Judge allowing Jury to pick between 3 "crimes"
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
The menu of crimes....pick any. One of the many, many reversible legal errors in this trial.... As supreme court case law points out that criminal case convictions have to be unanimous on Any & All points.
Legal expert, Jonathan Turley has been all over this case and has pointed out this & several other reversible errors.
Legal expert, Jonathan Turley has been all over this case and has pointed out this & several other reversible errors.
what a joke. These dems are making a mockery of our judicial system. I pray President Trump gets reelected so we can all enjoy the 'revenge tour' starting in 2025.
This is all to interfere in the upcoming election as per my other post. Got to ignore, & abuse the law, twisting things to come up with a "Conviction"
Never mind this will be overturned after the election, IF they do indeed get a Conviction.
Election interference, plainly seen by all Americans.
Never mind this will be overturned after the election, IF they do indeed get a Conviction.
Election interference, plainly seen by all Americans.
There's no way there won't be a conviction. With all of these bastardizations of the law as well as being in a 95% Democrat district. It's a given at this point.
They got what they wanted.....
Trump a "convicted felon" for the election.
Election interference at its highest.
Last edited:
Several legal experts give a 100% chance of an overturn based on the law. But the Dems do not care.
As THE purpose of all of this is election interference......being able to use "Convicted felon" in the news feed.....which came through on Facebook immediately via sources I had never seen regularly on FB prior to tonight. The Dem Media complex is working overtime on this to help the Dems message.
Damn straight he is. A convicted felon on each and every count—that’s 34 times a jury of his peers announced “guilty.”
This will be overturned because it was not legitimate. The Democrats have taken "law fare" here in America to a dangerous place.
You are guessing. Your standard for overturning is not a legal standard; it’s the standard of “it makes you mad and sad.”
When I say he’s a convicted felon I am not guessing. Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts and is now a convicted felon.
Could you imagine being a juror in this case? I was surprised he was guilty on all counts. Any juror that may have strayed on a few counts was probably afraid to say as such. The pressure they must have had was to stay in their lane with the majority.
No I'm not guessing. This is the opinion of pretty much all lawyers that aren't directly involved in this case. There was no real evidence other than the word of a whore that was looking for a payout and a convicted liar who was proven to have lied in this court case.
The problem is that they most likely knew that if they didn't convict unanimously on all counts, the case would have been eviscerated. Not that it isn't anyway.
Yes, just those two things. And the business records themselves. And the recording of Trump. And the emails. And the text messages. And the handwritten notes from Weisselberg outlining the payments. And Pecker's testimony of the catch-and-kill schemes generally. Outside of those, though, yeah...just a whore and a liar.
All of which Cohen's lawyer testified before congress that Cohen himself said Trump knew nothing about. Nothing about business records, nothing about money missing. You think they aren't clever enough to manufacture evidence? Cohen was suicidal and swore up and down to his lawyers that he had nothing on Trump.
What do you consider a legitimate court? How would that legitimate court look at this case and turn it around?
Something that isn't obviously partisan. Something that is outside of D.C. or New York.
Dude, just stop. You're blinded by hate, I get it, but you're just going to have to take it in when this gets overturned. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen for a while. They will probably try to keep Trump in jail so he can't be there for the nomination ceremony. This entire fiasco is election interference.
Unfortunately for you, this case was a state case. Therefore you are so and so out of luck. So now what?
More important question than whether or not they're capable is whether or not they actually did. So, what justifies your belief that the evidence was manufactured?
Oh, I don't know. The fact that the star witness was a convicted liar, and was called out as lying again in the trial by his own lawyer.
So you've got nothing regarding the rest of the evidence that you've claimed was manufactured?
Show me the evidence. Most of what they have are payments to Cohen for legal fees and they are making the assertion that they were reimbursements for the Stormy deal. With no other proof than the word of a liar.
@BuilderBob6 @BNIBoiler BTW, other Democrats are seeing the weaponization of the legal system. Why can't you guys?
Well, I know why... TDS
No, I already did your homework for you once, so I'm not going to do it again. I wouldn't want you to learn to be dependent on me. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps.
Shift the burden of proof much? You claim the evidence is manufactured but you don't even know what that evidence is? Be more intellectually dishonest.
No, I'm looking to see if you actually know what you're talking about or just parroting what you hear on MSNBC.
Uh huh. You're the one saying "they only had the word of a whore and a liar," which only Republicans and right-wing media are saying, so I'm not sure I'd accept your evaluation of whether or not I know what I'm talking about.
Didn't you also say the judge told the jury they didn't have to be unanimous? That's false. Do you also believe the defense wasn't allowed to bring in their expert witness? That's also false.
Last edited:
The only thing they say is that Trump falsified documents, but they don't list exactly what or how. Show us the evidence. Why haven't we seen the actual documents? You're just supposed to take their word for it. That and the word of a liar Cohen.
To be clear, WE are not supposed to take anyone's word regarding evidence. You're right that WE haven't seen all the evidence, but the JURY has. Just because they saw things you haven't, doesn't mean you get to claim those things don't exist or are manufactured. We only have the general descriptions of things as presented by media covering the trial and the few things that have come out or were known before the trial, like Weisselberg's notes.
And the Cohen liar thing is funny to me. Yes, he was convicted of lying...on behalf of Trump. And you keep dismissing his testimony because he's a liar, and, as evidence, are using testimony that, at a previous time, he said something different than he is now. Because he must've been telling the truth before? How do you know which is the lie?
Last edited:
Dude, just stop. You're not convincing anyone. Read this article and it will sum up just how weak the case was against Trump. This is nothing more than the weaponization of the legal system ala Communist Russia.
Trump’s prosecution stretched the law to find him guilty | Kyle Sammin
Even if the conviction survives the inevitable appeals, it will be a stain on the idea of equal justice under the law.
www.inquirer.com
An opinion article is not definitive. Clearly, there exists more than one opinion.Dude, just stop. You're not convincing anyone. Read this article and it will sum up just how weak the case was against Trump. This is nothing more than the weaponization of the legal system ala Communist Russia.
Trump’s prosecution stretched the law to find him guilty | Kyle Sammin
Even if the conviction survives the inevitable appeals, it will be a stain on the idea of equal justice under the law.
And, what have I tried to convince you of, other than the fact that you have not supported your claim that the evidence was manufactured?
Also, I don't think you can back up the assertion that I've not convinced "anyone" that you haven't supported your claim of manufactured evidence, unless you are aware of what's going on inside the head of everyone who's read this exchange. You could legitimately say I haven't convinced you, as that's a mental state that you have access to. That said, I don't think, based on what you've said so far, that you've provided ANY backup to the claim of manufactured evidence. If you've not yet been convinced that you have not provided said backup, then I have serious questions about your ability to think rationally.
Why do you think Trump was charged with this at all? If Bill Clinton did, whatever Trump was accused of, do you think he would have been charged? What about Obama? Biden? Hell, pretty much anyone else not named Trump. You know the answer to this question, which should tell you all you need to know.
Even if I were to grant that none of those people would've been charged and that Trump was only charged because of who he is, that doesn't say anything about whether or not evidence was manufactured. Nor does it say anything about whether or not he did what he was accused of or whether or not that thing is illegal. It might, in fact, say that powerful people have long been able to get away with things they shouldn't have been able to, but that's being corrected (note: I'm not actually making this claim, just offering it as a possibility that I can't rule out).
Of course, none of those people did what Trump was accused of here, so we can't really use them as a point of comparison, now can we? Hypotheticals about people who didn't do these things don't prove anything about the current case.
Now, do you have any verifiable, non-opinion-based justification for your claim that the evidence that was presented in court (that being anything that wasn't Cohen's and Daniels' testimony, since you've claimed that's all they had) was manufactured, or not? Because it really seems like your argument for that is a very Darth Vader-y "search your feelings, you know it to be true." Or, less poetically, "trust me, bro."
Last edited:
You should have stopped right there. Do you really want to live in a country where it is now deemed ok to charge someone with felonies (even though there was no felony) because they are your political rival? Do you really want us to be going down this rabbit hole?
You're right. Many of them did much worse things and haven't been charged with anything. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden should be rotting in jail for what they've done, but they get a pass because they are part of the machine. Trump isn't, and that's why people love him.
Nancy Pelosi made $7 million in one week recently. From what? Definitely not for doing a good job on the hill... Can almost guarantee it's illegal gains/insider trading.
I don't think either you nor I could talk to the validity of the documents used other than what we've heard, and from what I've heard, they are claiming that documents were falsified. There have been no specifics at all. Which is odd, because they are keen to leak every GD thing they can to get Trump, but not this? Why?
When the judge presiding over the case is a registered Democrat and has made $ donations to your political rival.......
Or how about that same judge, who's own daughter works as a fund raiser for the democrat party........
You don't see anything wrong with that?
Dude, that's with any case. You can't pick your judge that you feel will give you a better outcome. Chump whined before when the Judge Curiel, a Mexican American judge born and raised from my hometown and went to my high school by the way, rule against him in that Mexican immigration or whatever it was case when he first got in office. Chump whined then saying that judge was biased when he wasn't.
I guess you don't think Justice Uncle Clarence Thomas should recuse himself in the upcoming Jan 6 case because his wife, Ginny Thomas was involved in busing the MAGA crazies from the WH Chump rally to the Capitol.
Or, I guess you don't this Justice Alito should recuse himself in the upcoming Jan 6 case because his crazy wife was flying the US flag upside down which is another Jan 6 type of protest.
