I despise him. He will get my vote, though, because I despise political corruption more. It will be overturned on appeal, but by then the damage us done.
What, in your completely uninformed opinion, will be the legal grounds on which this verdict will be overturned? You don't have a clue.
The jury instructions. The blocking of witnesses by the presiding judge. The absence of a second crime (it’s not a crime to sign an NDA). There are numerous issues to appeal.
Unanimous votes on all 34 counts! He will appeal but, that is a very long shot as there are no legal experts outside of right wing media pundits claiming that the proceedings were fatally flawed.
He could carjack someone on 5th Avenue and not get any charges. Banana republic
He said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support from his people.
He was right. He has been charged, tried and convicted ad a felon and his supporters still stick with him.
He really could shoot someone in front of cameras and not lose support. Heck, he led an attack on the Capitol and his people didn’t see anything wrong with that. He does have a trial waiting for him on those charges still.
What, in your completely uninformed opinion, will be the legal grounds on which this verdict will be overturned? You don't have a clue.
educate yourself and look at the Weinstein reversal, just for one but there are many other issues with how the judge ruled
The issue that Weinstein got reversed on never appeared in this Trump trial. Do you have an actual answer to my question? Go educate yourself on the trial and possible appeals, then come back and answer.
educate yourself and look at the Weinstein reversal, just for one but there are many other issues with how the judge ruled
The issue that Weinstein got reversed on never appeared in this Trump trial. Do you have an actual answer to my question? Go educate yourself on the trial and possible appeals, then come back and answer.
they allowed non related testimony against Trump from Stormy
Then that should be released to the public after the election is finished and if you do it again after you cease to be a politician you should face the consequences. This isn't hard, this is political freedom as we all understand it instinctively.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
When your arguments are so powerful that your opponents can't refute them and resort to these tactics you know you're operating on a higher level. Not surprised to see a leftist website like letsvotedemocrat turning on me for exposing them to the truth. If one person reading this gets exposed to the truth because of my posts and changes their mind in November because of that, I'm glad I took the time to right the record.
When your arguments are so powerful that your opponents can't refute them and resort to these tactics you know you're operating on a higher level. Not surprised to see a leftist website like letsvotedemocrat turning on me for exposing them to the truth. If one person reading this gets exposed to the truth because of my posts and changes their mind in November because of that, I'm glad I took the time to right the record.
Thanks, you are right, I was gonna vote Trump but your posts have convinced me to vote Biden! I see the light!
they allowed non related testimony against Trump from Stormy
You may have examples In unaware of, but in parts I followed, I saw roughly real-time comments from lawyers/legal analysts describing the defense making some obviously reasonable objections and some without substance. These were sustained and denied in ways I think you’d expect. But I also saw a number instances of questioning the defense, as in “why aren’t they objecting to this?”
I expect some of this is on them. Blanche was good in spots but uncharacteristically weak overall. And, of course Habba was chosen by Mr. Trump because she’s out of central casting for the TV cameras rather than for her unparalleled skill in criminal defense.
What, in your completely uninformed opinion, will be the legal grounds on which this verdict will be overturned? You don't have a clue.
The jury instructions.
Can you be more specific as to which jury instructions? Just saying "jury instruction" isn't an answer.
The blocking of witnesses by the presiding judge.
The only witness who was "blocked" was an expert who was going to opine on law. "Legal" expert are almost never allowed to testify as to their opinions on what the law is.
Trump "self-blocked" himself by invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to explain his side of the story, but that's not grounds for appeal.
The absence of a second crime (it’s not a crime to sign an NDA).
The "second crime" was spelled out extensively in the jury instructions that you have never read.
There is NOTHING in the record that suggest in ANY way that Trump was convicted for signing an NDA. The prosecution said in closing arguments that NDAs are legal and Trump is not being charged for that.
What, in your completely uninformed opinion, will be the legal grounds on which this verdict will be overturned? You don't have a clue.
The jury instructions. The blocking of witnesses by the presiding judge. The absence of a second crime (it’s not a crime to sign an NDA). There are numerous issues to appeal.
Great impression of an uninformed opinion. No details, just throwing out every term from some tweets.
When your arguments are so powerful that your opponents can't refute them and resort to these tactics you know you're operating on a higher level. Not surprised to see a leftist website like letsvotedemocrat turning on me for exposing them to the truth. If one person reading this gets exposed to the truth because of my posts and changes their mind in November because of that, I'm glad I took the time to right the record.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Can you be more specific as to which jury instructions? Just saying "jury instruction" isn't an answer.
The blocking of witnesses by the presiding judge.
The only witness who was "blocked" was an expert who was going to opine on law. "Legal" expert are almost never allowed to testify as to their opinions on what the law is.
Trump "self-blocked" himself by invoking the Fifth Amendment and refusing to explain his side of the story, but that's not grounds for appeal.
The absence of a second crime (it’s not a crime to sign an NDA).
The "second crime" was spelled out extensively in the jury instructions that you have never read.
There is NOTHING in the record that suggest in ANY way that Trump was convicted for signing an NDA. The prosecution said in closing arguments that NDAs are legal and Trump is not being charged for that.
There are numerous issues to appeal.
And you haven't named one.
But yet they allowed the prosecution to tell the jury it was a violation of election law in their summation based I guess on the fact that Cohen testified it was. But them could not put on their witness, the expert in election law, to refute it.
The second crime was not revealed to the defense at a time in which they could defend against it. The jury instructions are issued after both closing arguments. The first time the prosecution brought the specifics up was after the defense summation was over.
I'm inclined to doubt that much will happen to Trump because of this conviction. No chance he goes to jail. However, I do think it's possible that he completely loses his sh*t at some point in the near future and either encourages violence in the streets or against Joe Biden directly. THAT might come with some real consequences.
He said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose support from his people.
He was right. He has been charged, tried and convicted ad a felon and his supporters still stick with him.
He really could shoot someone in front of cameras and not lose support. Heck, he led an attack on the Capitol and his people didn’t see anything wrong with that. He does have a trial waiting for him on those charges still.
Bragg coddles violent criminals for “equity” yet charges Biden’s main rival on trumped up charges??
34 out of 34. That is the way to recognize how flawed this jury pool was. The lead witness was a convicted felon who admitted to stealing money from his boss under oath. Guilty on all counts just shows you that this jury would have convicted without any testimony, without any evidence. This is perhaps the worst decision in the history of decisions. This the day which elected Trump and will also put both houses of Congress in Republican control.