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

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I have heard very little to nothing from the defense table that directly refutes almost anything the prosecution has placed into evidence.

In my opinion, that does not bode well for the defense.

I agree.

The witnesses lied is not much of a defense.

Of course you would believe convicted, pathological liars with delusions of grandeur.

The judge instructed the jury to be cautious about Cohen's testimony and to make a decision based upon the uncontested facts of the case.

I'd suspect from that, there is strong evidence not based upon witness testimony, such as: recordings, notes, receipts and account transactions.

I'd go with guilty.

originally posted by: Station27

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?

That's part of the problem with them even bringing this case.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

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.

One of Fox's people said he's actually not allowed to give them the instructions by NY state law.

Not sure if that's true. If it is, that's asinine.

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.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

I'm sure you're struggling to even find the case much less be able to read it, since I already know you have no legal expertise. You just hear of that listening to some Democrat legal "expert" and didn't bother to look it up.

So I'll help you out:

Schad v. Arizonaheld that an Arizona conviction could stand where a jury was instructed that they could find that the defendant either committed premeditated murder or felony murder (in this case, the felony murder was committed during a robbery, and ONLY robbery--there wasn't a buffet of predicate crimes) and that any combination of jurors deciding he committed either type of murder could result in them returning a verdict of guilty of first-degree murder.

This is all still about a murder. And the options the jury were given wasn't even about the predicate crime. That's totally different than this case against Trump that is about one crime predicated on a buffet of other possible crimes.

In fact, the case you cited (as usual) actually disproves your assertion that the SCOTUS would be okay with this bull# they're pulling against Trump, becuase in the Schad v. Arizona decision, the plurality cautioned that, while they held Arizona could have this one on the murder case, this wouldn't apply to a buffet of crimes like this case against Trump:

nothing in our history suggests that the Due Process Clause would permit a State to convict anyone under a charge of "Crime" so generic that any combination of jury findings of embezzlement, reckless driving, murder, burglary, tax evasion, or littering, for example, would suffice for conviction.

It's also pretty important that in the Arizona case, the jury all agreed that the robbery took place, and that the victim was dead, so they were all agreed that at least a felony murder took place. They all agreed on murder. In the instructions against Trump, they don't all have to agree which predicate crime took place. It's totally different, and you debunked yourself because the case you cited specifically says something like that would not be okay.

You have no idea what you're doing when it comes to legal analysis. You've put your foot in your mouth and debunked yourself so many times, you should be embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for you.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I have heard very little to nothing from the defense table that directly refutes almost anything the prosecution has placed into evidence.

In my opinion, that does not bode well for the defense.

I agree.

The witnesses lied is not much of a defense.

Of course you would believe convicted, pathological liars with delusions of grandeur.

The judge instructed the jury to be cautious about Cohen's testimony and to make a decision based upon the uncontested facts of the case.

I'd suspect from that, there is strong evidence not based upon witness testimony, such as: recordings, notes, receipts and account transactions.

I'd go with guilty.

You suspect? LoL
Where have you been?
The only “evidence” against Trump was Cohens lies.
That’s it.
Nothing else was contested.
You have a disbarred convicted liar who during testimony lied again and again regarding materially important facts.
Nothing he says can be taken as fact.
There’s at least one juror in that room that is using their head.
They’ve asked for the instructions and other things.
It’s kind of telling what’s going in those deliberations.

I’m happy you’ll never be on a jury here in the states. Stick to the sheep shearing Oliver.

I can tell you these threads show that the US Propaganda machine is working well.

Most do not know the charges.
Most are parroting the MSM.
A lot are stating this is about Cohen or Stormy or the other list of people paraded in.
Get him he deserves it
I hate him he grabs pussy
He doesn't pay his contractors
I am sure some of you still think the tax returns were fake....

They did a great job seeding doubt. Not the prosecution....the media. There is no case. Sorry, just admit and stop trying to tie it to Cohen or the other two possibilities.

If this was you on trial, would you feel confident you were given a fair trial? Be honest.

Send Trump to Rikers. It means nothing and no one cares.

82 million votes in 2024.

a reply to: Vermilion

The fact you claim there was no evidence presented apart from Cohens testimony just proves you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

If you had of said the prosecution put forward a lot of solid evidence and the defense’s arguments didn’t make much sense, but yet it still hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt… that would’ve been a credible opinion, which the jury may or may not agree with.

But your just showing your bias and denying reality itself.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: Vermilion

The fact you claim there was no evidence presented apart from Cohens testimony just proves you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

If you had of said the prosecution put forward a lot of solid evidence and the defense’s arguments didn’t make much sense, but yet it still hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt… that would’ve been a credible opinion, which the jury may or may not agree with.

But your just showing your bias and denying reality itself.

What’s the exact crime again?

a reply to: CarlLaFong

This is not a political trial...

Guilty

No Jail time

originally posted by: rdambroso
Love Trump or hate him, these bogus charges and politicized kangaroo courts make us look no different than the
crookedest of banana republics.

Now could you imagine if Biden was Putin and Trump was Putins biggest political rival?

The whole Western mainstream media would be saying what a scam the Russian political system is and the whole trial is a sham and Putin is a dictator who makes up charges on political rivals etc etc etc but instead since it's Biden, the democrats and the US, the media other then a couple right wing sources, has been very quiet about calling this anything but a "fair" trial and that Trump is dangerous for the country etc

I think they will try to send him to jail.

At the very least, it'll be at-home confinement until the appeals court decides.

And that is next year.

originally posted by: TheMisguidedAngel

originally posted by: rdambroso
Love Trump or hate him, these bogus charges and politicized kangaroo courts make us look no different than the
crookedest of banana republics.

Now could you imagine if Biden was Putin and Trump was Putins biggest political rival?

The whole Western mainstream media would be saying what a scam the Russian political system is and the whole trial is a sham and Putin is a dictator who makes up charges on political rivals etc etc etc but instead since it's Biden, the democrats and the US, the media other then a couple right wing sources, has been very quiet about calling this anything but a "fair" trial and that Trump is dangerous for the country etc

This trial has already hurt the US brand.
A guilty verdict puts us on the same level as Russia or Venezuela.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

After the trial, will Biden start calling himself, El Heffe?

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: CarlLaFong

This is not a political trial...

Guilty

No Jail time

Guilty

No jail time

47th president of the USA

Buckle up

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think they will try to send him to jail.

At the very least, it'll be at-home confinement until the appeals court decides.

And that is next year.

Biden “won” campaigning from his basement last time, Trump will do it too.

a reply to: chr0naut

The judge instructed the jury to be cautious about Cohen's testimony and to make a decisions based upon the uncontested facts of the case.

a reply to: Vermilion

You suspect? LoL
Where have you been?
The only “evidence” against Trump was Cohens lies.
That’s it.
Nothing else was contested.
You have a disbarred convicted liar who during testimony lied again and again regarding materially important facts.
Nothing he says can be taken as fact.

These two posts seem like they should be related to rendering a verdict.

Did Trump do enough to prove Cohen did it all with Trump only saying "Do what you need to," without specific instruction, or Trump dealing with the particulars of what Cohen was doing.

Cuz a lot of rich tycoon assholes have a Consigliori that act in their interests unilaterally. Which is what he kinda seems like.

Not like Trump is the first industrialist to have a personal dirty work lawyer. Rose colored glasses and wallowing in a pit of denial may exonerate him endlessly, but such tactics have kept industrialists and other Dons in plausible deniability as a matter of standard industry practice for decades.

For EXACTLY this reason. You rarely get the Don for racketeering, but you can get then for minor tic-tac crap when the people they hire to take care of their sh*t fail to do so properly.

There actually is reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: Vermilion

The fact you claim there was no evidence presented apart from Cohens testimony just proves you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

If you had of said the prosecution put forward a lot of solid evidence and the defense’s arguments didn’t make much sense, but yet it still hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt… that would’ve been a credible opinion, which the jury may or may not agree with.

But your just showing your bias and denying reality itself.

The reason people are saying it hinges on Cohen is because this crime requires intent to commit the crime, and Cohen is the only person who has testified that was Trump's intent.

If the jury didn't find Cohen credible, the rest of the case is irrelevant.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

At the very least, it'll be at-home confinement until the appeals court decides.

And that is next year.

So...no more Trump Rallies, campaigning or debates.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: Vermilion

The fact you claim there was no evidence presented apart from Cohens testimony just proves you have no idea of what you’re talking about.

If you had of said the prosecution put forward a lot of solid evidence and the defense’s arguments didn’t make much sense, but yet it still hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt… that would’ve been a credible opinion, which the jury may or may not agree with.

But your just showing your bias and denying reality itself.

A lot of “solid evidence”? LoL

Please share some of the “solid evidence” with us. Make sure it’s “solid” and “evidence”.

You’re supposed to automatically offer it up when you make statements like that, unless you’re just a troll full of crap.
We’ll wait.

a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

How’s Biden going to influence the NY legal system?

Also, why hasn’t Biden had judge Cannon dismissed from the confidential documents case? I mean, if this is all Biden trying to shut down his political opponent.