Guilty-NOT Guilty-Hung Jury---Last Chance to Make Your NY v. Trump Verdict Prediction

a reply to: Irishhaf

The jury were provided with three possible predicate crimes to consider: 1.) Covering up tax fraud; 2.) Covering up campaign finance violations; and 3.) Covering up promoting Trump's campaign through unlawful means.

If I had to listen to some communist lawyer drone on and on for 5 hours I would have voted to acquit as a middle finger just for wasting my time.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The Supreme Court would disagree with you. In Schad v. Arizona SCOTUS ruled that juries don't need to be unanimous in the predicate crimes, just in the crimes that are actually being charged.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Seems like not allowing the campaign finance expert testify for the defense and then having it as a charge to consider is a bit of a conflict.

a reply to: RustyShackleford1976

They were way more interested in what Steinglass had to say than they were in Blache's ponderous closing comments.

a reply to: Irishhaf

He was allowed to testify. But his testimony had to pertain to the scope of this case. Trump is not in trial for campaign finance violations. He is on trial for falsifying business records.

So he could've testified on the nature of campaign finance laws. But his opinion on whether or not campaign finance laws were violated falls outside the scope of the case.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Threadbarer

Seems like not allowing the campaign finance expert testify for the defense and then having it as a charge to consider is a bit of a conflict.

As if the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission could possibly know more about actual election violations than a leftist judge.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

The Supreme Court would disagree with you. In Schad v. Arizona SCOTUS ruled that juries don't need to be unanimous in the predicate crimes, just in the crimes that are actually being charged.

I'm gonna need you to cite exactly where, with links and quotes, that ruling says that.

I have to ask, since last time you tried to cite a case to me to prove your point, you actually wound up proving yourself wrong because you don't know how to read a law. So I have low confidence in your ability to read a SCOTUS decision.

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Encia22

And if Mr. Trump's Appeal is somehow not Heard untill After the Nov. Election and he becomes Our 47th POTUS , what Happens then ? Any Predictions ?

No idea, except put a cage around the Oval Office... Big Macs through bars, etc.

Or the then 47th POTUS Pardons himself of these Frivilous Charges and Not Many Americans would Not be Okay with that .

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Irishhaf

He was allowed to testify. But his testimony had to pertain to the scope of this case. Trump is not in trial for campaign finance violations. He is on trial for falsifying business records.

So he could've testified on the nature of campaign finance laws. But his opinion on whether or not campaign finance laws were violated falls outside the scope of the case.

The jury were provided with three possible predicate crimes to consider:... 2.) Covering up campaign finance violations

Obviously, whether or not campaign finance laws were violated is not outside the scope of the case.

You really love proving yourself wrong.

You are way out of your element on legal issues, as usual.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: Irishhaf

The jury were provided with three possible predicate crimes to consider: 1.) Covering up tax fraud; 2.) Covering up campaign finance violations; and 3.) Covering up promoting Trump's campaign through unlawful means.

1. Covering up tax fraud

No Evidence of that Beyond a Reasonable Doubt .

2. Covering up campaign finance violations

No Evidence of that Beyond a Reasonable Doubt .

3. Covering up promoting Trump's campaign through unlawful means

No Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt .


We the Jury find the Defendent Innocent of All Charges ..........

So now Biden gets a chance to visit the Juror's like he did Bo Biden's ex the other day which left the NEWS all most instantly - She's a key witness against Hunter .

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

So I have low confidence in your ability to read a SCOTUS decision.

Batting 0 for 1000 should not be considered “low confidence”, it’s the same as negative territory.

These clowns have never been right about anything.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Encia22

And if Mr. Trump's Appeal is somehow not Heard untill After the Nov. Election and he becomes Our 47th POTUS , what Happens then ? Any Predictions ?

No idea, except put a cage around the Oval Office... Big Macs through bars, etc.

Or the then 47th POTUS Pardons himself of these Frivilous Charges and Not Many Americans would Not be Okay with that .

That's what I thought, too. But, apparently he can't... from the article I posted...

Whether he could serve as president from prison is untested. He would not be able to pardon himself from any conviction, since it is a state crime.

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

So I have low confidence in your ability to read a SCOTUS decision.

Batting 0 for 1000 should not be considered “low confidence”, it’s the same as negative territory.

These clowns have never been right about anything.

I just want him to debunk himself like he usually does.

Saves me from having to do the work.

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Encia22

And if Mr. Trump's Appeal is somehow not Heard untill After the Nov. Election and he becomes Our 47th POTUS , what Happens then ? Any Predictions ?

No idea, except put a cage around the Oval Office... Big Macs through bars, etc.

Or the then 47th POTUS Pardons himself of these Frivilous Charges and Not Many Americans would Not be Okay with that .

That's what I thought, too. But, apparently he can't... from the article I posted...

Whether he could serve as president from prison is untested. He would not be able to pardon himself from any conviction, since it is a state crime.

Yeah only the NY governor could pardon him in this case. That's been explained a million times since this case was floated.

This judge is on crack.

The jury requested he re-read the entire instructions. It took like an hour to read the first time.

He doesn't wanna do that, so instead he's spending an hour with the lawyers to agree on which part of the instructions he's gonna read them instead.

Just read them the whole thing again, idiot.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
Yeah only the NY governor could pardon him in this case. That's been explained a million times since this case was floated.

How can this case be about campaign finance violations, which in this case is a campaign for President, be anything but a federal case?

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain
This judge is on crack.

The jury requested he re-read the entire instructions. It took like an hour to read the first time.

He doesn't wanna do that, so instead he's spending an hour with the lawyers to agree on which part of the instructions he's gonna read them instead.

Just read them the whole thing again, idiot.

The reason he didn't give them a copy to take with them is because he wants to be able to fine tune their guilty verdict on individual points.