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

originally posted by: Vermilion

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.

What of Peckler's evidence?

Trump is a notorious 'penny pincher' but he was paying Cohen $35k per month. Why?

And all the money that everyone splashed out with. Amounts that we know came from the Trump organization and campaign, and are on record. In whose interest were they?

And there are recordings of Trump and texts taken from Cohen's phone:

Jurors hear secret recording of Trump and Michael Cohen allegedly discussing hush money payment

There have been other witnesses called and evidence other than the testimonies of Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
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.

The same way he influenced the Ukraine gov to fire the Ukraine prosecutor?? With cash?? 🤣🤣

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

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

Explain Matthew Colangelo leaving Biden's DOJ to join Alvin Bragg’s team of prosecutors .

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: TheMisguidedAngel

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

Quite easily. Visitor logs to Biden's home (not the White House), which he spends about 1/4 of his time at, aren't being released. The administration says none are even being kept.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vermilion

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.

What of Peckler's evidence?

Trump is a notorious 'penny pincher' but he was paying Cohen $35k per month. Why?

And all the money that everyone splashed out with. Amounts that we know came from the Trump organization and campaign, and are on record. In whose interest were they?

And there are recordings of Trump and texts taken from Cohen's phone:

Jurors hear secret recording of Trump and Michael Cohen allegedly discussing hush money payment

There have been other witnesses called and evidence other than the testimonies of Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

I stopped reading at “notorious penny pincher”

He’s a billionaire, he owns properties all over the world including the penthouse in your head.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

Yeah Cohens testimony directly connects the crime to Trump. But even without Cohens testimony, it’s been well established the crime did occur and that it makes no sense that Trump wouldn’t have known about it. Don’t forget the defense never even attempted to explain the $130,000 payment grossed up to Cohen.

It’s totally obvious what happened, but the only 2 people who could directly implicate Trump are Micheal Cohen and Allen Weisselberg… and Weisselberg ain’t going to testify against Trump, his in Rikers Island right now because he refuses to turn on Trump.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vermilion

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.

What of Peckler's evidence?

Trump is a notorious 'penny pincher' but he was paying Cohen $35k per month. Why?

The fact you even had to ask why contradicts your assertion that this is evidence of the crime (because it's not.) If you don't know what it means, it's not evidence of anything. An open question isn't evidence.

And all the money that everyone splashed out with. Amounts that we know came from the Trump organization and campaign, and are on record. In whose interest were they?

A lot of money was flowing in and out of a company? Gee, groundshaking "evidence" that is.

And there are recordings of Trump and texts taken from Cohen's phone:

Jurors hear secret recording of Trump and Michael Cohen allegedly discussing hush money payment

This isn't even about the Daniels payment.

Massive fail.

a reply to: JadedGhost

None of that proves Trump ordered any accounting illegalities does it? 🤣

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

Yeah Cohens testimony directly connects the crime to Trump. But even without Cohens testimony, it’s been well established the crime did occur and that it makes no sense that Trump wouldn’t have known about it.

No, that hasn't been well-established. The only thing that's been well-established is that Cohen committed crimes. That he did so at Trump's direction or with Trump's approval isn't proven by any of the other evidence. The ONLY evidence that Trump knew about and directed Cohen to commit crimes is Cohen's testimony.

It’s totally obvious what happened

No, it's not. It's only obvious if you believe Cohen. That was why they had to call Cohen. No prosecutor in their right mind would wanna call Cohen as a witness, but they had no choice because without Cohen's testimony, they had no case because the other evidence introduced doesn't prove Trump did anything illegal. And you only believe Cohen because of your emotional need for Trump to be convicted.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Explain Matthew Colangelo leaving Biden's DOJ to join Alvin Bragg’s team of prosecutors .

a serious case of TDS, or working for heinrich garland and slo joe, more likely than both.

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.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

Yeah Cohens testimony directly connects the crime to Trump. But even without Cohens testimony, it’s been well established the crime did occur and that it makes no sense that Trump wouldn’t have known about it. Don’t forget the defense never even attempted to explain the $130,000 payment grossed up to Cohen.

It’s totally obvious what happened, but the only 2 people who could directly implicate Trump are Micheal Cohen and Allen Weisselberg… and Weisselberg ain’t going to testify against Trump, his in Rikers Island right now because he refuses to turn on Trump.

How many times does it take to be wrong before you admit it?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

None of that proves Trump ordered any accounting illegalities does it? 🤣

It all strongly indicates Trump obviously ordered it, then if you believe Cohens testimony, it proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s up to the jury now.

Glitched edit!

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

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.

Exactly.

House arrest.

a reply to: chr0naut

What of Peckler's evidence?

Pecker testified that if dirt about Trump came his way he would tell them. That’s it.
That's not a crime.

Trump is a notorious 'penny pincher' but he was paying Cohen $35k per month. Why?

Legal fees. Logged and ledgered and paid in full. Not a crime. Just because you think they’re not isn’t evidence.
Nothing presented in court shows otherwise besides Cohens “testimony”, which cannot be believed.

And all the money that everyone splashed out with. Amounts that we know came from the Trump organization and campaign, and are on record. In whose interest were they?

Splashed out with? Are you talking about the money Cohen paid that pornagrapher for a non disclosure agreement?
Are you talking about the national enquirer money they paid to the other pornographer for her work?
None of that is proven to be anything other than normal business activity.

And there are recordings of Trump and texts taken from Cohen's phone: Jurors hear secret recording of Trump and Michael Cohen allegedly discussing hush money payment

Some vague illegal recording with zero evidence of anything. LoL
Nothing damning nor illegal in any of that.

here have been other witnesses called and evidence other than the testimonies of Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

Yes of course.
And none of it shows Trump did anything illegal.
It just proves, once again, that Cohen was a lawyer gone rogue and was deserving of his disbarment and prison sentence.
That’s what the facts in court proved.

Look, I know you want to relitigate this trial, for whatever strange reasons, but there’s just no solid evidence Trump did anything illegal.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

None of that proves Trump ordered any accounting illegalities does it? 🤣

It all strongly indicates Trump obviously ordered it, then if you believe Cohens testimony, it proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s up to the jury now.

In other words you believe Trump ordered it, but can't prove it.

That means not guilty.

originally posted by: Vermilion

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.

Solid waste evidence🤷‍♂️

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Vermilion

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.

What of Peckler's evidence?

Trump is a notorious 'penny pincher' but he was paying Cohen $35k per month. Why?

And all the money that everyone splashed out with. Amounts that we know came from the Trump organization and campaign, and are on record. In whose interest were they?

And there are recordings of Trump and texts taken from Cohen's phone:

Jurors hear secret recording of Trump and Michael Cohen allegedly discussing hush money payment

There have been other witnesses called and evidence other than the testimonies of Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

I stopped reading at “notorious penny pincher”

You got further than I did. I stopped reading at "chr0naut".

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

None of that proves Trump ordered any accounting illegalities does it? 🤣

It all strongly indicates Trump obviously ordered it, then if you believe Cohens testimony, it proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s up to the jury now.

But Cohen has testified he never told Trump until long after the fact. Looks like Cohen "caused" others "think" somebody did illegal things 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣