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

Cohen paid Daniels the money after she signed the NDA.

Trump then paid Cohen in monthly installments over 12 months.

That's 12.

Then he wrote in the accounting ledger that he paid Cohen.

That's the other 12.

Now we're up to 24 counts.

Cohen had given Trump invoices (10) for the payments.

so 24 plus 10 equals 34.


That's why this is a joke.

A sham, a kangaroo court.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

quote me. OR....STFU and apologize for being a dipsh!t.

So, you're saying that if the jury convicts, it will be on the evidence presented, not because they're corrupt?

If not, what are you saying?

so you are saying you enjoy sex with farm animals? That's interesting, tell me more.

a reply to: FlyersFan

But discussion is NOT the same thing as someone having to justify their verdict.

The verdict is achieved AFTER the jury discusses the evidence and each jury member may justify their own reasons for voting the way they have, if they're all not in agreement. It's the jury process.

a reply to: Lazy88

Thanks, yeah.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The verdict is achieved AFTER the jury discusses the evidence and each jury member may justify their own reasons for voting the way they have, if they're all not in agreement. It's the jury process.

That's NOT what you said.
You said that they HAVE TO justify their verdict.
You said that four times.
They do not.
And they do not have to discuss anything if they don't want to.
All they have to do is vote and they answer to NO ONE for their verdict.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

quote me. OR....STFU and apologize for being a dipsh!t.

So, you're saying that if the jury convicts, it will be on the evidence presented, not because they're corrupt?

If not, what are you saying?

so you are saying you enjoy sex with farm animals? That's interesting, tell me more.

I didn't interject myself into a conversation between you and another poster about farm animal sex, quoting some veterinarian on heart worm medication.

You interjected yourself into a conversation about this jury's corruption. So, what's your position on the jury's corruption, should the jury find Trump guilty? You know, since you interjected yourself into the conversation, and all.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Does anyone even know what the 34 counts are?

Or are you just going off of MSM?

Have they ever revealed the super secret super saiyan felony yet?

Or was that all make believe?




I can’t believe the levels of bs passing for rule of law nowadays.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

quote me. OR....STFU and apologize for being a dipsh!t.

So, you're saying that if the jury convicts, it will be on the evidence presented, not because they're corrupt?

If not, what are you saying?

In advance, I'll say unproven supposition and innuendo and maybe peer pressure aligned with ass backwards jury instructions. 👅

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

each jury member may justify their own reasons for voting the way they have, if they're all not in agreement. It's the jury process.

Where and how is that stated in law or state / federal constitution. When all they have to do is claim reasonable doubt.

a reply to: FlyersFan

You said that they HAVE TO justify their verdict.

Yes. To each other. By the time the jury exits the jury room and the judge asked the foreman to read the verdict, the jury has already discussed and justified their opinions/verdict to each other. That's how the process is meant to work. It's how it does work.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

each jury member may justify their own reasons for voting the way they have, if they're all not in agreement. It's the jury process.

Where and how is that stated in law or state / federal constitution. When all they have to do is claim reasonable doubt.

I'm not the one preemptively claiming the jury is corrupt. I'm the one saying I'll be surprised if they do convict, because I'm not sure the prosecution proved their case.

I'm the one saying that Trump believes he's already lost the case, based on his quote that even Mother Teressa couldn't beat the charges.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

Yes. To each other.

By what langue in law or constitution. Where if a juror has a duty to vote not guilty if they think there is still reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I'm not the one preemptively claiming the jury is corrupt.

Quote and cite who is claiming the jury is corrupt.

The judge set some bad and questionable instructions to the jury that are probably unconstitutional.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Who else in the current or past political landscape is being held to the same legal standard?

John Edwards.

You keep saying this but it's simply so far and away.

He was acquitted and that was one jurisdiction years ago.

Your failures keep piling up...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Yes. To each other. By the time the jury exits the jury room and the judge asked the foreman to read the verdict, the jury has already discussed and justified their opinions/verdict to each other. That's how the process is meant to work. It's how it does work.

That's the FIFTH time you have falsely claimed that the jury has to justify their verdict. They do not. They do not 'justify' their verdicts to each other either. They share their verdicts. But they do not have to justify why they are voting the way they do .... not to anyone. No one has the right to say that a jury members vote is wrong and hasn't been justified. No one is checking them and making sure that they voted correctly or that they voted sanely or unbiased. There is no 'justification' required.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

quote me. OR....STFU and apologize for being a dipsh!t.

Stupid people don't know they're stupid.

I'm not saying the person in question is stupid. That's a subjective opinion......

originally posted by: Lazy88
Quote and cite who is claiming the jury is corrupt.

I haven't said they are corrupt.
I said they are biased and a stink'n mess.
It's NYC and finding an unbiased jury there would be impossible.
They also have been manipulated by a biased Biden-donating judge.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

I predict the verdict will be tomorrow the 31st. Re; weekend grist.
No matter the outcome, it will more likely than not be in favor of
the desired results-- as prepared by the Legion of Mental Thumbs.

As geopollys have been stirred up to even the generally aloofy
awareness of my significantly better: the consequent blowback
is also reminding me where gold, silver and lead have ascended.

There must be a reason Carl, and my calcified pineal can't spot it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I'm the one saying that Trump believes he's already lost the case, based on his quote that even Mother Teressa couldn't beat the charges.

.... because of the bias of the jury and the corruption of the judge ... NOT because the case against Trump has been proven like you tried to claim that Trump said. That's not what he said.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Do you understand the whole presumed innocent, burn of proof is on the prosecution, and the bases of US legal system is to give all advantage to the defendant?