Verdict Wednesday!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here is the makeup of the jury: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-jury-hush-money.html

Ugh, hate that all these personal details have been released about the jurors. I realize you can’t identify them from these depictions but to me it’s still invasive for these people to have this out in The NY Times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

Wow! You better call Trump’s lawyers and tell them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury is sending notes to acting Justice Merchan that are giving observers the impression they're not going to be able to convict. Merchan is very pissed. So pissed, in fact, he sent the jury home for the day.

Um, the jury goes home at the end of the day.

Hmmm...

These are routine requests.

Only idiots, like Rubio, try to turn them into something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Here is the makeup of the jury: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-jury-hush-money.html

Ugh, hate that all these personal details have been released about the jurors. I realize you can’t identify them from these depictions but to me it’s still invasive for these people to have this out in The NY Times.

I agree, seems like at least their friends and neighbors can figure out who they are. On the other hand, these descriptions make me think those who believe the jury is made up of all democrats who dislike Trump are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Read the charging documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

He’s being prosecuted for a crime under NY law (falsifying business records). The charges are bumped up from a misdemeanor to a felony because the records were allegedly falsified to further another crime. The other crime doesn’t have to be prosecuted and it doesn’t have to fall under NY’s jurisdiction. It can be any other crime.

[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.

All of this.

The idea that the jury doesn’t have to agree on the underlying “crime” is absolutely preposterous. The idea that one of the them is a federal crime for which he was never charged is also outrageous. The idea that no co conspirator is named - the idiocy here goes on and on. And you don’t have to be a Trump voter to acknowledge it.

I love seeing this string of posts that try to inflame and confuse.

This is not hard.

These are not obscure or archane laws.

And there has to be unanimity around the conspiracy, but not the individual elements of the applicable laws.

That is standard in NY law.

Or are you saying that the law should be applied to Trump differently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Not NY’s jurisdiction. The election was federal not state.

NY has a catch all whereby the Federal law applies.

Read up on it before blindly parroting false right wing talking points.

[Anonymous]

Banana Republic....

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Banana Republic....

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banana Republic....

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836

Nope, I'll believe Jonathan Turley, over Melissa Goldin, a hack journalist with zippy bonafides.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=melissa+goldin&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Which media outlet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that the Trump campaign conspired with a media outlet to not only bury negative stories about him, but to plant stories about his opponent is insane to me.
Like holy hell that is so corrupt and illegal.
It’s not about the hush money.

What law was broken?

Campaign finance.
He had an entire media outlet contributing to his campaign with a contribution that is near impossible to calculate in its value.

Which media outlet?

PP is referring to The National Enquirer. They were catching and killing negative stories about Trump, and making up $hit about his opponents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banana Republic....

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836

Nope, I'll believe Jonathan Turley, over Melissa Goldin, a hack journalist with zippy bonafides.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=melissa+goldin&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1

Goldin is part of the fact checking team at AP. But, you don't have to take anyone's word for anything. The instructions are public.

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf