Judge allowing Jury to pick between 3 "crimes"

[SKYDOG]

JM was busted on this forum for (1) lying to support an argument about Biden, and (2) ridiculing grieving Gold Star families. I bumped his own posts as proof when he denied both, shortly after which he vanished from the forum – presumably in shame, if such a demented person could feel shame. Shortly after that, a new poster showed up, with similarly pompous, lengthy posts of which your post above is an example.

Since you claim not to be JM, do you agree with me that only a truly despicable, morally bankrupt person could be responsible for items 1 and 2 as listed - and then denying them when called out?

I don’t believe he is JM. This has been verified by Michael Cohen. 😂

 

[JBoiler23]

JM was busted on this forum for (1) lying to support an argument about Biden, and (2) ridiculing grieving Gold Star families. I bumped his own posts as proof when he denied both, shortly after which he vanished from the forum – presumably in shame, if such a demented person could feel shame. Shortly after that, a new poster showed up, with similarly pompous, lengthy posts of which your post above is an example.

Yes, I'm already aware of your fallacious logic for believing I'm JM. No need to present it again.

Since you claim not to be JM, do you agree with me that only a truly despicable, morally bankrupt person could be responsible for items 1 and 2 as listed - and then denying them when called out?

And, I hereby gift you the opportunity to claim that my unwillingness to answer questions about JM (because they hold no relevance to the topic at hand) is yet more evidence that I am, in fact, JM. Though, if you're actually a reasonable person, I'm sure you'd acknowledge that my willingness to answer certain questions actually provides you no information with regards to my identity.

Care to address something I said that's relevant to the topic of this thread? Or was this post your way of changing the subject so that you could avoid said topic? Perhaps we can narrow it down to just one question: what happened during the trial that makes you "certain" that it will be overturned on appeal?

 

[Riveting-]

Yes, I'm already aware of your fallacious logic for believing I'm JM. No need to present it again.

Not willing to condemn the despicable dishonesty and amorality of JM on this forum - even as you claim you are not JM?

That can only mean you consider JM's shameful behavior as acceptable for your own conduct on this forum.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Yes, I'm already aware of your fallacious logic for believing I'm JM. No need to present it again.

And, I hereby gift you the opportunity to claim that my unwillingness to answer questions about JM (because they hold no relevance to the topic at hand) is yet more evidence that I am, in fact, JM. Though, if you're actually a reasonable person, I'm sure you'd acknowledge that my willingness to answer certain questions actually provides you no information with regards to my identity.

Care to address something I said that's relevant to the topic of this thread? Or was this post your way of changing the subject so that you could avoid said topic? Perhaps we can narrow it down to just one question: what happened during the trial that makes you "certain" that it will be overturned on appeal?

Here is a good breakdown of why this will be overturned. Because there was no crime. The theory brought was incorrect and it was only allowed because the Judge that oversaw the case allowed it.

Watch the entire clip because she will break down why this legal theory is incorrect with Supreme Court precedent.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Yes, I'm already aware of your fallacious logic for believing I'm JM. No need to present it again.

And, I hereby gift you the opportunity to claim that my unwillingness to answer questions about JM (because they hold no relevance to the topic at hand) is yet more evidence that I am, in fact, JM. Though, if you're actually a reasonable person, I'm sure you'd acknowledge that my willingness to answer certain questions actually provides you no information with regards to my identity.

Care to address something I said that's relevant to the topic of this thread? Or was this post your way of changing the subject so that you could avoid said topic? Perhaps we can narrow it down to just one question: what happened during the trial that makes you "certain" that it will be overturned on appeal?

Here are some specific arguments that Trump could make to overturn the case.

1. First Amendment Rights

Argument:

The payments were made to protect Trump's reputation to avoid public embarrassment, not to influence the election. Therefore, these payments are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

Precedent:

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 f(1976): The Supreme Court held that expenditure limits in hte Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violated the First Amendment. The ruling emphasized that political spending is a form of protected speech.

2. Intent and Mens Rea:

Argument:

For a conviction under campaign finance laws, the prosecution must prove that Trump had the specific intent to influence the election. If the payments were made for personal reasons, such as avoiding embarrassment, this specific intent is not present.

Precedent:

United States v. Pommerening, 500 f.2d 92 (10th Cir. 1974): This case emphasizes the necessity of proving specific intent for criminal liability.

McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991): The Supreme Court held that a public official's acceptance of money does not constitute a violation of the Hobbs Act unless there is a clear quid pro quo arrangement. This principle of requiring clear intent can be analogized to Trump's situation.


Trumps defense in this case was based around #2, however the Judge in the case did not allow the defense to put their expert on the stand to talk about it. The Judge stymied this defense angle by only allowing their expert to talk about general terms and definitions on campaign finance law. In a non biased court, this argument would have found Trump not guilty.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Here are some specific arguments that Trump could make to overturn the case.

1. First Amendment Rights

Argument:

The payments were made to protect Trump's reputation to avoid public embarrassment, not to influence the election. Therefore, these payments are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

Precedent:

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 f(1976): The Supreme Court held that expenditure limits in hte Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violated the First Amendment. The ruling emphasized that political spending is a form of protected speech.

2. Intent and Mens Rea:

Argument:

For a conviction under campaign finance laws, the prosecution must prove that Trump had the specific intent to influence the election. If the payments were made for personal reasons, such as avoiding embarrassment, this specific intent is not present.

Precedent:

United States v. Pommerening, 500 f.2d 92 (10th Cir. 1974): This case emphasizes the necessity of proving specific intent for criminal liability.

McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991): The Supreme Court held that a public official's acceptance of money does not constitute a violation of the Hobbs Act unless there is a clear quid pro quo arrangement. This principle of requiring clear intent can be analogized to Trump's situation.


Trumps defense in this case was based around #2, however the Judge in the case did not allow the defense to put their expert on the stand to talk about it. The Judge stymied this defense angle by only allowing their expert to talk about general terms and definitions on campaign finance law. In a non biased court, this argument would have found Trump not guilty.

I did not find the video very good at all. The above is though.

I would add you could list any of the reversible legal errors legal scholar, Jonathan Turley has discussed in his articles.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I did not find the video very good at all. The above is though.

I would add you could list any of the reversible legal errors legal scholar, Jonathan Turley has discussed in his articles.

What is good about the video is that she explains how it is not illegal to pay hush money, and it's also not a violation of campaign finance law to do so during a campaign, AND that it's rooted in Supreme Court precedent.

Also, which is probably the case, the payments were written as a legal expense because that was the option allowed in whatever program used to make out the payments. Hush money is not an option, which is pretty much the extent of their falsifying documents charge. Hilariously, that may change in these programs after this case.

 

[JBoiler23]

Not willing to condemn the despicable dishonesty and amorality of JM on this forum - even as you claim you are not JM?

That can only mean you consider JM's shameful behavior as acceptable for your own conduct on this forum.

It can't possibly mean anything else? Your ability to use logic is really terrible.

And, given this response, shall I presume you're either not willing or not able to answer my question as to the reason for your certainty regarding the verdict being overturned?

 

[JBoiler23]

Here is a good breakdown of why this will be overturned. Because there was no crime. The theory brought was incorrect and it was only allowed because the Judge that oversaw the case allowed it.

These are all opinions. I guess we'll see if the appeals court agrees.

Watch the entire clip because she will break down why this legal theory is incorrect with Supreme Court precedent.

View embedded media

Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction in NY, and I don't really care about the opinions of those in the media.

 

[Telling The Truth]

Not willing to condemn the despicable dishonesty and amorality of JM on this forum - even as you claim you are not JM?

That can only mean you consider JM's shameful behavior as acceptable for your own conduct on this forum.

 

[JBoiler23]

Here are some specific arguments that Trump could make to overturn the case.

1. First Amendment Rights

Argument:

The payments were made to protect Trump's reputation to avoid public embarrassment, not to influence the election. Therefore, these payments are a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.

Precedent:

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 f(1976): The Supreme Court held that expenditure limits in hte Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 violated the First Amendment. The ruling emphasized that political spending is a form of protected speech.

Pretty sure this was addressed. The jury clearly wasn't convinced by this argument. Perhaps David Pecker's testimony had something to do with it. Also, I'm presuming the payment you're referencing here was the one to Daniels? Because that one wasn't illegal, and that's not what he was convicted for. The payments to Cohen, in and of themselves, were also not illegal. So, the more relevant question regarding the first amendment is whether or not it protects the falsification of the business records regarding said payments.

2. Intent and Mens Rea:

Argument:

For a conviction under campaign finance laws, the prosecution must prove that Trump had the specific intent to influence the election. If the payments were made for personal reasons, such as avoiding embarrassment, this specific intent is not present.

Precedent:

United States v. Pommerening, 500 f.2d 92 (10th Cir. 1974): This case emphasizes the necessity of proving specific intent for criminal liability.

McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (1991): The Supreme Court held that a public official's acceptance of money does not constitute a violation of the Hobbs Act unless there is a clear quid pro quo arrangement. This principle of requiring clear intent can be analogized to Trump's situation.

I've not said he can't make arguments. But having arguments and having compelling arguments are two different things. Riveting has said he is "certain" it will be overturned, which must mean that there was something that was so obviously done improperly that no appeals court will possibly allow it to stand. I'm just asking what that thing is. Also, he was not convicted of violating campaign finance laws, he was convicted for falsifying business records.

Trumps defense in this case was based around #2, however the Judge in the case did not allow the defense to put their expert on the stand to talk about it. The Judge stymied this defense angle by only allowing their expert to talk about general terms and definitions on campaign finance law. In a non biased court, this argument would have found Trump not guilty.

For this to be grounds for overturning, they'd have to show that the judge not allowing the particular testimony that the defense wanted was improper. Here's the judge's decision about it:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/Dec%20on%20People's%20MIL.pdf

It seems to me his decision is well-rooted in NY law regarding what expert witnesses are allowed to testify about and what they aren't allowed to testify about.

But, thank you for at least not coming here and saying "the judge didn't let their expert witness testify," in the manner that Trump himself has lied about it.

 

[Riveting-]

It can't possibly mean anything else? Your ability to use logic is really terrible.

Good point. It could also mean you are too dense to understand the question.

 

[JBoiler23]

Good point. It could also mean you are too dense to understand the question.

That's true, it could. Perhaps you'll now stop making statements with such foolish absolutes in them.

What happened during the trial that makes you "certain" it will be overturned?

 

[Riveting-]

That's true, it could. Perhaps you'll now stop making statements with such foolish absolutes in them.

What happened during the trial that makes you "certain" it will be overturned?

If you are too dense to understand the question, then you are too dense to identify a foolish absolute.

If you are not too dense to understand the question but yet don't answer it, it can only mean that you are JM or else you have no compunctions about lying or making fun of grieving Goldstar families in your posts - which is to say, you are no better than the despicable JM whether or not you are JM.

 

[JBoiler23]

If you are too dense to understand the question, then you are too dense to identify a foolish absolute.

If you are not too dense to understand the question but yet don't answer it, it can only mean that you are JM or else you have no compunctions about lying or making fun of grieving Goldstar families in your posts - which is to say, you are no better than the despicable JM whether or not you are JM.

So, you can only think of three reasons why I won't answer the question and are now asserting that those are the only three reasons that are possible. Your personal incredulity and resulting fallacious logic are on display yet again. And since you insist on discussing my identity, and are either unwilling or unable to answer my question which actually pertains to the topic of this thread, this will be my last response to you here. Congratulations, you have successfully avoided having to support your position, though at the cost of exposing yourself as a dishonest interlocutor.

 

[Riveting-]

So, you can only think of three reasons why I won't answer the question and are now asserting that those are the only three reasons that are possible. Your personal incredulity and resulting fallacious logic are on display yet again. And since you insist discussing my identity and are either unwilling or unable to answer my question which actually pertains to the topic of this thread, this will be my last response to you here. Congratulations, you have successfully avoided having to support your position.

What is a possible fourth reason? Mental illness? Or someone has threatened to kill you if you do (maybe Bob with his anger management issues)? What?

 

[Katscratch]

OIf you are too dense to understand the question, then you are too dense to identify a foolish absolute.

If you are not too dense to understand the question but yet don't answer it, it can only mean that you are JM or else you have no compunctions about lying or making fun of grieving Goldstar families in your posts - which is to say, you are no better than the despicable JM whether or not you are JM.

 

[Katscratch]

What is a possible fourth reason? Mental illness? Or someone has threatened to kill you if you do (maybe Bob with his anger management issues)? What?

 

[Riveting-]

JM, here's another: you're too upset to answer because cannibals ate your uncle?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Pretty sure this was addressed. The jury clearly wasn't convinced by this argument. Perhaps David Pecker's testimony had something to do with it. Also, I'm presuming the payment you're referencing here was the one to Daniels? Because that one wasn't illegal, and that's not what he was convicted for. The payments to Cohen, in and of themselves, were also not illegal. So, the more relevant question regarding the first amendment is whether or not it protects the falsification of the business records regarding said payments.

I have not seen anything about first amendment arguments had been made in this case.

I've not said he can't make arguments. But having arguments and having compelling arguments are two different things. Riveting has said he is "certain" it will be overturned, which must mean that there was something that was so obviously done improperly that no appeals court will possibly allow it to stand. I'm just asking what that thing is. Also, he was not convicted of violating campaign finance laws, he was convicted for falsifying business records.

For this to be grounds for overturning, they'd have to show that the judge not allowing the particular testimony that the defense wanted was improper. Here's the judge's decision about it:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/pdfs/Dec%20on%20People's%20MIL.pdf

It seems to me his decision is well-rooted in NY law regarding what expert witnesses are allowed to testify about and what they aren't allowed to testify about.

The Judge neutered this argument by not allowing the Trump team's expert testify to this argument. So the Judge didn't allow Trump to make this argument to the jury.

But, thank you for at least not coming here and saying "the judge didn't let their expert witness testify," in the manner that Trump himself has lied about it.

In some sense the Judge didn't let the expert testify. He was only allowed to speak in generalities. So, even though he was technically allowed to testify, he wasn't allowed to talk in any way about what the Trump team needed him to. Thus, Trump's statement, although somewhat an exaggeration, was also somewhat true in the sense in which they needed.

 

[Telling The Truth]

JM, here's another: you're too upset to answer because cannibals ate your uncle?

 

[Riveting-]

As your hero says at times when reading a teleprompter: "Pause".

 

[Telling The Truth]

As your hero says at times when reading a teleprompter: "Pause".

 

[Riveting-]

Biden claims inflation was 9% when he came into office — when it actually was 1.4%

President Biden claimed Wednesday that voters were wrong to blame him for high inflation because it “was 9% when I came to office” — when in fact it actually was just 1.4%.

nypost.com

 

[JBoiler23]

I have not seen anything about first amendment arguments had been made in this case.

Whether they mentioned the words "first amendment" or not, they made the argument that the hush money was paid to protect his family or whatever, rather than to influence the election. The jury obviously didn't buy it, or, perhaps, the jury members didn't deem election interference as being the thing that the falsified records were attempting to hide. And my other point still stands that the payments themselves were not illegal, so I don't think anyone would dispute that he had a right (first amendment or otherwise) to make the payments. But the first amendment does not protect the right to falsify business records.

The Judge neutered this argument by not allowing the Trump team's expert testify to this argument. So the Judge didn't allow Trump to make this argument to the jury.

So you didn't read the judge's decision which cites New York law about what expert witnesses are allowed to testify about and what they're not allowed to testify about? It wasn't in youtube video format, so I can't say that surprises me. But, suffice it to say, it appears to me (as a lay-person) that it was New York law that didn't allow the witness to make this argument, not the judge.

In some sense the Judge didn't let the expert testify. He was only allowed to speak in generalities. So, even though he was technically allowed to testify, he wasn't allowed to talk in any way about what the Trump team needed him to. Thus, Trump's statement, although somewhat an exaggeration, was also somewhat true in the sense in which they needed.

FFS. It wasn't "somewhat true." He lied. Just like he did saying the judge wouldn't allow the "advice of counsel" defense (which is true only inasmuch as Trump's defense team told the judge before the trial that they wouldn't be using it, which prevents them from being able to use it). Just like he did when he said the judge didn't require a unanimous decision (which seems to have duped you, given you're the one who started this thread). Just like he did when he said he didn't know what the charges even were.

What actually seems to be weaponized here is the general public's lack of knowledge about how criminal legal proceedings work. They pick something that looks shady if you don't understand the reasons and then scream about it like it's some great injustice.

 

[Riveting-]

What actually seems to be weaponized here is the general public's lack of knowledge about how criminal legal proceedings work. They pick something that looks shady if you don't understand the reasons and then scream about it like it's some great injustice.

Are you pretending to be a lawyer with your commentary, JM, after earlier discounting the commentary of experienced and proven lawyers on the absurdities of this political hack job of a case?

 

[Boiler Buck]

Are you pretending to be a lawyer with your commentary, JM, after earlier discounting the commentary of experienced and proven lawyers on the absurdities of this political hack job of a case?

Yep, correct....listen to the big time legal experts. Most are shocked with the level of legal absurbities & error in this case. Amazingly, some lay people on here think they know more than the experts. And I just read & laugh at the idiots on parade.

 

[JBoiler23]

Yep, correct....listen to the big time legal experts. Most are shocked with the level of legal absurbities & error in this case. Amazingly, some lay people on here think they know more than the experts. And I just read & laugh at the idiots on parade.

I'm all for listening to experts. Why do you not also take into account the opinions of the experts that say that there really aren't good grounds for reversal and that the likelihood of a successful appeal is very small? Near as I can tell, there are experts who are saying both things, so I don't really know what to think with regards to the chances for a successful appeal, except that the specific issues being raised as grounds for said appeal (the venue, the jury instructions, the Smith testimony, the Daniels testimony, etc.) don't seem like they'll hold up.

So, I'll echo myself from earlier: lawyers (or, generally, "experts") are saying both things, hardly conclusive.

 

[Boiler Buck]

I'm all for listening to experts. Why do you not also take into account the opinions of the experts that say that there really aren't good grounds for reversal and that the likelihood of a successful appeal is very small? Near as I can tell, there are experts who are saying both things, so I don't really know what to think with regards to the chances for a successful appeal, except that the specific issues being raised as grounds for said appeal (the venue, the jury instructions, the Smith testimony, the Daniels testimony, etc.) don't seem like they'll hold up.

So, I'll echo myself from earlier: lawyers (or, generally, "experts") are saying both things, hardly conclusive.

I am sure there are "experts" that say the economy is great too.

Partisan "experts" legal opinions aren't worth their salt. Most know that.

 

[JBoiler23]

I am sure there are "experts" that say the economy is great too.

Partisan "experts" legal opinions aren't worth their salt. Most know that.

So like, Mitch McConnell's opinion is worthless, yes? Bill Barr's, too? I'm sure we'd both agree these two people are decidedly partisan.

And are you suggesting that there are no legal experts who are non-partisan who hold the opinion that the appeal will fail?

 

[Riveting-]

Here is a partisan from TDS-CNN going against his own network. I put a lot of value in an opinion from someone who is willing to risk his job. I put zero value in the views of a proven liar on this forum pretending to be a legal expert.

Top CNN Legal Expert Shreds Manhattan Trump Case: Was Created Just To Get Trump

CNN’s top legal expert dismantled the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s criminal case this week against former President Donald Trump, saying that prosecutors only brought the case to get Trump. Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor, wrote in a newsletter on Friday that just...

www.dailywire.com

 

[Boiler Buck]

Here is a partisan from TDS-CNN going against his own network. I put a lot of value in an opinion from someone who is willing to risk his job. I put zero value in the views of a proven liar on this forum pretending to be a legal expert.

Top CNN Legal Expert Shreds Manhattan Trump Case: Was Created Just To Get Trump

CNN’s top legal expert dismantled the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s criminal case this week against former President Donald Trump, saying that prosecutors only brought the case to get Trump. Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor, wrote in a newsletter on Friday that just...

www.dailywire.com

Decent article. Just gets started on the legal error before word count kicks in.

There is a chance this is overturned in NY, but I agree with author, only a chance. State just too partisan.....but it will be overturned eventually.

 

[Boilermaker03]

Whether they mentioned the words "first amendment" or not, they made the argument that the hush money was paid to protect his family or whatever, rather than to influence the election. The jury obviously didn't buy it, or, perhaps, the jury members didn't deem election interference as being the thing that the falsified records were attempting to hide. And my other point still stands that the payments themselves were not illegal, so I don't think anyone would dispute that he had a right (first amendment or otherwise) to make the payments. But the first amendment does not protect the right to falsify business records.

I still have not seen evidence that they PROVED he falsified records. Let alone what crime that he supposedly broke that was a felony.

So you didn't read the judge's decision which cites New York law about what expert witnesses are allowed to testify about and what they're not allowed to testify about? It wasn't in youtube video format, so I can't say that surprises me. But, suffice it to say, it appears to me (as a lay-person) that it was New York law that didn't allow the witness to make this argument, not the judge.

Cite the law. Show how the ruling the Judge gave was fair according to NY law in any way. Here is a link to the NY law on an expert witness.

https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/7-OPINION/7.01_OPINION%20OF%20EXPERT%20WITNESS.pdf

You're telling me that the expert according to NY law isn't allowed to testify to the Supreme Court precedence in that hush money payments isn't breaking the law? I'm calling bullshit. The issue here is that the Judge was taking a not favorable read of the law (which was not in line with Supreme Court rulings) and wasn't going to allow an expert to challenge that view.

BTW, the documents that were "altered" or "falsified" were created AFTER the president was in office, so I'm not sure how they were done so to effect the election anyway.

FFS. It wasn't "somewhat true." He lied. Just like he did saying the judge wouldn't allow the "advice of counsel" defense (which is true only inasmuch as Trump's defense team told the judge before the trial that they wouldn't be using it, which prevents them from being able to use it). Just like he did when he said the judge didn't require a unanimous decision (which seems to have duped you, given you're the one who started this thread). Just like he did when he said he didn't know what the charges even were.

In your opinion. Things aren't always black and white like you people love to do when it's Trump, but don't when it's pretty much anyone else.

What actually seems to be weaponized here is the general public's lack of knowledge about how criminal legal proceedings work. They pick something that looks shady if you don't understand the reasons and then scream about it like it's some great injustice.

Right... All of the legal experts are wrong, but MSNBC hosts aren't. Got it!

 

[Boilermaker03]

I'm all for listening to experts. Why do you not also take into account the opinions of the experts that say that there really aren't good grounds for reversal and that the likelihood of a successful appeal is very small? Near as I can tell, there are experts who are saying both things, so I don't really know what to think with regards to the chances for a successful appeal, except that the specific issues being raised as grounds for said appeal (the venue, the jury instructions, the Smith testimony, the Daniels testimony, etc.) don't seem like they'll hold up.

So, I'll echo myself from earlier: lawyers (or, generally, "experts") are saying both things, hardly conclusive.

The only people saying there aren't grounds for appeal are one's that understand that either:

1. Appeal will be hard because of the hard Left biased nature of New York

2. Appeal will be hard because nobody really knows what Trump was convicted of, so what do you appeal?

 

[JBoiler23]

I still have not seen evidence that they PROVED he falsified records. Let alone what crime that he supposedly broke that was a felony.

I don't think the falsified records themselves are really in question. Did Michael Cohen do any work for Trump in 2017 for which he was paid? If not, the records that indicated that he did are false.

Cite the law. Show how the ruling the Judge gave was fair according to NY law in any way. Here is a link to the NY law on an expert witness.

https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/7-OPINION/7.01_OPINION%20OF%20EXPERT%20WITNESS.pdf

I already cited the judge's order which references the law.

You're telling me that the expert according to NY law isn't allowed to testify to the Supreme Court precedence in that hush money payments isn't breaking the law? I'm calling bullshit. The issue here is that the Judge was taking a not favorable read of the law (which was not in line with Supreme Court rulings) and wasn't going to allow an expert to challenge that view.

That's your opinion that the judge didn't follow the law. If you're correct, I'm sure it'll get overturned on appeal. But, for the third time, no one is saying that hush money payments are illegal, so that line of argument is irrelevant.

BTW, the documents that were "altered" or "falsified" were created AFTER the president was in office, so I'm not sure how they were done so to effect the election anyway.

Well, read the transcripts so you can understand how the prosecution made this case. Maybe you'll be convinced, maybe you won't. Evidently, the jury was.

In your opinion. Things aren't always black and white like you people love to do when it's Trump, but don't when it's pretty much anyone else.

It's not my opinion, those are factually false statements. Sometimes lies are just lies, which "you people" love to ignore when it's Trump, but don't when it's pretty much anyone else.

Right... All of the legal experts are wrong, but MSNBC hosts aren't. Got it!

I have watched precisely 0 minutes of MSNBC's coverage of this. And I double dog dare you to demonstrate that "all" of the legal agree with you.

 

[JBoiler23]

The only people saying there aren't grounds for appeal are one's that understand that either:

1. Appeal will be hard because of the hard Left biased nature of New York

2. Appeal will be hard because nobody really knows what Trump was convicted of, so what do you appeal?

There are also plenty of people saying the appeal will likely fail because Trump doesn't doesn't have strong grounds for it. You, Buck, and Riveting are only appealing to opinions that already agree with you. I'm saying there are experts saying both things, whereas you all seem to be of the opinion that anyone that disagrees must necessarily not actually be an expert.

And anyone saying they don't know what Trump was convicted of are either not paying attention or lying. He was convicted of falsifying business records. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[Boilermaker03]

I don't think the falsified records themselves are really in question. Did Michael Cohen do any work for Trump in 2017 for which he was paid? If not, the records that indicated that he did are false.

I already cited the judge's order which references the law.

Saw it. The judge justified his decision based on what he thought Smith was going to do on the stand. It was an inference (sneaky way to be biased) in something that hasn't happened yet.

That's your opinion that the judge didn't follow the law. If you're correct, I'm sure it'll get overturned on appeal. But, for the third time, no one is saying that hush money payments are illegal, so that line of argument is irrelevant.

I meant to say campaign finance law. It is clear that it is not a violation of that law, again, due to Supreme Court precedent.

Well, read the transcripts so you can understand how the prosecution made this case. Maybe you'll be convinced, maybe you won't. Evidently, the jury was.

Everyone knew the jury would be. It's biased as fukk in New York.

It's not my opinion, those are factually false statements. Sometimes lies are just lies, which "you people" love to ignore when it's Trump, but don't when it's pretty much anyone else.

Wrong. I'll call out lies when they are actual lies. Like Biden does all the time.

I have watched precisely 0 minutes of MSNBC's coverage of this. And I double dog dare you to demonstrate that "all" of the legal agree with you.

Fine. Any legal that isn't being paid by it's corporate media outlet to say what they want them to say.

Any non biased lawyer has eviscerated this case. Left and Right.

 

[Boilermaker03]

There are also plenty of people saying the appeal will likely fail because Trump doesn't doesn't have strong grounds for it. You, Buck, and Riveting are only appealing to opinions that already agree with you. I'm saying there are experts saying both things, whereas you all seem to be of the opinion that anyone that disagrees must necessarily not actually be an expert.

Yes, and I'm sure these people give strong arguments with details to support this too.

And anyone saying they don't know what Trump was convicted of are either not paying attention or lying. He was convicted of falsifying business records. It's not that hard to understand.

NOBOY knows! I guarantee you can't even tell us. What was the underlying crime that he was convicted of that turned falsifying documents from misdemeanors to felonies? The judge gave the jury 3 options and they didn't even have to agree on them, which is about the easiest way to bake in a guilty verdict as possible.

 

[JBoiler23]

Saw it. The judge justified his decision based on what he thought Smith was going to do on the stand. It was an inference (sneaky way to be biased) in something that hasn't happened yet.

No he didn't, he based his decision on what the defense TOLD him Smith was going to do on the stand. They, evidently, wanted him to testify as to something that expert witnesses are not allowed to testify about. That's not bias, unless the judge was simply incorrect about the application of the law. In which case, it'll be dealt with during the appeal process.

I meant to say campaign finance law. It is clear that it is not a violation of that law, again, due to Supreme Court precedent.

Ok. He wasn't charged with violating campaign finance law. It was one of the three predicate crimes, but the jury may have believed a different predicate crime was the one that applied. They had three options, as you're well aware.

Everyone knew the jury would be. It's biased as fukk in New York.

You don't think there are 12 unbiased people in all of Manhattan? How do you know the jury was biased? Is it simply because they found him guilty?

Wrong. I'll call out lies when they are actual lies. Like Biden does all the time.

No, you call out lies of anyone other than Trump, as you're here denying these obvious ones.

Fine. Any legal that isn't being paid by it's corporate media outlet to say what they want them to say.

FFS, could you be any more dismissive? Can you demonstrate that anyone is being paid to say anything? And also, does that not apply to the people offering their opinion on Fox News?

Any non biased lawyer has eviscerated this case. Left and Right.

This is a claim that you cannot possible justify, other than through the no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[JBoiler23]

Yes, and I'm sure these people give strong arguments with details to support this too.

Perhaps if you looked for them, you might see. I bet they're at least not offering supporting arguments that don't seem to be relevant, like you are.

NOBOY knows! I guarantee you can't even tell us. What was the underlying crime that he was convicted of that turned falsifying documents from misdemeanors to felonies? The judge gave the jury 3 options and they didn't even have to agree on them, which is about the easiest way to bake in a guilty verdict as possible.

I literally already told you. He was convicted of falsifying business records.

If you already know what the three options are as to the predicate crime, then why did you ask "what was the underlying crime?" And the JUDGE didn't give the jury three options, the PROSECUTION did by way of bringing the case and arguing for those three predicate crimes in the first place. The judge told the jury that they had to decide if they were convinced of one or more of those three crimes.

What I'm guessing you were NOT aware of is that the jury not having to agree on which predicate crime applied is completely normal, and that Trump's own defense team explicitly acknowledged it was normal during the trial.