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

a reply to: FlyersFan

I'm saying that if the jury finds Trump guilty, it'll be because of the evidence. You are being deliberately obstruse, pretending that a jury can ignore evidence, that it doesn't have to discuss or justify their reasoning, that they can corruptly decide to cater to a corrupt judge and believe a corrupt prosecutor to deliberately railroad Donald Trump.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

I'm saying that if the jury finds Trump guilty, it'll be because of the evidence.

You hope that. You can’t read minds.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are out of your mind if you think that is not at all a possibility in any case, let alone this one.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And you are wrong about literally all of that.

Juries can absolutely ignore evidence. They do not have to discuss or justify their reasoning. They can absolutely agree with the prosecution and the judge and deliver a guilty verdict regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You are being deliberately obstruse,

I'm being realistic.

pretending that a jury can ignore evidence,

It can.

that it doesn't have to discuss or justify their reasoning,

It doesn't.

that they can corruptly decide to cater to a corrupt judge and believe a corrupt prosecutor to deliberately railroad Donald Trump.

They can.
The bias of the judge and the bias of the prosecutor are obvious.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

pretending that a jury can ignore evidence, that it doesn't have to discuss or justify their reasoning, that they can corruptly decide to cater to a corrupt judge and believe a corrupt prosecutor to deliberately railroad Donald Trump.

Shrugs..

ELDER: O.J. Simpson juror believes verdict was payback for Rodney King

torontosun.com...

originally posted by: MrGashler
Juries can absolutely ignore evidence. They do not have to discuss or justify their reasoning. They can absolutely agree with the prosecution and the judge and deliver a guilty verdict regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

Correct. The jury does not have to justify their verdict to anyone, and certainly not to each other. To claim otherwise is wrong. Period.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I just keep asking myself who the jury would be beholden to with regards to justifying or explaining the reasoning for their verdict. I can't come up with anyone.

originally posted by: derfreebie
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.

At least somebody has it spotted for what it is!! 😊

a reply to: FlyersFan

With the OJ Simpson trial being a text book example.

But in this Trump case, it’s the Judge leading the jury for lack of a better term. I think the case will ultimately suffer for it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JadedGhost
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?

Is there a transcript of these recordings, or the recordings themselves, available anywhere?

Sure thing:

‘What do we got to pay?’ Inside the Trump-Cohen tape

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JadedGhost
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?

Is there a transcript of these recordings, or the recordings themselves, available anywhere?

Sure thing:

‘What do we got to pay?’ Inside the Trump-Cohen tape

That still doesn't prove beyond any doubt Trump intended to make illegal accounting entries to evade anything else that Cohen may have thought about stealing or extorting from Trump. 🤣🤣

a reply to: FlyersFan

It can.

If a jury can ignore evidence, that would make it corrupt, right?

It doesn't.

The only time a jury wouldn't have to discuss the charges and evidence is it the jury all voted and all agreed to the defendant's guilt or innocence right out of the gate. Otherwise, the jury has to discuss the charges and the evidence.

They can.
The bias of the judge and the bias of the prosecutor are obvious.

So, to be clear, you believe that if the jury finds Trump guilty, it won't be because of the evidence, it will be due to the jury's corruption and bias.

At least you're not bias, right? LOL

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JadedGhost
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?

Is there a transcript of these recordings, or the recordings themselves, available anywhere?

Sure thing:

‘What do we got to pay?’ Inside the Trump-Cohen tape

“Such a secret payment could be regarded as an illegal campaign expenditure if the money is clearly meant to influence the outcome of the upcoming presidential election. But it would be a harder case to make if the payment was seen as merely designed to protect Trump, who is married, from embarrassment in his personal or private life.”

There it is right there.
They haven’t, and can’t, prove it was for the campaign and not to protect his private life.
A considerable amount of Reasonable Doubt.
Hopefully they’ll be some honest jurors in the bunch.

a reply to: Lazy88

With the OJ Simpson trial being a text book example.

OJ had a glove, in evidence, that did not fit.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
OJ had a glove, in evidence, that did not fit.

.... because it shrank from being soaked in blood, and OJ didn't take his arthritis meds which made his hands swell, and OJ dramatically made faces and tried to make it look like the gloves didn't fit expanding his fingers really wide, and the prosecution were idiots who didn't take that all into account when they got bullied into letting him try on the gloves.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lazy88

With the OJ Simpson trial being a text book example.

OJ had a glove, in evidence, that did not fit.

Because leather gloves shrink after being wet from something like blood and left on a lawn.

With a juror stating it was payback for King.

If Trump had been charged with Federal Crimes regarding campaign contributions, then these charges could be added to make a bigger case. This is the 'connection' needed to bump up these charges. It is not here and nothing the prosecution showed connected it.

Invoice. Check. Journal Entry. Nothing being covered up. Payments for an invoice that was not created by Trump.

a reply to: Lazy88

This is the same guy who sold football memorabilia and then stole it back from who he sold it to. OJ was too dumb to pull off that murder. Now, did he watch someone do it? Sure....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If a jury can ignore evidence, that would make it corrupt, right?

Yep. If they ignore evidence they are biased and maybe corrupt.

The only time a jury wouldn't have to discuss the charges and evidence is it the jury all voted and all agreed to the defendant's guilt or innocence right out of the gate. Otherwise, the jury has to discuss the charges and the evidence.

They discuss it if they wish. No one forces them to talk. And as I said, discussing something is not "JUSTSIFYING THE VERDICT". You claimed that they had to "justify their verdict" and then you shifted and said they have to justify their verdict to each other. They do not.

you believe that if the jury finds Trump guilty, it won't be because of the evidence, it will be due to the jury's corruption and bias.

Yes. There should be no trial right now. This was a misdemeanor case that was past statute of limitations, and that had been passed on by everyone for years and years and years with them saying 'there is nothing there'. Bragg obviously has bias because he bumped the dead misdemeanor to an active felony charge when it's obvious that there is no such thing going on. Complete and total corruption and bias by Bragg, the judge, and the jury.

This shouldn't even be at trial.

At least you're not bias, right? LOL

I'm not. I can't stand Trump. Bloviating, crass, classless ... etc etc etc