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

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Says the person who has no knowledge on what the Election Commission found. You made a statement that they didn't ever do anything. I advised you that they did, they initially found both Trump and Cohen liable before it was killed from going further. Told you where to find the information. You refuse to read it.

Ummm.. OK.

Carry on with the whining, and snide comments.

Again, the assertion that it was "killed" is laughable.

But you keep on clinging to getting Trump. 10 years and counting....

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Says the person who has no knowledge on what the Election Commission found. You made a statement that they didn't ever do anything. I advised you that they did, they initially found both Trump and Cohen liable before it was killed from going further. Told you where to find the information. You refuse to read it.

Ummm.. OK.

Carry on with the whining, and snide comments.

they why didn't they just use the same charges against Trump? Instead they are charging him with paying Cohen for his services. It pains me that seemingly inteligent people go to such lengths to deny reality.

originally posted by: EndTime
It is funny, doesnt Trump preach that states should regulate their own laws, but then takes issue with the judicial process in NY state?

The issue comes when you take misdemeanors and stretch them to felonies using federal rules and laws that don't apply to said state.

Keep up.

originally posted by: EndTime
It is funny, doesnt Trump preach that states should regulate their own laws, but then takes issue with the judicial process in NY state?

And if you were a black man from NYC charged with rape of a white woman in Rual Alabama in 1965 would you have confidence in the judicial system? Yea, it's kind of like that.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Trump didn't write the check or the person in accounting make the journal entry until well after he was elected.

LOL He signed the check.

I'm not here to argue the evidence with you. I'm just telling you what the prosecution is saying he's guilty of, because you pretended to ask.

Apparently, the evidence is strong enough for Trump to declare that even Mother Terressa couldn't beat these charges. So, there's that to argue with too.

I am trying to find somone on your side who actually understands what the crime is. So far, we have TDS and hurt feelz, but nobody who is inteligent enough to explain why, based on the evidence given, this is a crime. I have litterally capitulated to most of the facts entered, yet still don't grasp what part was illegal. You are sure he is guilty, so explain what he's guilty of, or admit you just don't like him.

The crime is : falsification of business documents - Its not a difficult grasp

Prosecutors do not have to prove 'election interference.' They only need to show that Trump participated in the falsification of business records and, to make it a felony, that it was done to conceal another crime, such as a campaign finance violation.""

a reply to: network dude

I am trying to find somone on your side...

My side? How many sides are there?

You are sure he is guilty

I never said that. Trump said the case is so solid that even Mother Terressa would be found guilty.

so explain what he's guilty of

Stop pretending that you can't grasp or wrap your head around the legal concept in which the rest of the nation is rapt. I just can't with your pretense of ignorance.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I just can't with your pretense of ignorance.

....the irony.

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Trump didn't write the check or the person in accounting make the journal entry until well after he was elected.

LOL He signed the check.

I'm not here to argue the evidence with you. I'm just telling you what the prosecution is saying he's guilty of, because you pretended to ask.

Apparently, the evidence is strong enough for Trump to declare that even Mother Terressa couldn't beat these charges. So, there's that to argue with too.

I am trying to find somone on your side who actually understands what the crime is. So far, we have TDS and hurt feelz, but nobody who is inteligent enough to explain why, based on the evidence given, this is a crime. I have litterally capitulated to most of the facts entered, yet still don't grasp what part was illegal. You are sure he is guilty, so explain what he's guilty of, or admit you just don't like him.

The crime is : falsification of business documents - Its not a difficult grasp

LOL, again, I get the charge. What I don't get is where is the crime. He did (likely) pork the whore. He did (definately) pay her to shut the F up. His lawyer used a NDA, which isn't illegal. His lawyer gave an invoice for his services, and it was paid with a check from his personal account, and logged in the books as a legal expense. All that is undisputed, other than the porking part. They both say it didn't happen, and one seems to change her mind about it all. But that part is not important. Just the part you seem not to be able to explain.

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

It's really simple Dude. Trump is being accused of overseeing the "cooking of his books", in order to affect the presidential election and protect his candidacy.

If it's that simple then why is he held to a different standard than HRC or the Obama campaign?

Why didn't the FEC charge him?

I mean, this is simple....right?

I posted links a few pages back including a link to download the pdf from the FEC attorneys stating that they found it appeared that Trump and Cohen were liable under certain statutes. 2 Republicans killed the further investigation. They stated that they felt that since Cohen was charged that was good enough, and chose to ignore the intitial investigation showed Trump was aware and involved.

Let’s assume for a minute that you are correct, just for the sake of argument.

If the FEC would have found an illegal campaign transaction, it would have amounted to a fine.
Just like they fined Obama, Clinton and the DNC and plenty of other candidates and campaigns over the years, it would have been X amount of money.

No trial with the threat of jail time.

Spin it all you want that it was “killed” by whoever, THERE WAS NO CHARGES.

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Trump didn't write the check or the person in accounting make the journal entry until well after he was elected.

LOL He signed the check.

I'm not here to argue the evidence with you. I'm just telling you what the prosecution is saying he's guilty of, because you pretended to ask.

Apparently, the evidence is strong enough for Trump to declare that even Mother Terressa couldn't beat these charges. So, there's that to argue with too.

I am trying to find somone on your side who actually understands what the crime is. So far, we have TDS and hurt feelz, but nobody who is inteligent enough to explain why, based on the evidence given, this is a crime. I have litterally capitulated to most of the facts entered, yet still don't grasp what part was illegal. You are sure he is guilty, so explain what he's guilty of, or admit you just don't like him.

The crime is : falsification of business documents - Its not a difficult grasp

Prosecutors do not have to prove 'election interference.' They only need to show that Trump participated in the falsification of business records and, to make it a felony, that it was done to conceal another crime, such as a campaign finance violation.""

But the Jury Instructions from The Judge mention crimes that may not have been committed because there are no Federal convictions to refer to. 😀 ASSa BACKaWARDSa

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

I am trying to find somone on your side...

My side? How many sides are there?

You are sure he is guilty

I never said that. Trump said the case is so solid that even Mother Terressa would be found guilty.

so explain what he's guilty of

Stop pretending that you can't grasp or wrap your head around the legal concept in which the rest of the nation is rapt. I just can't with your pretense of ignorance.

there is the rational side, and the TDS side. I'll let you figure out where you stand.

And your version of what he meant by saying that is typical of why you are on that side.

I'm being as honest as I can be in asking for clarification. I've tried to explain it many different ways, to which even an idiot should be able to grasp the point. I hope you can rise to the occasioin.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I never said that. Trump said the case is so solid that even Mother Teresa would be found guilty.

If you are going to quote Trump, at least quote what he actually said and not what you wanted him to have said.

"Mother Teresa could not beat these charges. These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged. The whole country's a mess between the borders and fake elections and you have a trial like this..."

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: EndTime
It is funny, doesnt Trump preach that states should regulate their own laws, but then takes issue with the judicial process in NY state?

The issue comes when you take misdemeanors and stretch them to felonies using federal rules and laws that don't apply to said state.

Keep up.

The case for felony charges has been, it is for the prosecution make the case and convince the jury. Is this not due process?

a reply to: EndTime

Define make the case please?

Was there an IRS or FEC expert to testify and inform the jury?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: EndTime
It is funny, doesnt Trump preach that states should regulate their own laws, but then takes issue with the judicial process in NY state?

And if you were a black man from NYC charged with rape of a white woman in Rual Alabama in 1965 would you have confidence in the judicial system? Yea, it's kind of like that.

It is 2024.

We have an evolved due process, no?

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: EndTime
It is funny, doesnt Trump preach that states should regulate their own laws, but then takes issue with the judicial process in NY state?

And if you were a black man from NYC charged with rape of a white woman in Rual Alabama in 1965 would you have confidence in the judicial system? Yea, it's kind of like that.

It is 2024.

We have an evolved due process, no?

we are supposed to. But my scenario explains the issues with this case in 2024, and parralels them with injustice in 1965. The black guy would get as much due process as Trump is getting in NYC. so in answer to your question, no.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JadedGhost
I think, however, some people are bound to conform to the Dunning-Kreuger effect.

Yes, this is true, as exemplified by yourself every time you post...

a reply to: xuenchen

Repeating this for accuracy as The Verdict is NEAR!!!!!


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.


Now come the Unconstitutional takedown. 🤣

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: rigel4

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Trump didn't write the check or the person in accounting make the journal entry until well after he was elected.

LOL He signed the check.

I'm not here to argue the evidence with you. I'm just telling you what the prosecution is saying he's guilty of, because you pretended to ask.

Apparently, the evidence is strong enough for Trump to declare that even Mother Terressa couldn't beat these charges. So, there's that to argue with too.

I am trying to find somone on your side who actually understands what the crime is. So far, we have TDS and hurt feelz, but nobody who is inteligent enough to explain why, based on the evidence given, this is a crime. I have litterally capitulated to most of the facts entered, yet still don't grasp what part was illegal. You are sure he is guilty, so explain what he's guilty of, or admit you just don't like him.

The crime is : falsification of business documents - Its not a difficult grasp

LOL, again, I get the charge. What I don't get is where is the crime. He did (likely) pork the whore. He did (definately) pay her to shut the F up. His lawyer used a NDA, which isn't illegal. His lawyer gave an invoice for his services, and it was paid with a check from his personal account, and logged in the books as a legal expense. All that is undisputed, other than the porking part. They both say it didn't happen, and one seems to change her mind about it all. But that part is not important. Just the part you seem not to be able to explain.

So, you disagree with the prosecution, but you do understand the questions on which the jury is currently deliberating. Was that so hard?

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: tanstaafl

The prosecutor can try again if he chooses to.

I didn't say they couldn't, I said they wouldn't. I could be wrong... but I'm not.