Trump found Guilty on all charges!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other states know it's not a legit case.

New York can play games and the DNC can import the number three at the DOJ, Michael Colangelo, to prosecute their top political rival.

These are Soviet style show trials. SCOTUS will probably schwack the whole case altogether.

Trump is a felon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These convictions will be overturned by the court because of issues with due process. Convicting someone of a crime without specifically identifying what the underlying misconduct was is not legal. Merchan told the jury that they did not need to make a unanimous agreement on which component of his conduct they found him guilty on. It will be overturned. I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him, but the conviction is likely invalid also uses and untested legal theory that poses constitutional questions.

No, it's all normal and common. These aren't unusual charges or convictions. The only unusual part is that Trump finally got caught.

It is not common or normal practice for prosecution. Even CNN is saying that this is a “novel and untested legal theory” . This is not a Fox News talking point there are multiple news networks that have journalistic integrity which have pointed out issues with the non unanimous nature of this conviction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These convictions will be overturned by the court because of issues with due process. Convicting someone of a crime without specifically identifying what the underlying misconduct was is not legal. Merchan told the jury that they did not need to make a unanimous agreement on which component of his conduct they found him guilty on. It will be overturned. I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him, but the conviction is likely invalid also uses and untested legal theory that poses constitutional questions.

No, it's all normal and common. These aren't unusual charges or convictions. The only unusual part is that Trump finally got caught.

It is not common or normal practice for prosecution. Even CNN is saying that this is a “novel and untested legal theory” . This is not a Fox News talking point there are multiple news networks that have journalistic integrity which have pointed out issues with the non unanimous nature of this conviction.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These convictions will be overturned by the court because of issues with due process. Convicting someone of a crime without specifically identifying what the underlying misconduct was is not legal. Merchan told the jury that they did not need to make a unanimous agreement on which component of his conduct they found him guilty on. It will be overturned. I don’t like Trump and won’t vote for him, but the conviction is likely invalid also uses and untested legal theory that poses constitutional questions.

No, it's all normal and common. These aren't unusual charges or convictions. The only unusual part is that Trump finally got caught.

It is not common or normal practice for prosecution. Even CNN is saying that this is a “novel and untested legal theory” . This is not a Fox News talking point there are multiple news networks that have journalistic integrity which have pointed out issues with the non unanimous nature of this conviction.

“Non unanimous”? The jury was unanimous. That’s all that counts here. Trump is a convicted felon.

You won’t even comprehend how much kid glove treatment dear little Trump has gotten at all stages of this across all his prosecutions.

[Anonymous]

So can he claim that paying off the porn star to cover up his tawdry affair was part of his official duties even though he wasn't President yet? The right-wing justices on SCOTUS would go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BS! He should be held to a higher standard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So can he claim that paying off the porn star to cover up his tawdry affair was part of his official duties even though he wasn't President yet? The right-wing justices on SCOTUS would go for it.

No, that's not what Trump is claiming. Rather, he's claiming that some of the evidence used by the prosecution involved his official acts and is therefore inadmissible. If Judge Merchan can sever that evidence from the jury's verdict, then the verdict stands. If he can't, then he has to throw it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other states know it's not a legit case.

New York can play games and the DNC can import the number three at the DOJ, Michael Colangelo, to prosecute their top political rival.

These are Soviet style show trials. SCOTUS will probably schwack the whole case altogether.

Trump is a felon.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Your convicted felon is sitting in meetings in the White House with Daddy because he's non compos mentis.

[Anonymous]

The jury did not even agree on what the predicate crime was, which is necessary for this conviction of falsifying documents to be a felony. If there is no predicate crime it would be a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations would already be expired so it would not be possible to charge someone anymore. So the jury did not have a unanimous verdict on the predicate crime which means the conviction raises constitutional issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jury did not even agree on what the predicate crime was, which is necessary for this conviction of falsifying documents to be a felony. If there is no predicate crime it would be a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations would already be expired so it would not be possible to charge someone anymore. So the jury did not have a unanimous verdict on the predicate crime which means the conviction raises constitutional issues.

If the verdict were not unanimous for the predicate crime as a stand-alone charge, it would result in a mistrial from a hung jury. Thus the logic that the predicate crime doesn’t matter is not consistent with legal precedent requiring unanimous jury verdicts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can he claim that paying off the porn star to cover up his tawdry affair was part of his official duties even though he wasn't President yet? The right-wing justices on SCOTUS would go for it.

No, that's not what Trump is claiming. Rather, he's claiming that some of the evidence used by the prosecution involved his official acts and is therefore inadmissible. If Judge Merchan can sever that evidence from the jury's verdict, then the verdict stands. If he can't, then he has to throw it out.

His Tweets stupidly admitting what he did were not official acts. He wasn’t prosecuted for any official acts. The criminal actions were agreeing to pay for a NDA during the campaign and then falsifying business records to cover up the business, tax, and campaign finance fraud in the reimbursements to Cohen. None of that was official. None of the evidence was from official actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jury did not even agree on what the predicate crime was, which is necessary for this conviction of falsifying documents to be a felony. If there is no predicate crime it would be a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations would already be expired so it would not be possible to charge someone anymore. So the jury did not have a unanimous verdict on the predicate crime which means the conviction raises constitutional issues.

You are still stupidly wrong with this bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can he claim that paying off the porn star to cover up his tawdry affair was part of his official duties even though he wasn't President yet? The right-wing justices on SCOTUS would go for it.

No, that's not what Trump is claiming. Rather, he's claiming that some of the evidence used by the prosecution involved his official acts and is therefore inadmissible. If Judge Merchan can sever that evidence from the jury's verdict, then the verdict stands. If he can't, then he has to throw it out.

His Tweets stupidly admitting what he did were not official acts. He wasn’t prosecuted for any official acts. The criminal actions were agreeing to pay for a NDA during the campaign and then falsifying business records to cover up the business, tax, and campaign finance fraud in the reimbursements to Cohen. None of that was official. None of the evidence was from official actions.

That is for Judge Merchan to figure out. The same for Judge Chutkin. The same for Judge Cannon. The same for Judge McAfee.

On top of that, Judge Chutkin and Judge Cannon will both need to decide whether Smith was even legally appointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury did not even agree on what the predicate crime was, which is necessary for this conviction of falsifying documents to be a felony. If there is no predicate crime it would be a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations would already be expired so it would not be possible to charge someone anymore. So the jury did not have a unanimous verdict on the predicate crime which means the conviction raises constitutional issues.

You are still stupidly wrong with this bullshit.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05...cate-crimes-00159225