Trump trial

[hallett21]

A majority of the jury will not want this to drag into next week.

In any case, can a juror be removed because they find the defendant guilty/innocent when everyone else disagrees? Does the juror need to “defend” their position or just simply state it?

 

[530RL]

In any case, can a juror be removed because they find the defendant guilty/innocent when everyone else disagrees? Does the juror need to “defend” their position or just simply state it?

No, one can not be removed simply because of their position. You must break a specific rule.

If they are at an impasse, they will tell the bailiff who will tell the judge. The judge will lecture them to try harder. This will happen one or several times until they come to a verdict or it is clear to the judge there is no unanimous verdict.

There are two lawyers in this jury.

Jurors don't determine the law, they determine facts.

 

[RiverDave]

I believe every bomb maker eventually gets bitten by his own work.

Those were yes or no questions.. lol.

Too add a third question do you think if it was anyone but trump that this would have even been brought to trial?

And a fourth question

What are the odds of him getting convicted in a conservative city vs a liberal city? Do you think there would be different outcomes?

 

[hallett21]

No, one can not be removed simply because of their position. You must break a specific rule.

If they are at an impasse, they will tell the bailiff who will tell the judge. The judge will lecture them to try harder. This will happen one or several times until they come to a verdict or it is clear to the judge there is no unanimous verdict.

There are two lawyers in this jury.

Jurors don't determine the law, they determine facts.

I mean OJ? Lmao

 

[530RL]

Those were yes or no questions.. lol.

Too add a third question do you think if it was anyone but trump that this would have even been brought to trial?

And a fourth question

What are the odds of him getting convicted in a conservative city vs a liberal city? Do you think there would be different outcomes?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes

 

[Racey]

Do you believe this trial has been conducted fairly and honestly?

Better yet do you believe any of this should have been tried to begin with?

Ill save you the time "yes, and yes, as is consistent with the constitution" -530

 

[Instigator]

Ill save you the time "yes, and yes, as is consistent with the constitution" -530

Lmao

 

[jetboatperformance]

I will say this "Catch and Kill" is no more than semi legal Black mail , And My Attorney has written a few NDAs for Me from time to time for many different reasons/ situations from settlements to subcontractors , common everyday business practice

 

[zbudman]

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes

After everyone and their brother passed on this saying there was no case, especially at the Federal level, you truly believe that if it was anyone else they too would have been charged?

 

[LHC Kirby]

Judge Merchan delivered an BS instruction.
Copied from another article = Judge said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. Jurors can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices provided on each count.

Thus, if the jury is split 4-4-4, the judge he will still treat them as unanimous.

That’s exactly what I heard earlier today.

 

[Sportin' Wood]

What time does the civil war start?

 

[Racey]

 

[shintoooo]

Lmao. I wonder who tweets for him while he’s Shitting himself

 

[Racey]

Lmao. I wonder who tweets for him while he’s Shitting himself

View attachment 1381102

So he's blaming black Americans for this mess?

 

[shintoooo]

So he's blaming black Americans for this mess?

Exactly

 

[rivrrts429]

I haven’t found anyone that can tell me what law he broke?

The two key witnesses for the prosecution was a porn star and an ex-lawyer who has been disbarred and stole money from his boss.

I still can’t figure out what law was broken that the prosecutors have proven in this trial?

 

[X Hoser]

I haven’t found anyone that can tell me what law he broke?

The two key witnesses for the prosecution was a porn star and an ex-lawyer who has been disbarred and stole money from his boss.

I still can’t figure out what law was broken that the prosecutors have proven in this trial?

Both of them have lied before. Both of their creditability is in the toilet! I don’t understand how anybody can not see this! That is, unless the jury is rigged!

 

[530RL]

I haven’t found anyone that can tell me what law he broke?

The two key witnesses for the prosecution was a porn star and an ex-lawyer who has been disbarred and stole money from his boss.

I still can’t figure out what law was broken that the prosecutors have proven in this trial?

The applicable laws are explained in very basic “see spot run” language in the jury instructions that are posted in this thread.

Whether or not he broke them beyond a reasonable doubt is the factual question the jury is deliberating.

 

[rivrrts429]

The applicable laws are explained in very basic “see spot run” language in the jury instructions that are posted in this thread.

Whether or not he broke them beyond a reasonable doubt is the factual question the jury is deliberating.

You sound like my corporate lawyer buddy I was talking to about it. He gave me the same no answer.

Ultimately he agreed this is some scary ass shit of a past, and potential future, POTUS.

 

[530RL]

You sound like my corporate lawyer buddy I was talking to about it. He gave me the same no answer.

Ultimately he agreed this is some scary ass shit of a past, and potential future, POTUS.

Lol

I’d lay it out but people aren’t really interested in understanding what the law is and how it is being applied. They have made up their minds and are only interested in shooting messengers.

 

[rivrrts429]

Lol

I’d lay it out but people aren’t really interested in understanding what the law is and how it is being applied. They have made up their minds and are only interested in shooting messengers.

I get it but it is interesting to hear with people who try some incredible cases. My co-workers sister is a very famous attorney. Her name is extremely well known. She didn’t want to have the discussion either lol

 

[530RL]

I get it but it is interesting to hear with people who try some incredible cases. My co-workers sister is a very famous attorney. Her name is extremely well known. She didn’t want to have the discussion either lol

She is right, the truth and the law has no upside any more.

 

[hallett21]

Lol

I’d lay it out but people aren’t really interested in understanding what the law is and how it is being applied. They have made up their minds and are only interested in shooting messengers.

I mean lay it out.

@shintoooo and @DaytonaBabe can whack the thread if it goes off the rails.

 

[RiverDave]

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes

Well I would say we are in violent disagreement..

Kinda surprised to hear ya say that to be honest but I respect everyone’s right to an opinion no matter how bizarre I might find it.

 

[RiverDave]

Both of them have lied before. Both of their creditability is in the toilet! I don’t understand how anybody can not see this! That is, unless the jury is rigged!

It’s being held in one of the most liberal cities in the country.. even then though I think they are gonna have a hard time with this

 

[FreeBird236]

Lol

I’d lay it out but people aren’t really interested in understanding what the law is and how it is being applied. They have made up their minds and are only interested in shooting messengers.

It's criminal gymnastics and you know it, and you're trying make it seem normal. Three different charges to make the link to a felony work and the jurors don't even have to agree, and the defense wasn't made aware until after their closing. Total BS and you know it, you have no credibility.

 

[DarkHorseRacing]

I get it but it is interesting to hear with people who try some incredible cases. My co-workers sister is a very famous attorney. Her name is extremely well known. She didn’t want to have the discussion either lol

Gloria Allred?

 

[hallett21]

It's criminal gymnastics and you know it, and you're trying make it seem normal. Three different charges to make the link to a felony work and the jurors don't even have to agree, and the defense wasn't made aware until after their closing. Total BS and you know it, you have no credibility.

Assuming what he posted earlier is true I cannot find the 3 in 1 verbiage.

 

[530RL]

I mean lay it out.

@shintoooo and @DaytonaBabe can whack the thread if it goes off the rails.

The instructions state in a nutshell that a defendant can be held criminally liable for the criminal acts of other people if the defendant asks, instructs or helped to do so intentionally. In this case calling payments to Cohen as legal fees when in reality they were or were not for legal fees but for reimbursement of other items. That is the first hurdle for the jury, were there false business records and did the defendant ask, instruct or help.

It speaks to each of the 34 charges, documents in this case as well as testimony, to ask if those documents and testimony demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in the above description, falsely describing fees paid to Cohen as solely legal fees.

Secondly, to be a felony, they must first find the above, and then on top of that find that those acts by the defendant were to commit or conceal any other state or federal crime. For example a violation of state or federal campaign finance laws, tax laws or any other law on the books. The instructions state that there does not have to be agreement on which law was broken in the second test, just that a second law was broken to further the crime.

That is the alleged Criminal Violation under New York law. That is what the instructions state. These instructions were argued over repeatedly for several days. There are no surprises to any side in these. Both sides have areas they disagree with, but neither side was blindsided as they were published to both sides in a final ruling prior to being read to the jury.

I didn’t write them, no one asked me for my input. I am just laying them out as written as to what the alleged crime is.

 

[Lumpy]

Anyone with half a brain knows this is total bullshit…I say hung jury for sure. If not it go’s to SCOTUS pronto.

530RL needs his head examined

As for the “Civil War” bullshit…come fucking on…not going to happen until cream corn in the can is off the shelf, Cops go home to protect family and the lawless go full swing. It's been worse but we are on our way.

Things won't change until people feel real pain…by then it may be too late.

Let this video soak in real good……………….

 

[bonesfab]

530RL needs his head examined

so he should make an Appointment with his proctologist??

 

[530RL]

530RL needs his head examined

Messenger ducks……..

 

[Racey]

It's criminal gymnastics and you know it, and you're trying make it seem normal. Three different charges to make the link to a felony work and the jurors don't even have to agree, and the defense wasn't made aware until after their closing. Total BS and you know it, you have no credibility.

"SeE SpOT RuN"

x.com

x.com

 

[530RL]

so he should make an Appointment with his proctologist??

Messenger dives into fox hole, face up……..

 

[530RL]

"SeE SpOT RuN"

x.com

x.com

View attachment 1381131

Messenger ducks again……

 

[hallett21]

Anyone with half a brain knows this is total bullshit…I say hung jury for sure. If not it go’s to SCOTUS pronto.

530RL needs his head examined

As for the “Civil War” bullshit…come fucking on…not going to happen until cream corn in the can is off the shelf, Cops go home to protect family and the lawless go full swing. It's been worse but we are on our way.

Things won't change until people feel real pain…by then it may be too late.

Let this video soak in real good……………….

Can you explain your side of the documents?

To his credit he took the time to explain his interpretation.

 

[Racey]

Messenger ducks again……

Is that you quacking?

 

[Racey]

I haven’t found anyone that can tell me what law he broke?

The two key witnesses for the prosecution was a porn star and an ex-lawyer who has been disbarred and stole money from his boss.

I still can’t figure out what law was broken that the prosecutors have proven in this trial?

530 still does not believe that Obama's people wire tapped Trump's campaign.

His brain is poisoned by hatred of Trump

 

[Lumpy]

Messenger ducks……..

Messenger dives into fox hole, face up……..

Messenger ducks again……

I’m sure many mental health professional’s are in your area…I suggest you find one.

 

[Lumpy]

I believe every bomb maker eventually gets bitten by his own work.

Another example of mental health treatment needed.

 

[530RL]

I’m sure many mental health professional’s are in your area…I suggest you find one.

Another example of mental health treatment needed.

LOL

Shoot that messenger, that should help.

At least you will not have to think.

 

[Racey]

LOL

Shoot that messenger, that should help.

Ladies and Gentlemen i present to you the self annointed messenger of all things Trump

 

[hallett21]

The instructions state in a nutshell that a defendant can be held criminally liable for the criminal acts of other people if the defendant asks, instructs or helped to do so intentionally. In this case calling payments to Cohen as legal fees when in reality they were or were not for legal fees but for reimbursement of other items. That is the first hurdle for the jury, were there false business records and did the defendant ask, instruct or help.

It speaks to each of the 34 charges, documents in this case as well as testimony, to ask if those documents and testimony demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in the above description, falsely describing fees paid to Cohen as solely legal fees.

Secondly, to be a felony, they must first find the above, and then on top of that find that those acts by the defendant were to commit or conceal any other state or federal crime. For example a violation of state or federal campaign finance laws, tax laws or any other law on the books. The instructions state that there does not have to be agreement on which law was broken in the second test, just that a second law was broken to further the crime.

That is the alleged Criminal Violation under New York law. That is what the instructions state. These instructions were argued over repeatedly for several days. There are no surprises to any side in these. Both sides have areas they disagree with, but neither side was blindsided as they were published to both sides in a final ruling prior to being read to the jury.

I didn’t write them, no one asked me for my input. I am just laying them out as written as to what the alleged crime is.

Can anyone intelligently discredit this?

 

[Racey]

Can anyone intelligently discredit this?

Your lawyer has a duty to tell you that your intentions ammount to a possible criminal action, and to advise you against that (as you would most certainly not know this as you are not a lawyer), not to tell you it's all good then steal and embezzle the money you pay them against the bills they send you.

And this would be the most liberal interpretation of what happened.

More likely Cohen just sent bills to Trump, amd with the amount of money they pay attorneys Cohen's bills were small beans so they just sent the checks under the assumption his bills were legit.

 

[Singleton]

The instructions state in a nutshell that a defendant can be held criminally liable for the criminal acts of other people if the defendant asks, instructs or helped to do so intentionally. In this case calling payments to Cohen as legal fees when in reality they were or were not for legal fees but for reimbursement of other items. That is the first hurdle for the jury, were there false business records and did the defendant ask, instruct or help.

It speaks to each of the 34 charges, documents in this case as well as testimony, to ask if those documents and testimony demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in the above description, falsely describing fees paid to Cohen as solely legal fees.

Secondly, to be a felony, they must first find the above, and then on top of that find that those acts by the defendant were to commit or conceal any other state or federal crime. For example a violation of state or federal campaign finance laws, tax laws or any other law on the books. The instructions state that there does not have to be agreement on which law was broken in the second test, just that a second law was broken to further the crime.

That is the alleged Criminal Violation under New York law. That is what the instructions state. These instructions were argued over repeatedly for several days. There are no surprises to any side in these. Both sides have areas they disagree with, but neither side was blindsided as they were published to both sides in a final ruling prior to being read to the jury.

I didn’t write them, no one asked me for my input. I am just laying them out as written as to what the alleged crime is.

They never showed financial documents on how the payment was classified. The check stated one thing, but the financials stated ‘legal expenses’ which is accurate. A portion was paid by the Trump org and a portion was paid by personal checks from Trump. That does not equal false business records!

 

[530RL]

Can anyone intelligently discredit this?

My post is not an advocacy for innocence or guilt. It is simply an explanation in lay terms of the alleged crimes in the case and what the jury is charged with deciding.

 

[530RL]

They never showed financial documents on how the payment was classified. The check stated one thing, but the financials stated ‘legal expenses’ which is accurate. A portion was paid by the Trump org and a portion was paid by personal checks from Trump. That does not equal false business records!

Once again, my post does not argue one way or another. It’s simply an explanation of the jury instructions and the crime alleged.

Your argument is about guilt or innocence. I have no say in that nor have I given my view on that.

The jury could completely agree with you and find not guilty on all counts.

 

[Lumpy]

Ya gotta feel sorry for an educated man with the mind of a child.

 

[Singleton]

Once again, my post does not argue one way or another. It’s simply an explanation of the jury instructions and the crime alleged.

Your argument is about guilt or innocence. I have no say in that nor have I given my view on that.

The jury not having to agree what state or federal crime was broken is BS.

No matter the outcome, this is going to appeal. That is end end game for the dems. Keep it In court as long as possible

 

[regor]

Ya gotta feel sorry for an educated man with the mind of a child.

It’s the mind of a Marxist.