If you and I were on the jury.

[adrina]

I challenge the op to look at the evidence objectively. It is not our job to convince them of anything. The jury looked at the evidence and the evidence proved the case.

The original poster seems to want to ignore that reality.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

As CNN legal analyst Elie Honig and others have pointed out, the judge is a Biden donor and donor to other anti-Trump causes. He framed the trial in a partisan way that almost guaranteed a conviction.

Given what information the judge allowed the jurors to hear, the information the judge prohibited the jurors from hearing, and the instructions the judge gave the jury, I can’t find fault with their decision.

The conviction is likely going to be overturned on appeal.

 

[icanhelp1]

I challenge all you Trump Haters to imagine if you and I were on the jury of the Trump hush money trial, how you would have persuaded me to convict vis à vis to my efforts to convince you to acquit. Assuming I had residence, I admit I probably would have been denied entry, but because I have virtually no social media presence the prosecutor might have inadvertently allowed me in.

Now the case revolves around a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels who alleged that she and Trump had a one night stand way back in 2006. I can think we can all agree that consensual sex with a porn star is not a crime. Now after the Hollywood access tape became public knowledge in Oct 2016 Ms Daniels apparently threatened to expose their 2006 tryst. As a result, Trump’s lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 out of his own funds to Ms Daniels after signing a non disclosure agreement (NDA) to not reveal the purposes of why she received these monies.

Executing an NDA is not illegal, instead its rather ubiquitous amongst prominent persons to avoid public embarrassment or humiliation. In fact the reason Ms Daniels owes Trump $500,000 is by court order that found she had violated that NDA.

Now Cohen alleges that in a telephone conversation with himself, Trump and the chief officer of the Trump organization agreed to pay off Daniels in order for her to keep quiet. As a result of that agreement Cohen out of his own funds paid the $130,000 to Daniels by taking out a second mortgage on his house.

First of all, Cohen was testifying as a result of immunity granted by the prosecutor to provide this story. One thing that strikes me about this story is that since Cohen was Trump’s lawyer by testifying, he was violating attorney-client privilege. Of course, since he has already been disbarred no further punishment will visit upon him. But it is horrifying to contemplate that the prosecution allowed this testimony in. No longer can lawyers in the United States or at least in the state of New York assure absolute confidentiality to their clients. Doing away with the safety net of the attorney-client privilege will surely wreak havoc on the judicial system. And that I submit is an inevitable negative consequence as a result of this trial.

Anyway, the point is can you believe Cohen’s veracity? Even setting aside that he is acknowledged to be a perjurer and during cross examination Cohen had to admit he had misspoken on another issue during his direct examination, there are two crucial points that makes Cohen’s testimony suspicious. Trump’s senior officer alleged to be in on the call was not asked to testify. One can infer that person’s testimony would not be so helpful to the prosecution or might even cast doubt that such telephone conversation occurred.

The other point is why did Cohen pay the money out of his own personal funds? I believe any other lawyer in that position, would have asked for Trump to shoot over the money into his trust fund in order to pay the porn star. It strikes me that it was more of a hassle to obtain a second mortgage to pay of Daniels than it would have simply been to ask Trump for the money. It certainly casts doubts on Cohen story or even that the telephone conversation transpired as he alleged.

Now the prosecution maintains the recording of the payment in the Trump organization ledger was a false entry. That apparently is a New York crime, a misdemeanor already barred by the statute of limitations. But even so how in the hell did Trump falsify his business records? Cohen presented a bill from which he got reimbursed as legal expenses. How else could the payment be described in the accounts of the Trump organization other than a legal expense?

Does this mean in the description of the check should there have been the notation “Hush money payment to Stormy Daniels”. Should Cohen in rendering his bill have contained lurid details of the expenses he had incurred to justify the bill? The only reasonable conclusion is that it was a legitimate expense not an illegal one.

Even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump’s business records were falsified, the prosecution still has to prove that this expired crime was committed in conjunction with a felony crime. And what was the felony crime? During the trial the prosecutor did not specify the felony they believed Trump committed until their final summation in which they offered three crimes that Trump might have committed.

The Judge in his jury instructions compounded the confusion. In that the jury could pick any one of the three crimes and they don’t have to be unanimous in any one of them so long as each jury member believed beyond a reasonable doubt, he committed one of these crimes. In other words four jury members could conclude Trump committed crime “A” and believe he did not commit crime “B” or “C”. Then four other jury members can conclude he committed crimes “B” but not crimes “A” or “C”. And thus the other four members of the jury can conclude he committed crime “C” but not crimes “A” or “B”. That surely flies in the face of unanimous requirement for conviction of a crime.

The three crimes? Well first it was suggested, it could have been a tax violation for submitting a false improper deduction. As I pointed out earlier it was a legitimate deduction and IRS would have recouped the taxable amount of this money as it would have been taxed against Cohen’s income.

The second possible crime was violation of federal campaign finance laws. Aside from the obvious fact that this is a state court that has no jurisdiction in determining federal crimes, which was blithely ignored by this trial judge, he denied the defense a witness who was a former head of the Federal Elections Commission who would have testified that there was no violation of campaign financing laws by the Trump organization. The Commission had looked into the matter in 2018 and decided against prosecution.

The third possible crime is alleged election interference in depriving the voters the knowledge of this hush money payment. That has to be the most laughable allegation of all. If the exposure of the access Hollywood tapes did not sink Trump’s candidacy, then this peccadillo surely would not have moved the needle. Besides Trump lost New York by a wide margin so by definition it did not affect the outcome and this supposed crime did occur in New York after all.

So OK Trump haters. Tell me what crime did Trump commit?

Agree. I’ve pointed out all of the above and more. The problems are deeper than that. You could start tearing apart this case all the way back to grand jury. Bragg’s DA steered the grand jury to indictment when Costello wanted to inject exculpatory evidence into his grand jury testimony which was rejected by the DA. The second issue is back when Bragg selected Cohen he did so knowing full well that in order to testify under oath during the trial if certain questions were asked of Cohen during cross examination Cohen would have to perjure himself. A DA/prosecutor who willingly uses a witness knowing full well the witness could perjure himself the DA is now a subject of the felony charge of subornation of perjury.

Other than the fact that federal statutory violations are outside the jurisdiction of a state court let say for instance the prosecution is allowed to tie in underlying federal charges, under that premise, federal felony charges, under federal guidelines, juries are required to render unanimity on each charge to convict.

Restrictions placed upon Brad Smith, a campaign finance legal expert, denied the defendant access to exculpatory evidence. Then you have a the third in line at the DOJ take a pay cut to become a line prosecutor ( suspicious) smells to the high heavens.

 

[YDB95]

If you can't persuade me than it stands to reason that hatred of Trump was the sole reason he was convicted

No, that simply means you're not willing to entertain the possibility that he was guilty of just what he was convicted of. Nothing more, nothing less.

Incidentally, 26% of Manhattan voters are Republicans. A minority to be sure, but a substantial enough one that chances are there were a couple of Republicans on the jury. And they voted to convict.

 

[icanhelp1]

TY for posting this. Was gonna save this line of argument for later but now is as good a time as any to address the thought that trump’s inevitable appeal will make its way up to the Supreme Court and they will overturn. It won’t. Well, lemme correct myself - it shouldn’t. A grand jury and then a seated jury found him guilty of all counts. The appeals court would be loathe to overturn a trial and jury outcome. Every indictment related to ledger entries. Which ones does trump dispute for courts to overturn? The only thing unusual about this fraud trial was the litigant. There’s nothing here extraordinary for SCOTUS to review.

Those postings were known back in 2018. Multiple misdemeanor charges that outran the statute of limitations. The jury was steered by the judge in such a way as to convince the jury something was illegal. These dead misdemeanor charges don’t become felony charges until underlying federal charges are bootstrapped to dead misdemeanor charges. Federal charges that were presented to the court (jury) during final arguments denying the defendant the right to due process .

 

[adrina]

As CNN legal analyst Elie Honig and others have pointed out, the judge is a Biden donor and donor to other anti-Trump causes. He framed the trial in a partisan way that almost guaranteed a conviction.

Given what information the judge allowed the jurors to hear, the information the judge prohibited the jurors from hearing, and the instructions the judge gave the jury, I can’t find fault with their decision.

The conviction is likely going to be overturned on appeal.

So then you believe Alito should recuse himself from any cases before SCOTUS that have to do with Trump. Being he is an active Trump supporter. Additionally, Clarence Thomas should recuse himself as well.

 

[Bn2f]

Those postings were known back in 2018. Multiple misdemeanor charges that outran the statute of limitations. The jury was steered by the judge in such a way as to convince the jury something was illegal. These dead misdemeanor charges don’t become felony charges until underlying federal charges are bootstrapped to dead misdemeanor charges. Federal charges that were presented to the court (jury) during final arguments denying the defendant the right to due process .

Thank you for informing me of this!
I had no idea.
Did you know that if you invert the number 34 and add it by itself it equals to 86? I’m gonna put your post safely away in my 86 file.

 

[icanhelp1]

No, that simply means you're not willing to entertain the possibility that he was guilty of just what he was convicted of. Nothing more, nothing less.

Incidentally, 26% of Manhattan voters are Republicans. A minority to be sure, but a substantial enough one that chances are there were a couple of Republicans on the jury. And they voted to convict.

You just don’t understand that these indictments, this trial was political. The appearance of impropriety stinks to the high heavens.

 

[adrina]

You just don’t understand that these indictments, this trial was political. The appearance of impropriety stinks to the high heavens.

Actually it is you who don't understand.

You are literally trashing the American justice system to defend Trump.

 

[icanhelp1]

As CNN legal analyst Elie Honig and others have pointed out, the judge is a Biden donor and donor to other anti-Trump causes. He framed the trial in a partisan way that almost guaranteed a conviction.

Given what information the judge allowed the jurors to hear, the information the judge prohibited the jurors from hearing, and the instructions the judge gave the jury, I can’t find fault with their decision.

The conviction is likely going to be overturned on appeal.

Ya have to laugh at the sensationalism of the 34 felony charges, if guilty of one then guilty of all.
Bragg, James campaigned on getting Trump, nothing to see here.

Advocate​

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice, that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence, and that special precautions are taken to prevent and to rectify the conviction of innocent persons. The extent of mandated remedial action is a matter of debate and varies in different jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have adopted the ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function, which are the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced in both criminal prosecution and defense. Competent representation of the sovereignty may require a prosecutor to undertake some procedural and remedial measures as a matter of obligation. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.

 

[icanhelp1]

Actually it is you who don't understand.

You are literally trashing the American justice system to defend Trump.

I’m not defending Trump, I’m an advocate for equal application of the law. Equal protection under the law and following our constitutional principles. If this happened to Biden I’d be just as disappointed with our justice system. When I read that salacious testimony would not be admissible in the Hunter Biden case I was fully on board with that. I don’t blame Hunter Biden for trying to get away with criminal behavior I blame the DOJ for running a protection racket based on political bias.

 

[adrina]

I’m not defending Trump, I’m an advocate for equal application of the law. Equal protection under the law and following our constitutional principles. If this happened to Biden I’d be just as disappointed with our justice system. When I read that salacious testimony would not be admissible in the Hunter Biden case I was fully on board with that. I don’t blame Hunter Biden for trying to get away with criminal behavior I blame the DOJ for running a protection racket based on political bias.

Okay so then you'd be fine if Obama falsified financial records to hide paying off a porn star he fucked while his infant child and wife were at home to protect his election chances?

Because I fucking wouldn't. No one should be okay with that.

 

[Bn2f]

I’m not defending Trump, I’m an advocate for equal application of the law. Equal protection under the law and following our constitutional principles. If this happened to Biden I’d be just as disappointed with our justice system. When I read that salacious testimony would not be admissible in the Hunter Biden case I was fully on board with that. I don’t blame Hunter Biden for trying to get away with criminal behavior I blame the DOJ for running a protection racket based on political bias.

I love when you tell us the inner workings of your mind. It must be fascinating to see you in the early morning flush coffee and drink your toilet water.

 

[icanhelp1]

Okay so then you'd be fine if Obama falsified financial records to hide paying off a porn star he fucked while his infant child and wife were at home to protect his election chances?

Because I fucking wouldn't. No one should be okay with that.

Were you Ok with Bill Clinton. Were you OK with the Kennedys. Were you OK with suppressing the evidence from the Hunter Biden laptop just before the 2020 election. NDAs are legal. Immoral behavior doesn’t always equal to criminal behavior. If that were true half of congress would be serving time. Congress actually has a fund to bury inappropriate behavior.

 

[icanhelp1]

I love when you tell us the inner workings of your mind. It must be fascinating to see you in the early morning flush coffee and drink your toilet water.

Take it up with someone who gives a shit. You add nothing to a conversation. Maybe you and 77 should get a room.

 

[adrina]

Were you Ok with Bill Clinton. Were you OK with the Kennedys. Were you OK with suppressing the evidence from the Hunter Biden laptop just before the 2020 election. NDAs are legal. Immoral behavior doesn’t always equal to criminal behavior. If that were true half of congress would be serving time. Congress actually has a fund to bury inappropriate behavior.

No I wasn't.

Bill Clinton was term limited out. Hunter Biden isn't running for president. Kennedies were over 60 years ago.

Don't fucking ever lecture anyone about any moral righteousness. If you think Trump's behavior is okay then you never ever get to bitch about any single thing with Bill Clinton, Hunter Biden or the last century Kennedies. You don't get to talk about Menendez or anything else.

If this is okay with you then you are scum.

You guys went apeshit over a beige suit. A beige freakin' suit. And you want to tell me you'd be okay with this. Okey dokey.

This is called living in denial. You harp on literally 60 year old issues but excuse the current one with Trump.

Anytime you bitch about any liberal anywhere anytime, this post should be pointed to.

You're okay with Trump. Your morals have no problem with supporting and excusing his behavior.

 

[Bn2f]

Take it up with someone who gives a shit. You add nothing to a conversation. Maybe you and 77 should get a room.

I neither know his sexual orientation or his preference for liaisons. Um, how much thought have you given to us being together???

You take yourself very seriously here. I like to think that my replies to you reflect how serious I take your well thought out points.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

So then you believe Alito should recuse himself from any cases before SCOTUS that have to do with Trump. Being he is an active Trump supporter. Additionally, Clarence Thomas should recuse himself as well.

Any SCOTUS justice that has donated to the Trump or Biden campaigns should recuse themselves if a case involving campaign finance election law by either candidate comes before the court.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

If you are going to resort to an ad hominem attack as your rebuttal, I can reply in kind. Your posting is an example of what Pres Lincoln meant when he opined: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." You apparently lacking reading skills. Let me cross the "tees" and "dot" the eyes for you. I am well aware that Trump was convicted on the thirty-four counts in the indictment. I believe the jury convicted because they hated Trump plain and simple. I will repeat I posed a challenge to all you Trump haters to imagine you and I were on the jury how would you persuade me to change my mind with the evidence that was presented in court. If you can't persuade me than it stands to reason that hatred of Trump was the sole reason he was convicted

Your posting is another example of what Pres Lincoln meant when he opined: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Surely you can't believe that that the only raison d'être to pay the porn star to keep silent is to avoid being charged with a crime. Even the prosecution did not allege paying the hush money was a crime. Instead, they allege the crime was that in accounting for the payment it was listed as a legal expense and that they maintained was a false entry.

It wasn't an ad hominem attack, it was a true statement. If you haven't read up about the charges then that's on you, they are widely known and available for you.

 

[jomar]

As CNN legal analyst Elie Honig and others have pointed out, the judge is a Biden donor and donor to other anti-Trump causes. He framed the trial in a partisan way that almost guaranteed a conviction.

He gave $35 to the democratic party some years ago, $15 of which went to the Biden campaign. Before he was seated for the hush money trial he sought guidance from some legal panel to see if he should recuse himself or not. He was told he was good to go.

Given what information the judge allowed the jurors to hear, the information the judge prohibited the jurors from hearing, and the instructions the judge gave the jury, I can’t find fault with their decision.

The conviction is likely going to be overturned on appeal.

We shall see.

 

[adrina]

Any SCOTUS justice that has donated to the Trump or Biden campaigns should recuse themselves if a case involving campaign finance election law by either candidate comes before the court.

Is it just donations made? Do we consider when justices receive lavish gifts from donors? Do we consider the amount? Is $35 donated equivalent, worse than, not as bad as hundreds of thousands of dollars in value received?

 

[Treeview]

Both sides agreed to the Jurists. I agree with the Jury.

Guilty right down the list.

Get the Rikers rump Suite ready

 

[RoryN]

Things are about to "be overturned".........

On that you can count, pantifascists!

"YOU CANT STOP WHATS COMMING!!!"

 

[Philthy_Phil]

I’m not defending Trump, I’m an advocate for equal application of the law. Equal protection under the law and following our constitutional principles. If this happened to Biden I’d be just as disappointed with our justice system. When I read that salacious testimony would not be admissible in the Hunter Biden case I was fully on board with that. I don’t blame Hunter Biden for trying to get away with criminal behavior I blame the DOJ for running a protection racket based on political bias.

Oh shut up you raving trumptards

 

[Bn2f]

Any SCOTUS justice that has donated to the Trump or Biden campaigns should recuse themselves if a case involving campaign finance election law by either candidate comes before the court.

So… As a graduate of the Lawrence O’Donnell School of Law I gotta say that I think you are wrong here.

Federal judges should recuse themselves if they have business interest or there is an appearance of impartiality.

The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:

• Where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome.
• Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased.

One could well argue that this applies as well to Supreme Court justices but technically it doesn’t. There is no method to force a Supreme Court justice to recuse themselves other than their own volition. Alito just showed that with his letter of refusal. You narrowing the scope to campaign donations is something that you just made up and does not apply. IDK. I could be totally wrong but I hope that if you prove me wrong I get to keep my late night diploma. It’s kind of fancy looking.