Verdict Wednesday!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Based on what facts exactly?

Well, the charges require that Trump intended to falsify records in furtherance of another crime, but the prosecutors literally didn't say what that crime was (and somehow the judge didn't require them to name it either). So I wouldn't be convinced that they even stated a crime here...

You need to find better news sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Same. Just because I think some jurors won't be able to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Based on what facts exactly?

Well, the charges require that Trump intended to falsify records in furtherance of another crime, but the prosecutors literally didn't say what that crime was (and somehow the judge didn't require them to name it either). So I wouldn't be convinced that they even stated a crime here...

You need to find better news sources.

Do you want to tell me what the underlying crime was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the judge locks him up right in the courtroom?

Why are people this delusional? No, he won't get locked up.

“Delusional.” Isn’t that how it goes for most people who are convicted of crimes? I realize Republicans are above the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Based on what facts exactly?

Well, the charges require that Trump intended to falsify records in furtherance of another crime, but the prosecutors literally didn't say what that crime was (and somehow the judge didn't require them to name it either). So I wouldn't be convinced that they even stated a crime here...

You need to find better news sources.

Do you want to tell me what the underlying crime was?

Dear god. Are we back to this? Go back to the “Indictment on Monday?” thread and re-read the dozen or so answers you were given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the judge locks him up right in the courtroom?

Why are people this delusional? No, he won't get locked up.

“Delusional.” Isn’t that how it goes for most people who are convicted of crimes? I realize Republicans are above the law.

Depends on the crime. Depends on whether the convicted can stay out, pending appeals. In Trump's case, even if he were convicted of murder, he would be allowed to stay out of prison, pending appeals. What he calls witch hunt has been extreme deference to his status as a former POTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Based on what facts exactly?

Well, the charges require that Trump intended to falsify records in furtherance of another crime, but the prosecutors literally didn't say what that crime was (and somehow the judge didn't require them to name it either). So I wouldn't be convinced that they even stated a crime here...

You need to find better news sources.

Do you want to tell me what the underlying crime was?

Dear god. Are we back to this? Go back to the “Indictment on Monday?” thread and re-read the dozen or so answers you were given.

People have no idea in that thread. The people commenting (maybe you?) are the same people who think the judge is personally going to slap cuffs on Trump after a guilty verdict comes in after 30 minutes of deliberations. The underlying "crime" (a misdemeanor) he's relying on is an obscure state campaign violation in New York state. But as a juror I would not be willing to convict on that based on what I have heard.

That said, I think there is close to a 100% chance of a conviction here because of how the jury instructions were written, and the likely makeup of the jury.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Based on what facts exactly?

Well, the charges require that Trump intended to falsify records in furtherance of another crime, but the prosecutors literally didn't say what that crime was (and somehow the judge didn't require them to name it either). So I wouldn't be convinced that they even stated a crime here...

You need to find better news sources.

Do you want to tell me what the underlying crime was?

Dear god. Are we back to this? Go back to the “Indictment on Monday?” thread and re-read the dozen or so answers you were given.

People have no idea in that thread. The people commenting (maybe you?) are the same people who think the judge is personally going to slap cuffs on Trump after a guilty verdict comes in after 30 minutes of deliberations. The underlying "crime" (a misdemeanor) he's relying on is an obscure state campaign violation in New York state. But as a juror I would not be willing to convict on that based on what I have heard.

That said, I think there is close to a 100% chance of a conviction here because of how the jury instructions were written, and the likely makeup of the jury.

I am hopeful that the jurors take their oath seriously and after listening to the evidence presented know that there is no crime and the prosecution has failed to prove any kind of guilt. If not an acquittal, I am hopeful for a hung jury in that at least some of the jurors cannot find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Anonymous]

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.

Womp womp. Again, try better sources than OAN and Truth Social

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump basically used the Chewbacca Defense, while the prosecution went into great detail and had literal receipts. This is going to be quick.

Chewbacca defense?

If you prefer a written vs a video explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

[Anonymous]

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.

Womp womp. Again, try better sources than OAN and Truth Social

So, instead of debating the issues... you have chosen to attack. For the record, I don't watch OAN and don't go to Truth Social.
These are real issues.
You would think that if a prosecutor chooses to go after a former president and current presidential nominee, it would be a slam-dunk case.
This is not even a viable case. Pretty sad for Bragg. If he is not exonerated or the jury is not hung, this will be overturned on appeal. So many reasons for an appeal I have lost count.

[Anonymous]

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.

I don’t know whether the prosecution was able to prove that kind of criminal intent beyond reasonable doubt. The falsification of the business records was proven, but the criminal intent behind it on Trump’s part? Not sure. I mean, he just generally operates with criminal intent in everything he does, but did the prosecutors prove that in this specific instance, which is what they were required to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Based on what facts exactly?

Look, Trump has skated on everything his entire life including incidents that would have been career-ending for any regular politician. Why would this time be any different?

Because the Universe demands that for all of us out chickens come to roost!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I predict not guilty.

Same. Just because I think some jurors won't be able to do it.

New Yorkers have soft hearts for trump? Who knew!! The prosecution's case was four weeks and the defense has one very fishy witness. Thos should tell any jury if you can't mount a decent defense then you are guilty!