There was no FEC violation and hence no crime. The judge disallowed that testimony and allowed the jury to think that the FEC violation was a "crime" they could use to elevate the bookkeeping misdemeanor to a felony.
None of that has anything to do with jury instructions. That has to do with sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of evidence, and charges. Not jury instructions. So, you jumped in here defending Winston "Blame America for WWII" Smith on his obvious lie about jury instructions by posting an article about a different jury instruction and now, within two posts, have meandered to entirely different issues. You lack focus, which is usually a sign of someone who is biased, uninformed and/or of average intelligence.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
There was no FEC violation and hence no crime.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. In any case, the prosecution put in evidence of FEC violations. Unrebutted evidence that Pecker/National Enquirer spent $150,000 to buy and bury a hooker story intending to influence the election on Trump's behalf. Pecker's unrebutted testimony was that he knew that was illegal.
Similarly, unrebutted documentary evidence and unrebutted testimony from Cohen (remember that Trump refused to testify) was that Cohen paid Daniels on behalf of the Trump campaign to keep quiet about the time that Trump romped with Daniels because she looks like Trump's daughter. Creepy and unrebutted.
There is plenty more, but since you didn't even try to support your statement that "there was no FEC violation," I don't see the point of typing more myself.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
The judge disallowed that testimony and allowed the jury to think that the FEC violation was a "crime" they could use to elevate the bookkeeping misdemeanor to a felony.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. It has to do with exclusion of evidence.
You don't provide any details at all about the testimony you say the judge disallowed. I doubt you know of any -- you are probably just repeating a trite statement you read on Twitter.
It's difficult to respond to blanket, unsupported, unidentified assertions. If you can be more specific about where this occurred in a three week trial with hundreds of evidentiary rulings, I may respond. For now, I'd point Trump out that had full opportunity to cross-examine every witness in the case about FEC violations, including Pecker, Cohen and Daniels and also had full opportunity to introduce any Trump documents related to the issue. The jury weighed all that and disagreed with you.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
Your bias is interfering with your ability to look at this objectively.
You don't appear to have looked at anything and are meandering all over the place. Indicates probable bias and a lack of impartiality and lack of observance.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
Is Randy Zelin "Trump's attorney"?
I don't know if he is or not. Tim Parlatore is. In the article you linked, those two were discussing a jury instruction. You have not discussed any jury instructions. You haven't really discussed much of anything. Just kind of sprayed a few broad and unrelated statements.
You're demonstrating that you either didn't follow the trial or you didn't understand the case.
Peck doing something on Trump's behalf isn't a crime Trump committed. That cannot be the mystery crime that elevated the misdemeanor bookkeeping charge to a felony.
The FEC looked at the case and declined to bring charges long before Bragg invented this case. An expert in federal election law was going to testify to the fact that no crime was committed regarding campaign finance law and the judge refused to allow it.
He then went on to allow the jury to falsely believe a campaign finance crime had been committed. He tainted the jury.
You keep harping on things that weren't crimes. Sleeping with a pornstar isn't a crime. Paying her hush money isn't a crime. Paying a lawyer to handle the situation and calling the expense a legal expense isn't a crime. Even if you pretend it is it's a minor misdemeanor.
The felony required to elevate that midemeanor to a felony simply does not exist.
I question the wisdom of voting for a man for president who couldn't even keep his oath of office last time. He swore to protect the Constitution and then four years later loudly said it should be terminated.
Brojos are censoring Trumps Alrington national cemetery pr stunt fiasco
Trump had to know the Arlington stunt could misfire on him. Especially with a bunch of MAG@ idiots in tow. They took a swing at an undertaker? Jesus fvcking Christ.
Trump's advisors had to know the risks involved. We all know the hand of fate exists. We all know that if you try to leverage other people's pain to your own benefit, that the dark hand of fate will come crashing down upon thee.
"The hand of fate is on me now, it picks me and knocks me down, I'm on the run, I'm prison bound, the hand of fate is heavy now."
You're demonstrating that you either didn't follow the trial or you didn't understand the case.
Peck doing something on Trump's behalf isn't a crime Trump committed. That cannot be the mystery crime that elevated the misdemeanor bookkeeping charge to a felony.
The FEC looked at the case and declined to bring charges long before Bragg invented this case. An expert in federal election law was going to testify to the fact that no crime was committed regarding campaign finance law and the judge refused to allow it.
He then went on to allow the jury to falsely believe a campaign finance crime had been committed. He tainted the jury.
You keep harping on things that weren't crimes. Sleeping with a pornstar isn't a crime. Paying her hush money isn't a crime. Paying a lawyer to handle the situation and calling the expense a legal expense isn't a crime. Even if you pretend it is it's a minor misdemeanor.
The felony required to elevate that midemeanor to a felony simply does not exist.
^Another butthurt redhat incel with a law degree from Trump University, ROTFL!
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
None of that has anything to do with jury instructions. That has to do with sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of evidence, and charges. Not jury instructions. So, you jumped in here defending Winston "Blame America for WWII" Smith on his obvious lie about jury instructions by posting an article about a different jury instruction and now, within two posts, have meandered to entirely different issues. You lack focus, which is usually a sign of someone who is biased, uninformed and/or of average intelligence.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. In any case, the prosecution put in evidence of FEC violations. Unrebutted evidence that Pecker/National Enquirer spent $150,000 to buy and bury a hooker story intending to influence the election on Trump's behalf. Pecker's unrebutted testimony was that he knew that was illegal.
Similarly, unrebutted documentary evidence and unrebutted testimony from Cohen (remember that Trump refused to testify) was that Cohen paid Daniels on behalf of the Trump campaign to keep quiet about the time that Trump romped with Daniels because she looks like Trump's daughter. Creepy and unrebutted.
There is plenty more, but since you didn't even try to support your statement that "there was no FEC violation," I don't see the point of typing more myself.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. It has to do with exclusion of evidence.
You don't provide any details at all about the testimony you say the judge disallowed. I doubt you know of any -- you are probably just repeating a trite statement you read on Twitter.
It's difficult to respond to blanket, unsupported, unidentified assertions. If you can be more specific about where this occurred in a three week trial with hundreds of evidentiary rulings, I may respond. For now, I'd point Trump out that had full opportunity to cross-examine every witness in the case about FEC violations, including Pecker, Cohen and Daniels and also had full opportunity to introduce any Trump documents related to the issue. The jury weighed all that and disagreed with you.
You don't appear to have looked at anything and are meandering all over the place. Indicates probable bias and a lack of impartiality and lack of observance.
I don't know if he is or not. Tim Parlatore is. In the article you linked, those two were discussing a jury instruction. You have not discussed any jury instructions. You haven't really discussed much of anything. Just kind of sprayed a few broad and unrelated statements.
You're demonstrating that you either didn't follow the trial or you didn't understand the case.
Peck doing something on Trump's behalf isn't a crime Trump committed. That cannot be the mystery crime that elevated the misdemeanor bookkeeping charge to a felony.
The FEC looked at the case and declined to bring charges long before Bragg invented this case. An expert in federal election law was going to testify to the fact that no crime was committed regarding campaign finance law and the judge refused to allow it.
He then went on to allow the jury to falsely believe a campaign finance crime had been committed. He tainted the jury.
You keep harping on things that weren't crimes. Sleeping with a pornstar isn't a crime. Paying her hush money isn't a crime. Paying a lawyer to handle the situation and calling the expense a legal expense isn't a crime. Even if you pretend it is it's a minor misdemeanor.
The felony required to elevate that midemeanor to a felony simply does not exist.
Hi WinstonSmith! Can’t be bothered to log in today?
Reimbursing somebody for hush money payments they made to a porn star you’re sleeping with isn’t a legal expense just because they happen to be a lawyer.
Trump had to know the Arlington stunt could misfire on him. Especially with a bunch of MAG@ idiots in tow. They took a swing at an undertaker? Jesus fvcking Christ.
Trump's advisors had to know the risks involved. We all know the hand of fate exists. We all know that if you try to leverage other people's pain to your own benefit, that the dark hand of fate will come crashing down upon thee.
"The hand of fate is on me now, it picks me and knocks me down, I'm on the run, I'm prison bound, the hand of fate is heavy now."
The picture of him with that grieving family highlighting the Biden fiasco made it worth the risk. He wanted the subject discussed in the news frequently and this stunt accomplished that. (Other Families not in picture were not in agreement with politicizing the tragedy).
Fake news. This is an ad, not an interview. Don’t imagine for a second they are going to hit them with a bunch of hardball questions. All will be rehearsed or disclosed in advanced. Democrats spend a lot of money advertising on your beloved CNN. You can call it an interviews when she goes with someone adversarial.
So she should do a hard hitting interview with tough questions like Trump does with Sean Hannity?
Whatever bump Harris has received since launching her bid — a bump that likely includes some former RFK Jr. voters — is bigger than whatever bump Trump has received since Kennedy dropped out.
Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, sat down with CNN's Dana Bash in their first joint interview since Harris became the Democratic nominee for president five weeks ago.
None of that has anything to do with jury instructions. That has to do with sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of evidence, and charges. Not jury instructions. So, you jumped in here defending Winston "Blame America for WWII" Smith on his obvious lie about jury instructions by posting an article about a different jury instruction and now, within two posts, have meandered to entirely different issues. You lack focus, which is usually a sign of someone who is biased, uninformed and/or of average intelligence.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. In any case, the prosecution put in evidence of FEC violations. Unrebutted evidence that Pecker/National Enquirer spent $150,000 to buy and bury a hooker story intending to influence the election on Trump's behalf. Pecker's unrebutted testimony was that he knew that was illegal.
Similarly, unrebutted documentary evidence and unrebutted testimony from Cohen (remember that Trump refused to testify) was that Cohen paid Daniels on behalf of the Trump campaign to keep quiet about the time that Trump romped with Daniels because she looks like Trump's daughter. Creepy and unrebutted.
There is plenty more, but since you didn't even try to support your statement that "there was no FEC violation," I don't see the point of typing more myself.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. It has to do with exclusion of evidence.
You don't provide any details at all about the testimony you say the judge disallowed. I doubt you know of any -- you are probably just repeating a trite statement you read on Twitter.
It's difficult to respond to blanket, unsupported, unidentified assertions. If you can be more specific about where this occurred in a three week trial with hundreds of evidentiary rulings, I may respond. For now, I'd point Trump out that had full opportunity to cross-examine every witness in the case about FEC violations, including Pecker, Cohen and Daniels and also had full opportunity to introduce any Trump documents related to the issue. The jury weighed all that and disagreed with you.
You don't appear to have looked at anything and are meandering all over the place. Indicates probable bias and a lack of impartiality and lack of observance.
I don't know if he is or not. Tim Parlatore is. In the article you linked, those two were discussing a jury instruction. You have not discussed any jury instructions. You haven't really discussed much of anything. Just kind of sprayed a few broad and unrelated statements.
You're demonstrating that you either didn't follow the trial or you didn't understand the case.
Peck doing something on Trump's behalf isn't a crime Trump committed. That cannot be the mystery crime that elevated the misdemeanor bookkeeping charge to a felony.
The FEC looked at the case and declined to bring charges long before Bragg invented this case. An expert in federal election law was going to testify to the fact that no crime was committed regarding campaign finance law and the judge refused to allow it.
He then went on to allow the jury to falsely believe a campaign finance crime had been committed. He tainted the jury.
You keep harping on things that weren't crimes. Sleeping with a pornstar isn't a crime. Paying her hush money isn't a crime. Paying a lawyer to handle the situation and calling the expense a legal expense isn't a crime. Even if you pretend it is it's a minor misdemeanor.
The felony required to elevate that midemeanor to a felony simply does not exist.
You're demonstrating that you either didn't follow the trial or you didn't understand the case.
Peck doing something on Trump's behalf isn't a crime Trump committed. That cannot be the mystery crime that elevated the misdemeanor bookkeeping charge to a felony.
The FEC looked at the case and declined to bring charges long before Bragg invented this case. An expert in federal election law was going to testify to the fact that no crime was committed regarding campaign finance law and the judge refused to allow it.
He then went on to allow the jury to falsely believe a campaign finance crime had been committed. He tainted the jury.
You keep harping on things that weren't crimes. Sleeping with a pornstar isn't a crime. Paying her hush money isn't a crime. Paying a lawyer to handle the situation and calling the expense a legal expense isn't a crime. Even if you pretend it is it's a minor misdemeanor.
The felony required to elevate that midemeanor to a felony simply does not exist.
Hi WinstonSmith! Can’t be bothered to log in today?
Reimbursing somebody for hush money payments they made to a porn star you’re sleeping with isn’t a legal expense just because they happen to be a lawyer.
Winston a great warrior, solid American, he’s earned time away from your delusional nonsense.
CNN released a preview of the Kamala Harris interview airing tonight and she already blew it by saying her VALUES HAVE NOT CHANGED. What made it to broadcast was a whopping 18 minutes, edited, no transcript and with a chaperone. 🤣🤣🤣
This includes the ongoing open border disaster under her watch for the past 3.5 years. Her campaign so DONE.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
You're demonstrating that you either didn't follow the trial or you didn't understand the case.
Peck doing something on Trump's behalf isn't a crime Trump committed. That cannot be the mystery crime that elevated the misdemeanor bookkeeping charge to a felony.
The FEC looked at the case and declined to bring charges long before Bragg invented this case. An expert in federal election law was going to testify to the fact that no crime was committed regarding campaign finance law and the judge refused to allow it.
He then went on to allow the jury to falsely believe a campaign finance crime had been committed. He tainted the jury.
You keep harping on things that weren't crimes. Sleeping with a pornstar isn't a crime. Paying her hush money isn't a crime. Paying a lawyer to handle the situation and calling the expense a legal expense isn't a crime. Even if you pretend it is it's a minor misdemeanor.
The felony required to elevate that midemeanor to a felony simply does not exist.
^Another butthurt redhat incel with a law degree from Trump University, ROTFL!
The incel population is almost entirely Democrat no matter how much you idiots want to pretend otherwise.
Can someone please tell me how they can intellectually support Kamala when she can't even do a recorded interview on a friendly set by herself? Objectively, isn't she the most incapable major party candidate ever? Yes, some people bought Yugos.
