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

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I don't have an opinion on this case, other than my opinion that the State had the right to bring the case. I understand the case.

I'm not sure that the prosecution made their case, convincing the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't have an opinion on this case, other than my opinion that the State had the right to bring the case. I understand the case.

I give you points for trying to keep your distance from it.

Yet, even the above quote has issues. Like the state bringing a case where the charges are past the statute of limitations. In order to subvert the statute of limitations it had to be elevated to a felony. That elevation requires another charge, or rather while in commission of another crime.

The issue with that? No witnesses were brought to the other crime and the judge has allowed them to essentially make their own choice without evidence of the other crime.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You guys are cowards.

If this was reversed, I wouldn’t hesitate to tell you that I know it’s a complete sham but you gotta deal with it because that’s how bad they want your guy out of the picture.

You guys all know it’s that but don’t have the balls to say it to our faces.

That’s the difference between us and you guys.
We play it straight and by the book, you guys will tow the bullsh!t Democrat line no matter how wildly unbelievable it is.

That’s the definition of a cult.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Should registered republicans only be judged by other republicans?

This is the synopsis the MSM uses for this case right now...

Mr. Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a $130,000 hush-money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels. Mr. Cohen made the payment on the eve of the 2016 election to silence her account of a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump a decade earlier, and prosecutors say Mr. Trump faked the records to conceal his reimbursement of Mr. Cohen

If I read that, and that alone, I would think daaaaaamn that man is shady too. This is what the LIV dooes. It creates a story from a blurb with no research. Just, it is Trump so he must be guilty.

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Should registered republicans only be judged by other republicans?

The Judge donated to an organization called 'STOP TRUMP'.
His daughter is making millions working to elect democrats.

If a republican judge in a trial against a democrat had that amount of confliction and wouldn't recuse themselves, I'd feel the same way.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Lets just take the judges words that the jury questioned yesterday and needed clarification for today:

"Suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining, and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window. You do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas," Merchan told the jurors. "Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer — that is, conclude — that it rained during the night."

This is not a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Should registered republicans only be judged by other republicans?

The Judge donated to an organization called 'STOP TRUMP'.
His daughter is making millions working to elect democrats.

If a republican judge in a trial against a democrat had that amount of confliction and wouldn't recuse themselves, I'd feel the same way.

I'm hearing rumors that Merchan's daughter is getting donators seats in the courtroom....

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Should registered republicans only be judged by other republicans?

How would you prove they are genuine Republicans and not imposters ? 😃

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Lets just take the judges words that the jury questioned yesterday and needed clarification for today:

"Suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining, and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window. You do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas," Merchan told the jurors. "Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer — that is, conclude — that it rained during the night."

This is not a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

Judge is telling the jury it's okay to speculate/assume Trump is guilty without proof.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Whatever, you're invested in this case, while I'm not.

This case isn't going to change anything. And, even if Trump is found guilty, he will appeal, and it'll drag on for years. There is absolutely no F*ing way that Donald Trump will be sentenced to a prison cell. Even Ferdinand Marcos didn't go to prison, the USA put him up in Hawaii.

Now, the RICO case and the Classified Documents case, those I'm interested in.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: EndTime

Because he would be talking about something the judge felt was irrelevant however the prosecution are basing all of their arguments on election interference.

I would call it judicial interference. They did not allow someone for the defense to testify who could have an impact on the Prosecution.

Arn't the charges falsifying business records, concealing crimes, etc.?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Should registered republicans only be judged by other republicans?

The Judge donated to an organization called 'STOP TRUMP'.
His daughter is making millions working to elect democrats.

If a republican judge in a trial against a democrat had that amount of confliction and wouldn't recuse themselves, I'd feel the same way.

I'm hearing rumors that Merchan's daughter is getting donators seats in the courtroom....

The trial is a politically-motivated s#it circus.

Has The Jury asked if knowing about Judge Merchan's Daughter and some high ranking Democrats like Dan Goldman actually advising and coaching Michael Cohen may be considered in determining Cohen's possible lying? 😀

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: EndTime

Because he would be talking about something the judge felt was irrelevant however the prosecution are basing all of their arguments on election interference.

I would call it judicial interference. They did not allow someone for the defense to testify who could have an impact on the Prosecution.

Arn't the charges falsifying business records, concealing crimes, etc.?

Sorta. But election fraud / illegal campaign contributions is being used to take it up a notch to a felony? 34 counts of a felony?

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Nothing like a breath of fresh truth in an atmosphere of rotting turds.

Cheers

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So. Your just invested in TDS and the need to post in Trump threads.

😄

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Whatever, you're invested in this case, while I'm not.

Now if only your actions matched your words......

Now, the RICO case and the Classified Documents case, those I'm interested in.

So we're going for 11 years then.

Godspeed.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I always enjoy when you double down on the factual evidence against your opinions.


It's like a snapshot into the current day mental health crisis.

I will accept the jury's verdict, regardless.

Even if the jury's verdict is based upon the direction of a irreparably conflicted and biased judge?

Should registered republicans only be judged by other republicans?

The Judge donated to an organization called 'STOP TRUMP'.
His daughter is making millions working to elect democrats.

If a republican judge in a trial against a democrat had that amount of confliction and wouldn't recuse themselves, I'd feel the same way.

Did the defense file a motion to disqualify the judge?