Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump will be found guilty, he will be unsuccessful on his appeal, but that part won't happen until after the election.

+1
I think the paper trail is pretty clear and he will be found guilty. Not sure the judge will sentence any jail time but if he does it will be stayed until after the appeal. All of that is after the election. Unfortunately I don't think a conviction even matters to voters.

.
I doubt that the judge will put him in jail but he could make him wear an ankle monitor and Trump would need to get permission to leave his NY abode!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump will be found guilty, he will be unsuccessful on his appeal, but that part won't happen until after the election.

+1
I think the paper trail is pretty clear and he will be found guilty. Not sure the judge will sentence any jail time but if he does it will be stayed until after the appeal. All of that is after the election. Unfortunately I don't think a conviction even matters to voters.

NP here: good predictions, I agree with all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Predictions on verdict? I hate Trump but just think the whole trial was a hot mess. Not guilty.

Guilty of some misdemeanors (if judge gives this choice in jury instructions) but guilty on at least three or more felonies. Trump is not going to skate and he now lives with the Sword of Damacles swinging over his orange head. He won't get a good night's sleep ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that Costello testimony was an absolute disaster for the defense. What were they thinking putting that guy on? Now the jury heard all about the coordinated Trump effort to try to keep Cohen from flipping. Of course, why try to keep a guy who has nothing on you from flipping?

Trump is directing his own defense, and he's the stupidest SOB on the planet. He just is. I'm sure his lawyers are drinking heavily at this point.

His lawyers should have told him at the beginning that Trump could make suggestions but they, as experienced members of the bar, would decide the best way to try his case.

haha yeah he'd def have been open to that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump will be found guilty, he will be unsuccessful on his appeal, but that part won't happen until after the election.

+1
I think the paper trail is pretty clear and he will be found guilty. Not sure the judge will sentence any jail time but if he does it will be stayed until after the appeal. All of that is after the election. Unfortunately I don't think a conviction even matters to voters.

I’m sure there are some voters for whom conviction matters. I don’t know that there are great numbers of them, but for a few that would be the event to shake their tree, much like Trump getting Roe overturned or Trump trying to overthrow the government were huge events for others.

Just because the media never speaks to these people, never does Trumpers in a diner thinkpieces about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump will be found guilty, he will be unsuccessful on his appeal, but that part won't happen until after the election.

+1
I think the paper trail is pretty clear and he will be found guilty. Not sure the judge will sentence any jail time but if he does it will be stayed until after the appeal. All of that is after the election. Unfortunately I don't think a conviction even matters to voters.

I’m sure there are some voters for whom conviction matters. I don’t know that there are great numbers of them, but for a few that would be the event to shake their tree, much like Trump getting Roe overturned or Trump trying to overthrow the government were huge events for others.

Just because the media never speaks to these people, never does Trumpers in a diner thinkpieces about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Dp. I don’t know. Trump is bragging about overturning roe and many voters are not remotely concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictions on verdict? I hate Trump but just think the whole trial was a hot mess. Not guilty.

Depends on the jury. I think the prosecution made a pretty good case and Trump's defense was a hot mess. I'm sure he'll appeal if convicted anyway.

What defense? Their whole strategy was to undermine Cohen, but Costello looked more like he was not being fully truthful. Everyone knows that Cohen is untrustworthy, but his story stacks up with the other witness testimony and evidence. Trump's defense was ... no defense.

Costello managed to confirm mob tactics to try to keep Cohen in the fold, and then he was brazen and contemptuous with the judge.

Trump took the fifth in not testifying at all.

The paper trail speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow that Costello testimony was an absolute disaster for the defense. What were they thinking putting that guy on? Now the jury heard all about the coordinated Trump effort to try to keep Cohen from flipping. Of course, why try to keep a guy who has nothing on you from flipping?

Trump is directing his own defense, and he's the stupidest SOB on the planet. He just is. I'm sure his lawyers are drinking heavily at this point.

His lawyers should have told him at the beginning that Trump could make suggestions but they, as experienced members of the bar, would decide the best way to try his case.

That isn't how Trump rolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump will be found guilty, he will be unsuccessful on his appeal, but that part won't happen until after the election.

+1
I think the paper trail is pretty clear and he will be found guilty. Not sure the judge will sentence any jail time but if he does it will be stayed until after the appeal. All of that is after the election. Unfortunately I don't think a conviction even matters to voters.

I’m sure there are some voters for whom conviction matters. I don’t know that there are great numbers of them, but for a few that would be the event to shake their tree, much like Trump getting Roe overturned or Trump trying to overthrow the government were huge events for others.

Just because the media never speaks to these people, never does Trumpers in a diner thinkpieces about them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Dp. I don’t know. Trump is bragging about overturning roe and many voters are not remotely concerned.

many are

[Anonymous]

And of course, Mr. Tough Guy didn't testify. Of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Predictions on verdict? I hate Trump but just think the whole trial was a hot mess. Not guilty.

Depends on the jury. I think the prosecution made a pretty good case and Trump's defense was a hot mess. I'm sure he'll appeal if convicted anyway.

What defense? Their whole strategy was to undermine Cohen, but Costello looked more like he was not being fully truthful. Everyone knows that Cohen is untrustworthy, but his story stacks up with the other witness testimony and evidence. Trump's defense was ... no defense.

Costello managed to confirm mob tactics to try to keep Cohen in the fold, and then he was brazen and contemptuous with the judge.

Trump took the fifth in not testifying at all.

The paper trail speaks for itself.

Where’s that gif of Trump saying “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the 5th amendment?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And of course, Mr. Tough Guy didn't testify. Of course.

I heard he was going to do it, but then he found out a lady prosecutor was going to cross him and he got scared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And of course, Mr. Tough Guy didn't testify. Of course.

His dementia is too advanced for him to cover it up in the context of testifying in court. The verdict would have been beside the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Please cite where Pecker and Cohen have testified to a legal opinion and don't come back until you do! Both are testifying to FACTS and FACTS ARE NOT LEGAL OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Around pages 1130, 1140 3570.
Prosecutor asks Pecker are you aware ... is an illegal campaign contribution.
When the whole point is it is not an illegal campaign contribution. But the jury only hears Pecker and Cohen's answers, with the judge occasionally chiming in that this is not proof of guilt. The entire guilty pleas should have been disallowed(which is what the judge ruled but then he lets them in anyways.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Please cite where Pecker and Cohen have testified to a legal opinion and don't come back until you do! Both are testifying to FACTS and FACTS ARE NOT LEGAL OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Around pages 1130, 1140 3570.
Prosecutor asks Pecker are you aware ... is an illegal campaign contribution.
When the whole point is it is not an illegal campaign contribution. But the jury only hears Pecker and Cohen's answers, with the judge occasionally chiming in that this is not proof of guilt. The entire guilty pleas should have been disallowed(which is what the judge ruled but then he lets them in anyways.)

Neither 1130 nor 1140 contain anything even remotely about that. They don't even have the words "campaign" or "contribution" on those pages. There was some testimony from Pecker about whether he understood that there was such thing as campaign finance law and that there were limits on how much he or AMI could contribute to a political campaign. Pecker didn't testify to anything more than that. 3570 is asking Cohen about statements he made to the FEC in the course of their investigation. The judge specifically warned the jury that: "Neither the fact of the FEC investigation nor the responses thereto constitute evidence of the Defendant's guilt, and you may not consider them in determining whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes." Cohen did not testify to whether they were illegal campaign contributions.