Verdict Wednesday!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bigger issue is the judge is not letting the jury rehear evidence saying it is not relevant?

When did this happen?

As of yesterday, the judge said that they would locate the requested testimony, and provide it to the jury. Did that not happen yesterday? It was at the end of the day, so it could be this morning.

If someone has a better reference for this claim, I’d be happy to hear it.

Yes, they ran out of time yesterday so the testimony is going to be read back to then this morning. So much misinformation coming from the right wing propaganda machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess not in New York.
Jurors are not given the instructions in New York.

Turley's claim that no juror instructions were made available seems really flaky... because they are right here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Yes. But they are not given to a deliberating jury.

I “think” the defendant can consent to have them provided to a deliberating jury though. Really can’t explain what Trump’s counsel is up to. This defense has been weird in many ways.

Is it up to the defense? I thought it was up to whatever the norms are in the particular court system. If OTOH the defense can consent to this, it would make sense that they won't, to gin up outrage.

The NY rules say they may only be given to the jury if the jury specifically requests and both parties consent. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-3321

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banana Republic....

This is how NY law works. Is Turley suggesting that Donald Trump should not have what every other has?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess not in New York.
Jurors are not given the instructions in New York.

Turley's claim that no juror instructions were made available seems really flaky... because they are right here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Yes. But they are not given to a deliberating jury.

I “think” the defendant can consent to have them provided to a deliberating jury though. Really can’t explain what Trump’s counsel is up to. This defense has been weird in many ways.

You *think* incorrectly.

If the jury wants the instructions, they can be provided. It isn't about consent. It is up to the judge nd there is no reason to withhold them.

Th judge does check with both parties regarding ANY jury requests, whether evidence, transcript or instructions.

Wrong. https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-3321

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the judge gave the jury the ability to select from any of three underlying "crimes" that have just been articulated at the conclusion of the trial and not unanimously agree on one - ridiculous.

Issues with this:
- The defense went to trial without knowing the underlying crime the prosecution was charging - very unconstitutional.
- The instruction that the jury does not have to agree on what happened and can choose from a menu of options - ridiculous.
- The fact that one of the crimes is a federal election crime is egregious. Bragg has no authority here. If it were a Democrat being prosecuted, you know damn well that Garland would jump on this and prevent them from prosecuting a federal law. Just look at how they have treated Texas and OK when it comes to immigration law.

This has been a sham case with an apparently corrupt judge and a corrupt DA.
Hopefully the jury will see this trial for what it is.... an attempt to eliminate a presidential nominee from election.

Bragg doesn’t have to have authority over federal campaign finance violations. NY law says he can charge the falsification of business records as a felony if they were falsified in furtherance of another crime. It doesn’t specify that he has to charge both crimes or even have jurisdiction over both crimes. What matters is whether the jury believes that Trump caused the falsification of the business records because he was trying to cover up another crime, period.

Ridiculous. Can Bragg argue Trump had intent of violating Sharia law?

Although you didn’t ask this question in good faith, I’ll answer it in good faith. Bragg can argue that Trump had intent to falsify NY business records to further any crime that is applicable in his jurisdiction, whether it is a state or federal crime. Sharia law is not is neither.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banana Republic....

This is how NY law works. Is Turley suggesting that Donald Trump should not have what every other has?

Turley knows damn well what Schad v Arizone says, but has sold his soul. He misrepresents quite a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does filing false business records have intent to be a part of a conspiracy to influence an election by illegal means, when the bookkeeping records were in 2017, and the election was in 2016?

They kept the payment off the books until after the election. The timing was part of the scheme.

Absolutely absurd response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

Wow! You better call Trump’s lawyers and tell them!

You do know that any conviction here will get overturned in about a millisecond, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

He’s being prosecuted for a crime under NY law (falsifying business records). The charges are bumped up from a misdemeanor to a felony because the records were allegedly falsified to further another crime. The other crime doesn’t have to be prosecuted and it doesn’t have to fall under NY’s jurisdiction. It can be any other crime.

Yes we all understand what Bragg is trying to do. Doesn’t mean any of this is going to hold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the judge gave the jury the ability to select from any of three underlying "crimes" that have just been articulated at the conclusion of the trial and not unanimously agree on one - ridiculous.

Issues with this:
- The defense went to trial without knowing the underlying crime the prosecution was charging - very unconstitutional.
- The instruction that the jury does not have to agree on what happened and can choose from a menu of options - ridiculous.
- The fact that one of the crimes is a federal election crime is egregious. Bragg has no authority here. If it were a Democrat being prosecuted, you know damn well that Garland would jump on this and prevent them from prosecuting a federal law. Just look at how they have treated Texas and OK when it comes to immigration law.

This has been a sham case with an apparently corrupt judge and a corrupt DA.
Hopefully the jury will see this trial for what it is.... an attempt to eliminate a presidential nominee from election.

All of this.

The idea that the jury doesn’t have to agree on the underlying “crime” is absolutely preposterous. The idea that one of the them is a federal crime for which he was never charged is also outrageous. The idea that no co conspirator is named - the idiocy here goes on and on. And you don’t have to be a Trump voter to acknowledge it.

I love seeing this string of posts that try to inflame and confuse.

This is not hard.

These are not obscure or archane laws.

And there has to be unanimity around the conspiracy, but not the individual elements of the applicable laws.

That is standard in NY law.

Or are you saying that the law should be applied to Trump differently?

They already did away with the statute of limitations just for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the judge gave the jury the ability to select from any of three underlying "crimes" that have just been articulated at the conclusion of the trial and not unanimously agree on one - ridiculous.

Issues with this:
- The defense went to trial without knowing the underlying crime the prosecution was charging - very unconstitutional.
- The instruction that the jury does not have to agree on what happened and can choose from a menu of options - ridiculous.
- The fact that one of the crimes is a federal election crime is egregious. Bragg has no authority here. If it were a Democrat being prosecuted, you know damn well that Garland would jump on this and prevent them from prosecuting a federal law. Just look at how they have treated Texas and OK when it comes to immigration law.

This has been a sham case with an apparently corrupt judge and a corrupt DA.
Hopefully the jury will see this trial for what it is.... an attempt to eliminate a presidential nominee from election.

All of this.

The idea that the jury doesn’t have to agree on the underlying “crime” is absolutely preposterous. The idea that one of the them is a federal crime for which he was never charged is also outrageous. The idea that no co conspirator is named - the idiocy here goes on and on. And you don’t have to be a Trump voter to acknowledge it.

I love seeing this string of posts that try to inflame and confuse.

This is not hard.

These are not obscure or archane laws.

And there has to be unanimity around the conspiracy, but not the individual elements of the applicable laws.

That is standard in NY law.

Or are you saying that the law should be applied to Trump differently?

They already did away with the statute of limitations just for Trump.

Wrong. No such thing.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

Wow! You better call Trump’s lawyers and tell them!

You do know that any conviction here will get overturned in about a millisecond, right?

It won’t, but I do know you will be complaining that the appeals court is biased when they affirm the conviction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

Wow! You better call Trump’s lawyers and tell them!

You do know that any conviction here will get overturned in about a millisecond, right?

Trump has been in legal trouble many many times and has had many judgements against him. This is not a person hst has any respect for laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

Wow! You better call Trump’s lawyers and tell them!

You do know that any conviction here will get overturned in about a millisecond, right?

It will be appealed, but probably not overturned. There is no legal or procedural basis thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the judge gave the jury the ability to select from any of three underlying "crimes" that have just been articulated at the conclusion of the trial and not unanimously agree on one - ridiculous.

Issues with this:
- The defense went to trial without knowing the underlying crime the prosecution was charging - very unconstitutional.
- The instruction that the jury does not have to agree on what happened and can choose from a menu of options - ridiculous.
- The fact that one of the crimes is a federal election crime is egregious. Bragg has no authority here. If it were a Democrat being prosecuted, you know damn well that Garland would jump on this and prevent them from prosecuting a federal law. Just look at how they have treated Texas and OK when it comes to immigration law.

This has been a sham case with an apparently corrupt judge and a corrupt DA.
Hopefully the jury will see this trial for what it is.... an attempt to eliminate a presidential nominee from election.

All of this.

The idea that the jury doesn’t have to agree on the underlying “crime” is absolutely preposterous. The idea that one of the them is a federal crime for which he was never charged is also outrageous. The idea that no co conspirator is named - the idiocy here goes on and on. And you don’t have to be a Trump voter to acknowledge it.

I love seeing this string of posts that try to inflame and confuse.

This is not hard.

These are not obscure or archane laws.

And there has to be unanimity around the conspiracy, but not the individual elements of the applicable laws.

That is standard in NY law.

Or are you saying that the law should be applied to Trump differently?

They already did away with the statute of limitations just for Trump.

The statute of limitations was for a misdemeanor. The charges here are felony, of which the statute of limitations does not apply.

Please stop with the right wing lies.