Verdict Wednesday!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn’t illegal.

Didn't say it was, just answering the question of which media outlet they're referring to. Although an argument could be made that what the National Enquirer was doing was contributing to his campaign, and if you put $ figures to it, would exceed legal limits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn’t illegal.

Didn't say it was, just answering the question of which media outlet they're referring to. Although an argument could be made that what the National Enquirer was doing was contributing to his campaign, and if you put $ figures to it, would exceed legal limits.

The poster before said it was a campaign finance violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That isn’t illegal.

Didn't say it was, just answering the question of which media outlet they're referring to. Although an argument could be made that what the National Enquirer was doing was contributing to his campaign, and if you put $ figures to it, would exceed legal limits.

The poster before said it was a campaign finance violation.[/quote

It is not being charged as such, I don't think. People are free to believe what they believe - that not giving written instructions is "unconstitutional" or that providing services to a campaign violates campaign finance laws. Doesn't really have any bearing on the case, unless they're jurors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess not in New York.
Jurors are not given the instructions in New York.

Turley's claim that no juror instructions were made available seems really flaky... because they are right here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Yes. But they are not given to a deliberating jury.

I “think” the defendant can consent to have them provided to a deliberating jury though. Really can’t explain what Trump’s counsel is up to. This defense has been weird in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess not in New York.
Jurors are not given the instructions in New York.

Turley's claim that no juror instructions were made available seems really flaky... because they are right here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Yes. But they are not given to a deliberating jury.

I “think” the defendant can consent to have them provided to a deliberating jury though. Really can’t explain what Trump’s counsel is up to. This defense has been weird in many ways.

Is it up to the defense? I thought it was up to whatever the norms are in the particular court system. If OTOH the defense can consent to this, it would make sense that they won't, to gin up outrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess not in New York.
Jurors are not given the instructions in New York.

Turley's claim that no juror instructions were made available seems really flaky... because they are right here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Yes. But they are not given to a deliberating jury.

I “think” the defendant can consent to have them provided to a deliberating jury though. Really can’t explain what Trump’s counsel is up to. This defense has been weird in many ways.

Is it up to the defense? I thought it was up to whatever the norms are in the particular court system. If OTOH the defense can consent to this, it would make sense that they won't, to gin up outrage.

That makes no sense at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess not in New York.
Jurors are not given the instructions in New York.

Turley's claim that no juror instructions were made available seems really flaky... because they are right here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

And in those instructions, the judge says the jury will not have a written instructions but can ask to have them read back in part or in full.

[Anonymous]

Bigger issue is the judge is not letting the jury rehear evidence saying it is not relevant?

[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.

Your points are valid, except in the jury instructions, the judge says the underlying crime is election conspiracy. The unproven part where the jury can choose their own adventure is the 'illegal means' by which Trump engaged in illegal conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

How does filing false business records have intent to be a part of a conspiracy to influence an election by illegal means, when the bookkeeping records were in 2017, and the election was in 2016?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does filing false business records have intent to be a part of a conspiracy to influence an election by illegal means, when the bookkeeping records were in 2017, and the election was in 2016?

They kept the payment off the books until after the election. The timing was part of the scheme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I guess not in New York.
Jurors are not given the instructions in New York.

Turley's claim that no juror instructions were made available seems really flaky... because they are right here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Yes. But they are not given to a deliberating jury.

I “think” the defendant can consent to have them provided to a deliberating jury though. Really can’t explain what Trump’s counsel is up to. This defense has been weird in many ways.

You *think* incorrectly.

If the jury wants the instructions, they can be provided. It isn't about consent. It is up to the judge nd there is no reason to withhold them.

Th judge does check with both parties regarding ANY jury requests, whether evidence, transcript or instructions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bigger issue is the judge is not letting the jury rehear evidence saying it is not relevant?

When did this happen?

[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.

Your points are valid, except in the jury instructions, the judge says the underlying crime is election conspiracy. The unproven part where the jury can choose their own adventure is the 'illegal means' by which Trump engaged in illegal conspiracy.

That isn't the "unproven part" - that is what the jury has to determine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bigger issue is the judge is not letting the jury rehear evidence saying it is not relevant?

When did this happen?

As of yesterday, the judge said that they would locate the requested testimony, and provide it to the jury. Did that not happen yesterday? It was at the end of the day, so it could be this morning.

If someone has a better reference for this claim, I’d be happy to hear it.