Trump found Guilty on all charges!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here's why that's bad news for Biden...

No but seriously, this is obviously bad for Trump. Doesn't mean he can't win! 2016 happened, after all. But it's clearly bad for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here's why that's bad news for Biden...

No but seriously, this is obviously bad for Trump. Doesn't mean he can't win! 2016 happened, after all. But it's clearly bad for him.

Certainly is good evidence that only the MAGA base buys into the felons lies about the trial and charges.

[Anonymous]

Welp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

Sounds like misconduct - not sure if it rises to the mistrial level. It was post the day before the verdict...... which was prior to a full day of deliberations.
I hope this will be thoroughly investigated to find out if this person was indeed the cousin of a juror and if so, who that juror is.
A juror is NOT to discuss the trial outside the jury room once deliberations begin. This is clearly a violation if it is true.

[Anonymous]

Matt Colangelo was NUMBER THREE at the DOJ behind Merrick Garland when he left to go to NY to join Trump prosecution team. Interesting. I did not know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

Of course it would, but it’s totally possible this was some rando lying online. I’m just surprised - wouldn’t it take the FBI all of an afternoon to find out if this guy has a cousin on the jury!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

Sounds like misconduct - not sure if it rises to the mistrial level. It was post the day before the verdict...... which was prior to a full day of deliberations.
I hope this will be thoroughly investigated to find out if this person was indeed the cousin of a juror and if so, who that juror is.
A juror is NOT to discuss the trial outside the jury room once deliberations begin. This is clearly a violation if it is true.

It’s not just once deliberations begin, it’s the entire time.

NY Jury handbook: Jurors must not talk about the case with others not on the jury, even their spouses or families and must not read about the case in the newspapers. They should avoid radio and television broadcasts that might mention the case. The jury’s verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he - for whatever reason - doesn’t become the Republican nominee, who would be the Reb nominee?

I’m guessing Nikki Haley.

This brings me such peace. I disagree with her on a lot of issues and I won’t vote for her but I could still sleep at night knowing that a bat$hit crazy autocrat wannabe isn’t in charge and democracy is safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

Sounds like misconduct - not sure if it rises to the mistrial level. It was post the day before the verdict...... which was prior to a full day of deliberations.
I hope this will be thoroughly investigated to find out if this person was indeed the cousin of a juror and if so, who that juror is.
A juror is NOT to discuss the trial outside the jury room once deliberations begin. This is clearly a violation if it is true.

It’s not just once deliberations begin, it’s the entire time.

NY Jury handbook: Jurors must not talk about the case with others not on the jury, even their spouses or families and must not read about the case in the newspapers. They should avoid radio and television broadcasts that might mention the case. The jury’s verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court.

The judge is likely researching the law as to whether such discussion - if true - rises to the level of grounds for a mistrial. We don't know much right now, only that it was serious enough for the judge to send a letter to the parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

Sounds like misconduct - not sure if it rises to the mistrial level. It was post the day before the verdict...... which was prior to a full day of deliberations.
I hope this will be thoroughly investigated to find out if this person was indeed the cousin of a juror and if so, who that juror is.
A juror is NOT to discuss the trial outside the jury room once deliberations begin. This is clearly a violation if it is true.

It’s not just once deliberations begin, it’s the entire time.

NY Jury handbook: Jurors must not talk about the case with others not on the jury, even their spouses or families and must not read about the case in the newspapers. They should avoid radio and television broadcasts that might mention the case. The jury’s verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court.

The judge is likely researching the law as to whether such discussion - if true - rises to the level of grounds for a mistrial. We don't know much right now, only that it was serious enough for the judge to send a letter to the parties.

I doubt the judge is doing that. Investigators haven’t even determined yet if the post is accurate and not a hoax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

Sounds like misconduct - not sure if it rises to the mistrial level. It was post the day before the verdict...... which was prior to a full day of deliberations.
I hope this will be thoroughly investigated to find out if this person was indeed the cousin of a juror and if so, who that juror is.
A juror is NOT to discuss the trial outside the jury room once deliberations begin. This is clearly a violation if it is true.

It’s not just once deliberations begin, it’s the entire time.

NY Jury handbook: Jurors must not talk about the case with others not on the jury, even their spouses or families and must not read about the case in the newspapers. They should avoid radio and television broadcasts that might mention the case. The jury’s verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court.

The judge is likely researching the law as to whether such discussion - if true - rises to the level of grounds for a mistrial. We don't know much right now, only that it was serious enough for the judge to send a letter to the parties.

I doubt the judge is doing that. Investigators haven’t even determined yet if the post is accurate and not a hoax.

Judges don't send such letters lightly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

The letter was sent to the attorneys by the judge!

Under New York criminal law, a defendant can move to vacate a verdict on the basis of juror misconduct if and only if he can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the misconduct not only occurred but created a substantial risk of prejudice.

I'm not a legal eagle, and don't know if a juror telling his cousin that Trump is getting convicted ahead of the verdict being announced amounts to juror misconduct that meets this threshold.

Sounds like misconduct - not sure if it rises to the mistrial level. It was post the day before the verdict...... which was prior to a full day of deliberations.
I hope this will be thoroughly investigated to find out if this person was indeed the cousin of a juror and if so, who that juror is.
A juror is NOT to discuss the trial outside the jury room once deliberations begin. This is clearly a violation if it is true.

It’s not just once deliberations begin, it’s the entire time.

NY Jury handbook: Jurors must not talk about the case with others not on the jury, even their spouses or families and must not read about the case in the newspapers. They should avoid radio and television broadcasts that might mention the case. The jury’s verdict must be based on nothing else but the evidence and law presented to them in court.

The judge is likely researching the law as to whether such discussion - if true - rises to the level of grounds for a mistrial. We don't know much right now, only that it was serious enough for the judge to send a letter to the parties.

I doubt the judge is doing that. Investigators haven’t even determined yet if the post is accurate and not a hoax.

Judges don't send such letters lightly.

Are you suggesting the FBI has already completed an investigation? Because the judge isn’t the person to determine if this is a real person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp.

this is complete BS.