Trump Trial - New York
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
When people dig a hole so deep they can't get out of it, they usually stop digging. You should stop digging. What was argued in court by the prosecution and the defense has been reported, but you apparently haven't read any of it. All you've read is what idiotic Trumpster Twitter Twits have tweeted about it. They're just as desperate in their hopes that Trump is found not guilty as you are and they tweet accordingly. You've posted on several occasions that the "TRIAL MUST BE DISMISSED" or words to that effect entirely based on the ridiculous opinion of desperate Trumpster Twitter Twits. Why don't you ever read actual reports of what was argued in court? Even your Twitter Twits do that, they just twist what was reported into something that fits their desperate agenda.
It's possible Trump is found not guilty, but it's 100 percent certain that your opinion of the case to date is wrong because your sources are wrong.
So in theory one or more jurors could find Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a tax violation and be completely innocent of the election fraud and another could find Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal federal or state election fraud and be completely innocent of tax fraud and Trump would still be guilty of committing a crime?
If that’s the case, there’s no way he’ll be anything but guilty.
IANAL, but that seems incredibly sketchy.
Instead of relying on twits on twitter - read the jury instructions for yourselves:
www.nytimes.com
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.
yes a felony. i haven't looked at the instructions nor will i take the time because i move fast, pew pew, but you got it based on the stat
Mother Teresa's reputation might be better than her reality if any of the below is to be believed.
The Hidden History Of Mother Teresa That The Vatican Doesn't Want You To Know
Here's why many think she did far more harm than good.
allthatsinteresting.com
Missionaries also convert people!?!?!? The horror. Is this something you just learned to today sport?Mother Teresa's reputation might be better than her reality if any of the below is to be believed.
The Hidden History Of Mother Teresa That The Vatican Doesn't Want You To Know
Here's why many think she did far more harm than good.
Good rule of thumb. If you find yourself in search of hit pieces on Mother Teresa just to be contrarian or because you hold a predisposed animus towards Christianity. Stop what you're doing, walk away from the computer, find the nearest bridge and jump off it.
Like most things, Project 2025 isn't 100 percent bad. I like the idea of getting rid of the Department of Education and said so at least 20 years ago. I haven't changed my mind. It didn't even exist until after I graduated high school and I'm confident my public school education was generally better than that they generally get in public school now. It's hard to find any tangible accomplishments of the department.
Also, smaller government is something that I like as well. How small and where the cuts should be is where the arguments are.
Why would it be illegal?
Say there was a law saying it was a serious crime to illegally possess a firearm that was then used in an assault, a burglary, or to threaten a law enforcement officer. Somebody gets arrested after illegally possessing a firearm and using it in an assault, a burglary, and to threaten a law enforcement officer. It goes to trial and all 12 jurors agree that the accused did possess illegally and did do one or more of the required secondary acts, but don't all agree on the same combination of crimes as the secondary act. Should that person go free?
The first element in this hypothetical is to illegally possess a firearm.
The second element is committing at least one of the secondary acts.
All elements are met.
The problem is that they produced absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the gun was used in an assault, burglary, or to threaten a law enforcement officer.
Are you admitting that Trump supporters exist in ignorance of facts because they rely on idiots like "Cowturd" for their "news"? And of course cowturd relies on Trump who may even be stupider than cowturd. Trump just spews one ridiculous lie after another and the sheep just repeat it without bothering to do a basic modicum of fact checking...
I actually saw one dumbass in a comments section complain that the Trump trial ( for a violation of the NY criminal code,being prosecuted by the Manhattan DA) wasn't being held in a "purple state" so the jury pool would be more "fair"?
And then there's Trump whining about the Prosecution going last? You'd think that since he was (until recently) a lifetime resident of NYC, his business is headquartered there and he is being charged with a violation of NY's Felony code, that he'd at least research the fact that in felony cases in NY the Prosecution,which has the burden of proof goes last in closing arguments.
I honestly think Trump isn't THAT stupid. He's certainly spent enough time in NY courtrooms, and was personally invested in the trial of the Central Park 5. But he knows that none of his supporters will "fact check" anything he says, and just glam on to whatever ridiculous claim he makes. And judging by the amount of MAGA types repeating his claim in online forums today, I'd say he knows his cultists pretty well...
How can a newspaper be left (or right wing) aside from it's editorial pages? Are you implying that Rupert is a "liberal"? What in the world would you say makes the WSJ "leftist", as opposed to centrist, or more accurately center-right?
But that's not your complaint. Your complaint is that the jury instruction is unconstitutional. Now you're falling back on "Well they didn't make the case." So does that mean you are admitting that the jury instruction is fine?
No. The jury instruction was unconstitutional. See what Shipley wrote here. He is correct. SCOTUS would 100% reverse the conviction if it got that far. You know that though.
No, he's not correct. Interesting attempt, though.
The only relation this DeNiro presser had to the "Trump trial" is that it was held in the same city. Deniro is a native New Yorker who owns the Tribeca Cafe about 2-3 blocks from where he spoke. They also had Fanzone and Dunne two of the injured from Jan 6 because the object was not to "influence" the concluded trial (or it's jury). The object was to launch a series of daily campaign events (Philly today) attacking Trump.
And btw he chose to be there in that crowd. How stupid can you be?
These people were just leaving the White House...
Sen. Rand Paul threatened by protesters after the RNC
An angry mob attacked Sen. Rand Paul and his wife as they were leaving the White House following the end of the Republican National Convention early Friday, and demonstrators harassed and threatened other supporters of President Trump as they left the event.apnews.com
They basically gave Trump a taste of his own medicine, by taking advatage of where they knew the Press would be on the day after Memorial Day. Trump has held a press conference nearly every day during the trial and the media have given him free publicity. The Biden campaign plans to hold events daily up until the first debate.
The Biden camapign chose to turn the tables and get some press coverage to remind people what a danger Trump poses. Trump has long been the proponent of "any press is good press", so the Biden campaign decided to take a page out of Trump's playbook and fight fire with fire.The fact that everyone is talking about it, means they accomplished their goal. And they will do their best to dominate the airwaves leading up to the debate.
Hopefully Trump and his syncophants will keep lowering expectations for Biden, by claiming he can't put two sentences together. The format for the debate, answering questions without being interrupted should work really well for him, and expose Trump's lack of plans/proposed solutions for combatting the actual issues he continues to rail against.
Are you doubting an obvious "expert" with Elmer Fudd as his profile pic? LOL
No, Clark is being dishonest. This jury does require a unanimous verdict.
very easily. by what they cover. how much attention they give to stories. what they choose not to cover etc.
i understand how this work but the linked shit to the generic "crime" is pretty damn wonky
So Goat is okay with a prosecutor being able to take a dead misdemeanor and convert it to a felony without the prosecutor ever having to prove that the defendant ever committed a felony or what that secondary and really main crime actually is?
Make it make sense people. We haven't even gotten into selective prosecution and the million reversible errors Merchan committed during the trial.
Make it make sense people. We haven't even gotten into selective prosecution and the million reversible errors Merchan committed during the trial.
Apparently you skipped quite a bit but I guess you don't have much of an attention span
"Make it make sense people. We haven't even gotten into selective prosecution and the million reversible errors Merchan committed during the trial."
What do you mean by "selective prosecution"? Trump was already listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Federal Indictment that sent Cohen to prison for two years. Under the Trump DOJ, I might add...
As to "reversable errors", no doubt someone on one of your right wing sites is voicing that opinion, which is their right. But any reversal will come thru NY justices in accordance with NY Law. And I've already heard at least two retired NY Judges say today that they feel Merchan acted in accordance with NY law...
Of course you are free to rely on Bros like Dersh and Turley, who are lawyers/constitutional scholars. not judges. They advocate for the position of their client in a trial or appellate setting, but ultimately the Judges are the decision makers. Having a basis for appeal and convincing Judges to rule in favor of that appeal are two seperate things.
You already know I think this entire case is bullshit. But my opinion isn't worth much when it comes to the interpretation of New York and federal law.
No, I'm not okay with it. But unlike you I'm capable of separating my opinions from what the law actually is.
Not related to the Trump case but this is hilarious. 😂
You'd probably share that guy's tweets, if he were just a little bit dumber.
So Trump is guilty of falsifying business records because he defrauded himself? Is that it? Make it make sense.
If you’re waiting for something to make sense to YOU, it may be awhile. I’m sure Catturd can explain it to you though.
That might be what the defense is shooting for, but I don't think that was the point Trump was trying to make in comparing his situation to a hypothetical involving Mother Teresa paying off porn stars.
Federal law through a federal statute in a federal court.. That same opinion specifically states:
"The cases are not federal but state, where this Court has not held that the Constitution imposes a jury-unanimity requirement."
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 821, 119 S. Ct. 1707, 1712, 143 L. Ed. 2d 985 (1999)
Typical twitter research....
The judge's instructions, however, distasteful for some, have a lengthy history being done across the country--and exactly what this judge did, namely, follow the law. Quickly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court surveyed all the states on this issue back in 1979 and wrote:
"Unanimity is required only with respect to the ultimate issue of the defendant's guilt or innocence of the crime charged, and unanimity is not required with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed. The cases across the country New York, Michigan, Washington recognize and note that it is sufficient that all jurors unanimously agree on their ultimate conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged, though they may not agree on the manner in which the defendant participated in the crime if under any of the alternative ways the defendant would be guilty of the crime charged. To permit any other conclusion would be to permit the guilty defendant to escape accountability under the law because jurors could not unanimously choose beyond a reasonable doubt which of several alternate ways the defendant actually participated, even though all agree that he was, in fact, a participant."
Holland v. State, 91 Wis. 2d 134, 143, 280 N.W.2d 288, 292–93 (1979).
Guess which side of the aisle pushed for this approach in state legislatures?
Last edited:
His head might explode when he finds out that Richardson was a gang banging Drug kingpin...
