Trump NY Criminal Trial

[[DHT]Osiris]

that seems odd to me. how could you have a split jury on each count? or is this fox bullshittery?

also, lol at trump. the more caps-lock posts he makes, the more you know he did the crime

They don't have to agree on what he did, they just each have to agree that he did an illegal thing.

 

[Stopsignhank]

Marco Rubio is taking it a step further and saying that they jury can convict the defendant of any charge they want to.

 

[Stopsignhank]

that seems odd to me. how could you have a split jury on each count? or is this fox bullshittery?

also, lol at trump. the more caps-lock posts he makes, the more you know he did the crime

It is Fox Bullshittery. The prosecutors said there are 3 ways that Trump could have broken a law. The jury does not have to agree on the way that he broke the law, they just have to agree that he broke the law.

But Merchan explained that while this New York election law prohibits people from conspiring to use “unlawful means” to promote a candidate’s election, jurors don’t have to unanimously agree on which particular “unlawful means” Trump may have used; they can find him guilty as long as they unanimously agree that Trump used some unlawful means.

 

[brycejones]

Fox is flooding the zone with shit.

 

[eelw]

that seems odd to me. how could you have a split jury on each count? or is this fox bullshittery?

also, lol at trump. the more caps-lock posts he makes, the more you know he did the crime

Let’s say they’ll say guilty on the cheques the orange monkey signed. But not guilty on the ones his sons signed.

 

[fskimospy]

Let’s say they’ll say guilty on the cheques the orange monkey signed. But not guilty on the ones his sons signed.

Well then he’s guilty of a felony. End of story.

 

[Saylick]

that seems odd to me. how could you have a split jury on each count? or is this fox bullshittery?

I interpreted that as meaning the jury doesn't need to agree on the means of how Trump did the crime, only that he did the crime.

The way I see it, if we were talking about murder, the jury doesn't need to be unanimous that a gun was the weapon used to commit murder, but they do need to unanimously agree that the suspect committed murder. One third may believe a gun was used in the murder, another third may think it was a knife, and the last third may think it was poison, but that doesn't matter as long as they all agree it was murder.

 

[zinfamous]

It is Fox Bullshittery. The prosecutors said there are 3 ways that Trump could have broken a law. The jury does not have to agree on the way that he broke the law, they just have to agree that he broke the law.

But Merchan explained that while this New York election law prohibits people from conspiring to use “unlawful means” to promote a candidate’s election, jurors don’t have to unanimously agree on which particular “unlawful means” Trump may have used; they can find him guilty as long as they unanimously agree that Trump used some unlawful means.

This is all those simps like greenie and pcgeek need to convince themselves forever that Trump being convicted here actually isn't real, despite everything they've claimed so far. As long as the right people lie to them in the right way, they will believe whatever it takes to keep living with themselves.

 

[akugami]

This is all those simps like greenie and pcgeek need to convince themselves forever that Trump being convicted here actually isn't real, despite everything they've claimed so far. As long as the right people lie to them in the right way, they will believe whatever it takes to keep living with themselves.

The two aforementioned persons run and hide when asked to defend their positions. They know their words are full of shit, and they are cowards. I don't even understand why they do this. Do they honestly believe people are so dumb, that we don't remember all the times they ran and hid when asked to defend their own words? Seriously? Are they that stupid?

 

[fskimospy]

The two aforementioned persons run and hide when asked to defend their positions. They know their words are full of shit, and they are cowards. I don't even understand why they do this. Do they honestly believe people are so dumb, that we don't remember all the times they ran and hid when asked to defend their own words? Seriously? Are they that stupid?

I think they are engaging in the very human struggle where it’s hard to admit that the people you culturally affiliate with turned out to be Nazis and people trying to end American democracy.

While we have the virtue of not associating with Nazis no matter what you’re doing it’s hard to change your mind.

 

[Stokely]

Fox is flooding the zone with shit.

It's a day that ends with "y". Doesn't matter what was actually done or said, Fox (and worse such as Oann) have their own realities to uphold for their faithful.

I don't hear much about it, as I no longer keep up with those realities. Off FB after 2016, and don't engage politically with people into that sort of thing. Honest conversation involving actual reality, sure I'd be game, but they wouldn't be interested.

If Trump is found guilty, and even more so if he loses the election, things will get mighty interesting down here in Desantis land. Some of the joints my band plays in might get a bit...spicy. Not quite Blues Brothers chicken wire, but not too far off either. Let's just say I don't have any Biden bumper stickers on my car because 1) I wouldn't put fucking bumper stickers on it and 2) It would get keyed, or worse.

 

[Zorba]

It is Fox Bullshittery. The prosecutors said there are 3 ways that Trump could have broken a law. The jury does not have to agree on the way that he broke the law, they just have to agree that he broke the law.

But Merchan explained that while this New York election law prohibits people from conspiring to use “unlawful means” to promote a candidate’s election, jurors don’t have to unanimously agree on which particular “unlawful means” Trump may have used; they can find him guilty as long as they unanimously agree that Trump used some unlawful means.

This is also specifically for the felony adder, correct? The crimes he is actually charged with are falsifying business records, so they have to be unanimous in that decision. It's the furthering of what other crime they don't have to agree on.

 

[fskimospy]

This is also specifically for the felony adder, correct? The crimes he is actually charged with are falsifying business records, so they have to be unanimous in that decision. It's the furthering of what other crime they don't have to agree on.

It’s both. The entire thing is stupidity. For every crime, everywhere, the standard is ‘did X commit X crime?’. That’s it.

For example if half the jury thought someone committed murder because they shot Mr. Body but the other half thought the person committed murder because they stabbed Mr. Body the distinction is irrelevant. All jurors agreed the person committed murder.

 

[DaaQ]

Here is a good break down for some of the particular laws of Manhattan. Point of interest is from the former #2 from the DA's office.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think they are engaging in the very human struggle where it’s hard to admit that the people you culturally affiliate with turned out to be Nazis and people trying to end American democracy.

While we have the virtue of not associating with Nazis no matter what you’re doing it’s hard to change your mind.

It's only a struggle when you tie your ego to it. They should continue to get badgered about it, they'll either sink further or get buoyed up by the constant ribbing.

 

[Indus]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796279816821637305

WTF?

Screenshotting this:

 

[K1052]

That was fast.

 

[MrSquished]

Drum roll please

 

[Paratus]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796279816821637305

WTF?

Screenshotting this:
View attachment 100017

https://imgur.com/l80eaqh

 

[Muse]

Drum roll please

May the sword of Damocles appear in the storm clouds above New York.

 

[Dave_5k]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796279816821637305

WTF?

Screenshotting this:
View attachment 100017

Washington Post live stream:

"Just as the judge and the lawyers were preparing to leave court for the day, the jury said they had reached a verdict but needed a bit more time to fill out the lengthy verdict form"

"Trump was looking cheerful and relaxed, sharing smiles and laughs with his lawyers, as they prepared to leave for the day. As soon as the judge announced that instead we had a verdict, his demeanor changes dramatically. He crossed his arms and knitted his brows. He continued to whisper with attorney Todd Blanche, but no longer cheerfully."

 

[eelw]

Like damn!!!

 

[Xcobra]

He can and will appeal if found guilty, right? 🙄

 

[APU_Fusion]

Biden better have a million ads speaking of the raping convicted felon ready to roll all the time everywhere If orangelini is found guilty

 

[Muse]

Updated
May 30, 2024, 4:43 p.m. ET6
Updated 6 minutes ago

Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess, New York Times

The jury will present its verdict soon. Here’s the latest.​

Jurors have reached a verdict in the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, who faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush-money payment made to a porn star in the days before the 2016 election. The judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan, said shortly after 4:30 p.m. that the jury had requested a half-hour to fill out the forms.

The 12 New Yorkers who make up the jury heard weeks of tawdry testimony describing tabloid deal-making, a sexual encounter between Mr. Trump and the porn star, Stormy Daniels, and the $130,000 payoff that kept her silent. Prosecutors say Mr. Trump engaged in a fraud against the American people, arguing that he falsified records related to the reimbursement of his onetime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who paid her out of his own pocket.

The criminal case is one of four against Mr. Trump, who is again the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and it is most likely the only one that will go to trial before Election Day. If convicted, he faces a sentence ranging from probation to four years in prison — although he would be certain to appeal, a process that could take years.
Here’s what to know:

• Jurors sought a refresher: The jurors asked to again hear portions of testimony by Mr. Cohen and David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, who prosecutors say was part of a conspiracy to suppress unflattering stories on Mr. Trump’s behalf during the 2016 campaign. One portion of the testimony related to another hush-money deal, with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who says she had a monthslong affair with Mr. Trump in 2006 and 2007. (Mr. Trump denies this.) Ms. McDougal, who did not testify, was paid $150,000 in August 2016 by The National Enquirer’s parent company in exchange for her story, which The Enquirer then did not publish.
  The jury also wanted the judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan, to repeat some of the instructions he gave the jury on Wednesday, which serve as a guide to their deliberations. But he jurors don’t have a copy of his instructions, which the law does not allow.
• Dueling views of the case: A prosecutor from the Manhattan district attorney’s office said in closing arguments that Mr. Trump had tried to “hoodwink the American voter” with a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. “All roads lead to the man who benefited the most: Donald Trump,” the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, told the jury.
  Todd Blanche, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, argued in his closing that Mr. Trump’s actions were not crimes, but merely business as it is commonly practiced. The case, he told jurors, hinged on the testimony of Mr. Cohen, whom he called “the greatest liar of all time.”
• The core of the charges: Prosecutors say Mr. Trump tried to disguise repayments to Mr. Cohen as ordinary legal fees. Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies sleeping with Ms. Daniels, despite her testimony, under oath, about a sexual encounter with him in Lake Tahoe, Nev., in 2006.