you. Now you have finally identified the problem.
Just the fact you put “Federal Election Law” and “State Election Law” in that mix makes this a misdemeanor, which means it is past the Statute of Limitations. The State Election Crime would collapse into a Federal Election Crime, which would then take it out of Bragg’s authority and jurisdiction. The Feds would take over and they have already refused the Case years ago as being frivolous.
Funny how legal scholars say they were bizarre.They aren’t bizarre at all. Jury instructions are as boiler plate as they can be. You can read the whole thing here:
Read the Jury Instructions in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial
The judge in former President Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, Juan M. Merchan, issued instructions to jurors on Wednesday that serve as a guide to applying the law in deliberations.www.nytimes.com
The relevant stuff starts around page 24. If you actually take the time to read it and don’t just regurgitate bad Twitter takes you’ll see that it’s 1) very boring and 2) very fair.
You're an idiot. Prosecution is attempting to show the business records point to covering up a crime. They don't care which law the jury agrees to. This was covered pre trial. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
They're misdemeanors until you prove they were done to cover up another crime, they then become a felony. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don’t suppose you’d like to mention who, or where, or what parts they found “bizarre”?
Give him time to ask these questions to some of his customers on his sales calls this afternoon.
Ok, this is from the AP:
Now you tell me how in the hell this is legal or what a judge should do:
----------------
Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was.
--------
Herdman thoughts: hey jury, Juror 2 can say he is guilty of charge 2 , Juror 10 charge 3, Juror 5 charge 1.
Buffet style, just find something. Then, the damn judge through out something about tax evasion which was not even on there.
This judge was hand picked. He wasn't even in the rotation for the trial.
Jurors must search for truth in the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ case against Trump
As former President Donald Trump awaits a Manhattan jury’s verdict, he can be forgiven for feeling that his criminal trial resembles a surreal "Alice in Wonderland" farce. He is left to peer through a "Looking-Glass" where everything is backward.
The culprit for this hallucinatory nightmare is District Attorney Alvin Bragg who brought a bizarre case based on warped interpretations of law and distorted facts. It is now up to twelve jurors to wade through the lunacy in search of the illusive truth.
Bragg’s fractured case requires the jury to reach several distinct conclusions on issues that make little sense to begin with. A Ouija board might help.
Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified business records by booking payments to ex-porn star Stormy Daniels as "legal expenses" and that it was done to conceal or commit another uncharged crime not identified in the indictment. This is the so-called "mystery" or secondary crime that was never fully specified by the DA, even during the trial.
In other words, jurors must now guess. We’ll return to that in a moment. But the first step is to determine whether the record entries were accurate. If they were, there can be no secondary crime and the case should end with an acquittal.
This makes the records themselves the threshold question to resolve.
The Trump Organization controller testified that he alone made the decision to enter the term "legal expenses" in the company’s computer program. Why? Because the Daniels reimbursements were paid to the defendant’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, who handled the legal transaction.
No one, including Trump, directed the routine accounting decision. It was the only available choice that made sense. His critical testimony was corroborated by a bookkeeper. If believed, this effectively dissolves the prosecution’s case.
However, let’s say that jurors ignore such testimony and somehow agree that the records were falsified. They must then consider whether it was done to hide the other secondary crime. But what is that cryptic crime exactly? No one knows for sure, least of all the jury.
The Sixth Amendment requires prosecutors to inform every defendant "of the nature and cause of the accusations" against them. The deliberate refusal by the prosecution to do so in this case is an egregious violation of a hallowed constitutional right.
Only in closing arguments —after the trial testimony concluded and all of the evidence was presented— did the prosecutor finally reveal the enigma: it was a federal election crime. But wait. He then contradicted himself by claiming that it was a state crime. Which is it? As a matter of law, neither.
It can not be the former, because a local prosecutor has no authority to enforce a federal law. And it can not be the latter, because it was a federal election, not a state contest. State law has no application.
To complicate matters, Judge Juan Merchan is allowing jurors to consider a third option that prosecutors barely mentioned during the trial. That is, a tax law crime. Confused? You should be. Imagine what it’s like for the jury.
Evidence showed that reimbursements to Cohen were doubled so that he could pay appropriate taxes. Yet, prosecutors claim it was not taxable income but a nontaxable reimbursement, and that magically makes it a crime. Think about that for a moment.
Payment of taxes is now suddenly a crime? This must be the first case in American history where a person is being prosecuted for trying to pay taxes that the government now claims are not owed. It would be laughable, if it were not so serious. But there’s more.
Under Bragg’s twisted narrative, Trump willfully intended to commit fraud. Who exactly did he defraud? It wasn’t taxpayers, as noted above. It couldn’t be voters who had already cast their ballots by the time the "legal expenses" were booked after the election. That’s factually impossible. And it’s not the Federal Election Commission because the FEC concluded that the payments to Daniels did not qualify as a campaign contribution.
Yet, both the judge and prosecutors seemed utterly unbothered by the legal inconsistency and glaring uncertainty in the district attorney’s idiotic and senseless legal theory.
In furtherance of their concealment and fraud argument, prosecutors assert that Trump conspired with others to influence the 2016 election. Hold on. That’s not a crime. It’s what campaigns are designed to do. They exist for that very purpose. It can only be a crime if it was done by "unlawful means." What was unlawful?
Paying Stormy Daniels for a non-disclosure agreement is not illegal. It is perfectly lawful and quite common. Suppressing negative stories in the media may be unseemly or unethical, but it is also quite legal. Nevertheless, prosecutors used both to create the illusion of a crime where none actually exists.
In a normal case, both sides during closing arguments would explain to the jury how the law applies to the evidence presented at trial. But Merchan refused to allow it. He admonished lawyers in advance for planning to discuss the relevant law. That ranks high on the list of the most outrageous rulings ever rendered. It’s beyond incompetence, it’s a punitive deprivation of rights.
No one who has been following Merchan’s shameless antics is surprised.
Paying Stormy Daniels for a non-disclosure agreement is not illegal. It is perfectly lawful and quite common. Suppressing negative stories in the media may be unseemly or unethical, but it is also quite legal. Nevertheless, prosecutors used both to create the illusion of a crime where none actually exists.
In a normal case, both sides during closing arguments would explain to the jury how the law applies to the evidence presented at trial. But Merchan refused to allow it. He admonished lawyers in advance for planning to discuss the relevant law. That ranks high on the list of the most outrageous rulings ever rendered. It’s beyond incompetence, it’s a punitive deprivation of rights.
No one who has been following Merchan’s shameless antics is surprised.
Paying Stormy Daniels for a non-disclosure agreement is not illegal. It is perfectly lawful and quite common. Suppressing negative stories in the media may be unseemly or unethical, but it is also quite legal. Nevertheless, prosecutors used both to create the illusion of a crime where none actually exists.
In a normal case, both sides during closing arguments would explain to the jury how the law applies to the evidence presented at trial. But Merchan refused to allow it. He admonished lawyers in advance for planning to discuss the relevant law. That ranks high on the list of the most outrageous rulings ever rendered. It’s beyond incompetence, it’s a punitive deprivation of rights.
No one who has been following Merchan’s shameless antics is surprised.
As I explained in my previous column, the judge shredded Trump’s due process rights. He instructed the jury that they need not agree unanimously on which of the three secondary crimes or unlawful acts the defendant supposedly committed. Instead, they are free to pick and choose whatever they like without consensus. Four jurors may adopt one crime, four more can select another, and still four others can settle on the third. How can that be?
Unanimous jury decisions are a bedrock constitutional principle derived from the Sixth and Seventh Amendments. That requirement extends to all key issues, including every necessary element of an alleged crime and/or the establishment of secondary crimes.
This is an indispensable feature of jury trials. It’s what defines our rule of law and makes America’s system of justice the envy of the world.
But in the trial of Donald Trump, jurors can agree to disagree while still reaching the ultimate verdict in unanimity.
Only in an "Alice in Wonderland" case with a Mad Hatter judge could the cherished principles of fairness be turned upside down.
Jurors must search for truth in the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ case against Trump
D.A. Bragg brought a bizarre case based on warped interpretations of law and distorted facts. It is now up to twelve jurors to wade through the lunacy in search of the illusive truth.
You are pissing your rights away. If the Dems told you to wear a cloth mask and jump of the New RIver Gorge Bridge you would.
I am rich, I am not calling on anybody this afternoon. Hit my goal this month. I am a big winner this past week or so. Add that to the list.
Those aren’t separate charges. They’re separate means of the same charge, any one of which would get you found guilty. If everyone agrees he’s guilty of the charge, even if they don’t agree on which aspect of the charge he’s guilty of, they can still unanimously find him guilty of the charge.
So Jarrett is the "legal scholars" you referenced? Jarrett, the guy who has been mocked relentlessly for bogus legal claims? Jarret, the guy who was arrested for interfering with police and disorderly?Jurors must search for truth in the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ case against Trump
D.A. Bragg brought a bizarre case based on warped interpretations of law and distorted facts. It is now up to twelve jurors to wade through the lunacy in search of the illusive truth.www.foxnews.com
No, you aren't. Nobody who is rich would get in a deathmobile that their boss told them to drive to save the company $80 per month.
That is not what the judge said. This judge is biased and tainted. Hell, the jurors had to even get the instructions again about a few hours into it.
I wish I was on the jury. I would tell the others this judge is ****ed up. YOu can sit here all you want but I guarantee right now you have a hung jury and I will sit here for years if need be.
Find your own legal scholar on CNN or wherever.
You drive your mom's Maxima. I don't have the death mobile anymore. That was a long time ago.
That’s exactly what the judge said. I posted a link to what the judge said. Having to get the instructions again isn’t weird; I was just on a jury two weeks ago for a much simpler case than this one and we had to have a part of the instructions read back too.
I am jealous they get lunch provided; we didn’t,
It's very common for a jury to request instructions, guidelines, interpretation of the law, and testimony again.
Until your boss checks your Salesforce and sees no customer visits for the day, calls you, and tells you to get back in the deathmobile and hit some accounts!
My mom still has her Maxima and uses it for when she has yard waste. She also has a 2023 E class Mercedes.
Cons: always obsessed with the genitals of others.
I've lived in NY, WV, VA, DC, FL, TX, UT, CA . . . I have NEVER been called for jury duty until last week. I was able to login with the code they gave me and request to be excused due to medical issues. They didn't even ask what the issue(s) was nor want proof, and they had me excused by the next day online.
Similar threads
