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

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

Without Cohens testimony I still know he did, but couldn’t prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But I totally believe Cohen, been watching his pod casts for months and seen him talk about it and I honestly think his telling the truth here.

It simply makes no sense that Trump knew nothing about it and then still paid Cohen $130,000 grossed up for taxes, for a NDA of a women Trump claims he never had sex with in the first place.

a reply to: JadedGhost

He's not on trial for the NDA, he paid legal fees to a lawyer because legal fees were the only accurate option in the accounting macro that was used.

All that aside, you'll get your "conviction" and you'll get him in jail.

Democracy will be saved.

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

The court case is about Trump's alleged falsification of business records. It isn't just about the payments to Daniels.

a reply to: JadedGhost

But none of that proves guilt beyond any doubt.

Oh wait.

Guilty of 3 of 34 charges by 2 Jurors.

Guilty of 1 other charge but not of the 3 above charges by 5 other Jurors.

Guilty of 2 charges unrelated to the 4 above charges by 5 other Jurors not by the above 7 Jurors.

Therefore Guilty of something by 12 Jurors. There we got it. 😊

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.

You'd have to prove 1 of those...and their case did no such thing...nor has he been charged much less convicted of any of that.

originally posted by: RickyD

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.

You'd have to prove 1 of those...and their case did no such thing...nor has he been charged much less convicted of any of that.

If Trump was not charged.

Why is there a trial?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

The court case is about Trump's alleged falsification of business records. It isn't just about the payments to Daniels.

It’s about him paying off these women without needing to report it to the election commission and so there wasn’t a paper Trail back to him.

As the story goes, the access Hollywood tapes came up, which Trump and his team considered a disaster for his election campaign. So they hired Pecker to ‘catch an kill’ any negative stories about Trump, not illegal, but kind of dishonest. But then for whatever reason when Stormy Daniels came around Pecker refused to ‘catch and kill’ it, so Trump needed a new way to pay this women off so that it couldn’t be connected back to him personally. So Cohen payed her off himself.

Fast forward to when Trump was elected President, he got sloppy and personally reimbursed Cohen for the hush many, since his president now and can’t charged for it.

That’s what happened… but now his not POTUS and can be charged and convicted for it, which Trump thinks is unfair.

originally posted by: Annee


Why is there a trial?

Biden couldn't win so he has to interfere with the election and try to punish a political opponent.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: RickyD

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.

You'd have to prove 1 of those...and their case did no such thing...nor has he been charged much less convicted of any of that.

If Trump was not charged.

Why is there a trial?

Because there's no charges better than any of the others? Sensable 😃

a reply to: CarlLaFong

After hearing the Jury Instructions today the chance of a Not Guilty verdict went to zero and a Guilty verdict is now more than likely. A hung Jury is the best President Trump can hope for, but if that happens Bragg can turn right around and begin a new trial the next week and Keep President Trump in that courthouse for another five weeks

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

It is evidence that Trump was paying him for something. Trump's case has not been able to explain what Cohen was paid to do. It was uncontested that Cohen was paid.

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.

It was evidence heard in this case.

a reply to: JadedGhost

But Trump didn't make any payments at all to either girl. Cohen did and he tried to hide it. 🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

The court case is about Trump's alleged falsification of business records. It isn't just about the payments to Daniels.

It’s about him paying off these women without needing to report it to the election commission and so there wasn’t a paper Trail back to him.

As the story goes, the access Hollywood tapes came up, which Trump and his team considered a disaster for his election campaign. So they hired Pecker to ‘catch an kill’ any negative stories about Trump, not illegal, but kind of dishonest. But then for whatever reason when Stormy Daniels came around Pecker refused to ‘catch and kill’ it, so Trump needed a new way to pay this women off so that it couldn’t be connected back to him personally. So Cohen payed her off himself.

Fast forward to when Trump was elected President, he got sloppy and personally reimbursed Cohen for the hush many, since his president now and can’t charged for it.

That’s what happened… but now his not POTUS and can be charged and convicted for it, which Trump thinks is unfair.

You think you have it all figured out.
Why no Federal Election Commission charges or fines?

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

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: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

But Trump didn't make any payments at all to either girl. Cohen did and he tried to hide it. 🤣🤣🤣

But Trump reimbursed Cohen, grossed up to cover taxes.

If Trump didn’t know he was doing something wrong, then why didn’t he just pay Cohen back and call it a reimbursement, which wouldn’t need to be grossed up to cover taxes? Since you don’t have to pay taxes if someone just pays you back.

a reply to: JadedGhost

But I totally believe Cohen, been watching his pod casts for months and seen him talk about it and I honestly think his telling the truth here.

Well that’s what professional con men do.

Sway the easily manipulated into falling for their sob story.

Hell he has Annee head over heels for him after hearing his testimony badmouthing Trump.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee


Why is there a trial?

Biden couldn't win so he has to interfere with the election and try to punish a political opponent.

You would like it to be that.

Just like you would like Biden's election to be a "steal".

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JadedGhost

But Trump didn't make any payments at all to either girl. Cohen did and he tried to hide it. 🤣🤣🤣

But Trump reimbursed Cohen, grossed up to cover taxes.

If Trump didn’t know he was doing something wrong, then why didn’t he just pay Cohen back and call it a reimbursement, which wouldn’t need to be grossed up to cover taxes? Since you don’t have to pay taxes if someone just pays you back.

Where in the transcripts was that proven to be illegal? Who made the provable testimony? 😀

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: JadedGhost

But I totally believe Cohen, been watching his pod casts for months and seen him talk about it and I honestly think his telling the truth here.

Well that’s what professional con men do.

Sway the easily manipulated into falling for their sob story.

That we can both totally agree on. I think we just disagree on who the professional con man is in this situation.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

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.

The court case is about Trump's alleged falsification of business records. It isn't just about the payments to Daniels.

It’s about him paying off these women without needing to report it to the election commission and so there wasn’t a paper Trail back to him.

As the story goes, the access Hollywood tapes came up, which Trump and his team considered a disaster for his election campaign. So they hired Pecker to ‘catch an kill’ any negative stories about Trump, not illegal, but kind of dishonest. But then for whatever reason when Stormy Daniels came around Pecker refused to ‘catch and kill’ it, so Trump needed a new way to pay this women off so that it couldn’t be connected back to him personally. So Cohen payed her off himself.

Fast forward to when Trump was elected President, he got sloppy and personally reimbursed Cohen for the hush many, since his president now and can’t charged for it.

That’s what happened… but now his not POTUS and can be charged and convicted for it, which Trump thinks is unfair.

If Trump knew about the payments much later, after he became President, then how is there a recording of Trump talking to Cohen, taken from Cohen's phone, with Trump discussing payment of Karen McDougal, with the recording being made during the campaign for office and before Trump had authorized Cohen to proceed?