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.
Lol. Go on. Tell us more about why Michael Cohen is a convicted felon.
I'm not saying he hasn't broken the law technically but he's running for president. Shouldn't the courts stay out of this and let him run regardless? And if you think I'm biased I would say this if he's Ted Bundy or Mrs Doubtfire, if you're a politician they should let you run.
Ted Bundy would have actually have been a decent politician. He could have channeled his anger into running for office. His friends and associates that he could have been elected Governor of Washington, and there are sites extant that imagine him becoming President of the United States in place of Clinton.
You're a bully. I have a right to express my political beliefs and yet if I post my beliefs on a site like this I get people like you replying with your views and disagreeing with me in a big pile on. I don't deserve this. This isn't what 1st ammendment freedom should look like. You should respect what I think and let me say what I want to without your anti 1st ammendment criticism attacking me. If you would like to ask me productive questions I will consider answering otherwise I will leave this toxic thread now. Good bye.
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.
Convicted for the exact same crime that Trump was convicted for. The same one. Really, the exact same one. They committed the crime together.
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.
Lol. Go on. Tell us more about why Michael Cohen is a convicted felon.
Well, he pled guilty to $4,000,000 in unreported income in addition to $280,000 in unlawful campaign violations.
IRS-CI Special Agent-in-Charge James D. Robnett said: “Today’s guilty plea exemplifies IRS Special Agents' rigorous pursuit of tax evasion and sends the clear message that the tax laws apply to everybody. Mr. Cohen’s greed to hide his income from the IRS cheats all the honest taxpayers, and we should not expect law abiding citizens to foot the bill for those who circumvent the system to evade paying their fair share.”
You're a bully. I have a right to express my political beliefs and yet if I post my beliefs on a site like this I get people like you replying with your views and disagreeing with me in a big pile on. I don't deserve this. This isn't what 1st ammendment freedom should look like. You should respect what I think and let me say what I want to without your anti 1st ammendment criticism attacking me. If you would like to ask me productive questions I will consider answering otherwise I will leave this toxic thread now. Good bye.
You better leave now, because the 1st amendment doesn't protect you from ridicule for the stupid sh*t you say.
Trump had ample opportunity to testify on his behalf, at his own trial but like a weak individual, he knew he would buckle under pressure. I am willing to wager, he will weasel out of the debates also. He has no back bone.
Can you be more specific as to which jury instructions? Just saying "jury instruction" isn't an answer.
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 "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.
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.
Yes, that's how trials work. And they had more than Cohen's testimony -- in fact, the jury was instructed that Cohen's testimony alone was insufficient as a matter of law and must be corroborated. They had many documents, including Ex. 35 ("grossed up") and witnesses (Hicks, Pecker, Davidson) that corroborated what Cohen testified about.
But them could not put on their witness, the expert in election law, to refute it.
The "expert in election" wasn't going to refute anything. He was not a fact witness. He was not there. He was going to give an abstract legal opinion on election law. Such "legal experts" are almost never allowed to testify in trials for plaintiffs or defendants. You will NEVER find a case being reversed on such grounds.
If Trump wanted a witness to refute what Cohen said, he should have taken the stand himself.
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.
You're a flat out liar. The "second crime" was briefed extensively LAST YEAR and an Order issued on February 15, 2024. Trump's lawyers were well aware of the "second crime" long before this trial even started. We ALL were well aware of the "second crime" before trial started.
Like anyone afraid of shin splints, the moderators, and people of color on the street after dark is going to take up arms in defense of a corrupt real estate developer.
You're a flat out liar. The "second crime" was briefed extensively LAST YEAR and an Order issued on February 15, 2024. Trump's lawyers were well aware of the "second crime" long before this trial even started. We ALL were well aware of the "second crime" before trial started.
The charge was the misdemeanor was connected to a second crime, but you show me where and when the specific crime was revealed. I specifically recall the NY DA said he did not have to reveal it.
You're a bully. I have a right to express my political beliefs and yet if I post my beliefs on a site like this I get people like you replying with your views and disagreeing with me in a big pile on. I don't deserve this. This isn't what 1st ammendment freedom should look like. You should respect what I think and let me say what I want to without your anti 1st ammendment criticism attacking me. If you would like to ask me productive questions I will consider answering otherwise I will leave this toxic thread now. Good bye.
You're a flat out liar. The "second crime" was briefed extensively LAST YEAR and an Order issued on February 15, 2024. Trump's lawyers were well aware of the "second crime" long before this trial even started. We ALL were well aware of the "second crime" before trial started.
The charge was the misdemeanor was connected to a second crime, but you show me where and when the specific crime was revealed. I specifically recall the NY DA said he did not have to reveal it.
“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 president...
You're a bully. I have a right to express my political beliefs and yet if I post my beliefs on a site like this I get people like you replying with your views and disagreeing with me in a big pile on. I don't deserve this. This isn't what 1st ammendment freedom should look like. You should respect what I think and let me say what I want to without your anti 1st ammendment criticism attacking me. If you would like to ask me productive questions I will consider answering otherwise I will leave this toxic thread now. Good bye.
10/10, excellent use of the uppercase "i" instead of an lowercase "L" to fool people.
I expect the guy who says he loves the country and the constitution and law and order to attack the court system. a US institution that holds him accountable.
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.
I wish he weren't right, but the Supreme Court, if it takes that long, will absolutely bail out the crook. They do not need reasonable grounds. They overturn precedent every single term to serve their political goals.
Anyone who followed the trial knows this us a travesty. .
Typical deluded sheep! Were you in the courtroom? NO!
Then you didn't follow the trial, you followed the coverage of the trial and depending on where you watched, it was slanted to fit an agenda. It's sad that you are too stupid to understand the difference.
