Verdict Wednesday!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is 34 felonies a lot?

Yes, it is. Some numbers for context:

Madoff, 11 counts

Skilling for all of Enron, 28, 19 stuck

Liz Holmes, 11 counts

Paul Manafort for random campaign finance stuff, 18 counts, 8 stuck

Sam Bankman-Fried, 7 counts for all of FTX, illegal campaign finance charges dropped

It’s so blatantly partisan.

Great point, A+ thinking, no notes. Nothing whatsoever was done to screen any of these juries for bias, particularly partisan bias. The defense attorneys were given no chance to disqualify jurors who demonstrated it. No judges ever did this either. Appeals courts never reviewed these matters.

The era of you snowflakes feeling sure that you can make up your own facts and get away with it is over.

Where do you get your news from? I have read about the tendencies each juror revealed about their political leanings or lack of during voir dire, why haven't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delicious irony that the "lock her up" crowd now has a convicted felon for their leader.

It is ironic that the people who fear-mongered about how Trump was going to weaponize the legal system against his opponents he didn’t. But they did.

The pot calling the kettle black.

Gas lighting is useful, I suppose.

Don't commit the crime, if you can't do the time.

He couldn't "lock her up" because there was zero evidence, unlike Trump's many many felonies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is 34 felonies a lot?

Yes, it is. Some numbers for context:

Madoff, 11 counts

Skilling for all of Enron, 28, 19 stuck

Liz Holmes, 11 counts

Paul Manafort for random campaign finance stuff, 18 counts, 8 stuck

Sam Bankman-Fried, 7 counts for all of FTX, illegal campaign finance charges dropped

It’s so blatantly partisan.

Great point, A+ thinking, no notes. Nothing whatsoever was done to screen any of these juries for bias, particularly partisan bias. The defense attorneys were given no chance to disqualify jurors who demonstrated it. No judges ever did this either. Appeals courts never reviewed these matters.

The era of you snowflakes feeling sure that you can make up your own facts and get away with it is over.

You’re lying.

Start by reviewing the voir dire and go from there. Your convicted felon deserves much more. Like serious prison time for selling our country’s national security secrets and trying to orchestrate a coup.

DP. Take a breath and stop attacking posters that you agree with. Read more carefully.

THANK YOU. LOL. I am the PP. My point was, in fact, that partisanship plays no role whatsoever in any of these outcomes. The snowflakes are the ones who think they can make ish up and people will act like it's true just because they said it.

Get back in touch with sarcasm, y'all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Delicious irony that the "lock her up" crowd now has a convicted felon for their leader.

It is ironic that the people who fear-mongered about how Trump was going to weaponize the legal system against his opponents he didn’t. But they did.

The pot calling the kettle black.

Gas lighting is useful, I suppose.

Trump and his minions are stupid. I guess the liberals are smarter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will MAGA spin this?

Who has to spin it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers in a STATE court.

Learn civics dumb Republicans.

It's a solemn moment for our country. But I'm grateful for justice & the rule of law.

The same way a Black man on trial by an all-white jury with a judge who has Klan family members in the 1950s deep south was considered “fairly convicted by a jury of his peers”.

Imperfect example, but the closest accurate example as to how obviously rigged this trial was.

Judge with family members who donate and support the left, trying the case is one of the most Trump hostile areas in the U.S., with a jury pulled from a voters registry list that was made up of 90%+ of people who voted against Trump.

Oh, so now you actually care about a judge's family members being partisan? Really? Ok. LOLOLOL

[Anonymous]

The reason this case might look small is because Trump has committed so many other huge crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is 34 felonies a lot?

Yes, it is. Some numbers for context:

Madoff, 11 counts

Skilling for all of Enron, 28, 19 stuck

Liz Holmes, 11 counts

Paul Manafort for random campaign finance stuff, 18 counts, 8 stuck

Sam Bankman-Fried, 7 counts for all of FTX, illegal campaign finance charges dropped

It’s so blatantly partisan.

Great point, A+ thinking, no notes. Nothing whatsoever was done to screen any of these juries for bias, particularly partisan bias. The defense attorneys were given no chance to disqualify jurors who demonstrated it. No judges ever did this either. Appeals courts never reviewed these matters.

The era of you snowflakes feeling sure that you can make up your own facts and get away with it is over.

You’re lying.

Start by reviewing the voir dire and go from there. Your convicted felon deserves much more. Like serious prison time for selling our country’s national security secrets and trying to orchestrate a coup.

DP. Take a breath and stop attacking posters that you agree with. Read more carefully.

Let them attack each other. It’s kinda funny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers in a STATE court.

Learn civics dumb Republicans.

It's a solemn moment for our country. But I'm grateful for justice & the rule of law.

I’m no MAGA but these weren’t his peers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers in a STATE court.

Learn civics dumb Republicans.

It's a solemn moment for our country. But I'm grateful for justice & the rule of law.

The same way a Black man on trial by an all-white jury with a judge who has Klan family members in the 1950s deep south was considered “fairly convicted by a jury of his peers”.

Imperfect example, but the closest accurate example as to how obviously rigged this trial was.

Judge with family members who donate and support the left, trying the case is one of the most Trump hostile areas in the U.S., with a jury pulled from a voters registry list that was made up of 90%+ of people who voted against Trump.

There are plenty of republicans in New York City, particularly wall street types and all the cops and firefighters who live in Queens and Staten island.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is 34 felonies a lot?

Yes, it is. Some numbers for context:

Madoff, 11 counts

Skilling for all of Enron, 28, 19 stuck

Liz Holmes, 11 counts

Paul Manafort for random campaign finance stuff, 18 counts, 8 stuck

Sam Bankman-Fried, 7 counts for all of FTX, illegal campaign finance charges dropped

It’s so blatantly partisan.

Great point, A+ thinking, no notes. Nothing whatsoever was done to screen any of these juries for bias, particularly partisan bias. The defense attorneys were given no chance to disqualify jurors who demonstrated it. No judges ever did this either. Appeals courts never reviewed these matters.

The era of you snowflakes feeling sure that you can make up your own facts and get away with it is over.

You’re lying.

Start by reviewing the voir dire and go from there. Your convicted felon deserves much more. Like serious prison time for selling our country’s national security secrets and trying to orchestrate a coup.

DP. Take a breath and stop attacking posters that you agree with. Read more carefully.

Let them attack each other. It’s kinda funny

I'm going to leave it to the people attacking me, who don't understand when they are reading sarcasm. They have enough problems without my counterattacks.

ONLY THE BEST PEOPLE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers in a STATE court.

Learn civics dumb Republicans.

It's a solemn moment for our country. But I'm grateful for justice & the rule of law.

I’m no MAGA but these weren’t his peers

Hahahahahaha

That’s adorable

[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.

As the cards lay, the jury decided it was all three underlying components and unanimously.

So this rant didn't come to pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers in a STATE court.

Learn civics dumb Republicans.

It's a solemn moment for our country. But I'm grateful for justice & the rule of law.

I’m no MAGA but these weren’t his peers

His peers are porn stars and Peckers and Cohens and a bunch of guys who are in jail thanks to being his peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers in a STATE court.

Learn civics dumb Republicans.

It's a solemn moment for our country. But I'm grateful for justice & the rule of law.

I’m no MAGA but these weren’t his peers

What do you think a jury of peers means?