Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You still can’t answer how listing paying a lawyer as a legal fee who obtained an NDA where there is a history of politicians obtaining NDA’s for actual Harassment is illegal.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

They all said Trump didn't know.

What? Who all said Trump didn't know what?

There was zero proof of mens rea. Let alone an act.

Well, the jury heard the testimony, saw the evidence and did find Mens rea, and actus reus!

Yes, yes they did. Now was it all according to rules of evidence and jury instructions?

No.

That's going to be a problem.

I don't even blame the jury no matter how partisan in may be. The instructions ensured no other result.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Well, the jury heard the testimony, saw the evidence and did find Mens rea, and actus reus!

I think one of many points that will have this reversed in appeals court was the many directions of the judge in this case including telling the jurors that if they agree with any part of the 34 charges then they should agree with all and 100% of each. This was so confusing the jurors came back and asked if that was really what the directions meant, and the judge said yes. The judge would also not give directions in writing, and so it is still kind of secret in all he said.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Could you link to that? He clearly explains in the jury instructions another member posted that the law is the same for each count, however the dates of the occurrence are different with different items under the same falsification charge.

I'm paraphrasing, but it's noted that the law is written in full, then just the specific dates/ items are noted after that. I can't find anywhere that he specifically states that if they find him guilty of one they should agree with the rest.

I also can't find that anywhere online so a link would be appreciated.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The judge would also not give directions in writing, and so it is still kind of secret in all he said.

We have the transcript, so it's really not a secret.

Evidentiary Inferences

In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may be drawn from such fact. To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that a fact exists or does not exist based upon proof of some other fact or facts.

For example, 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. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewal people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably, and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative. Therefore, in deciding whether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense, and experience

static01.nyt.com...

We know what all the evidence was that was presented to the jury during the trial and in their deliberation. We don't know what evidence they rejected or what evidence clinched it for them.

a reply to: JinMI

Now was it all according to rules of evidence and jury instructions?

No.

No? Says who?
How would you know it the jury defied its instructions?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I didn't say that.....now did I?

You'd think you'd learn after all these years....

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well Under the Sixth Amendment every Criminal Defendant has a Right to Know the Exact Charges against them . In Mr. Trump's Case that was Never put forth to the Jury nor the Defense . This Case could also be Claimed to be an instance of Selective Prosecution due to the Political Motives behind Mr. Braggs Indictments .The Judge's instruction allowing the Jury to be Non-Unanimous on the Specifics of the " Secondary Crime " Infringes on the Constitutional Requirement for Unanimous Verdicts in Criminal Prosecutions . All in All the Defendant Mr. Trump was Not given a Fair Trial and an Appeal to the Verdict is Justifiable under Violating his Sixth Amendment Right .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Well Under the Sixth Amendment every Criminal Defendant has a Right to Know the Exact Charges against them . In Mr. Trump's Case that was Never put forth to the Jury nor the Defense .

Yes. I've heard this talking point parroted several times. I have not, however, heard Trump's lawyers claim this will be listed as grounds for an appeal though. From what I've heard, they will be citing Judge Merchan's refusal to recuse himself and that he didn't get a fair trial. They'll use Stormy Daniel's salacious testimony as evidence, according to Trump's attorney, Blache.

We'll see their appeal soon enough. July 11 is the first day they can submit it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

We know what all the evidence was that was presented to the jury during the trial and in their deliberation. We don't know what evidence they rejected or what evidence clinched it for them.

So, because it was an election year then anything Trump did was interfering with the election? Have you ever looked out and seen a wet lawn realizing it was dew?

The whole NDA was long before the election and was to prevent his wife and family from finding out. so why in your weird logic would you think it would not be the same years later? No one cared about it then and today, so the only people he was concerned about were once again his wife and family.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The whole NDA was long before the election and was to prevent his wife and family from finding out.

Um. Stormy Daniels was paid in November of 2016, so not long before the election.

so why in your weird logic would you think it would not be the same years later?

The jury, in their weird logic, didn't believe the pay-off was about protecting his wife. I can't say it was Hope Hick's testimony that swayed them, but Hope Hicks hammered some nails in a coffin, imo.

No one cared about it then and today, so the only people he was concerned about were once again his wife and family.

LOL, SURE! That's why the whole thing was plastered all over the MSN for months and weeks, and every other social media thread was about Access Hollywood, Me Too, Stormy Daniels and poor Trump's persecution.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Game's over, hon. Lights in the stadium are off now. Did you just stop by hoping you could get a final word in, before everyone let the post drift off the "Recent" page? So you could have the last word?

Sure looks like it. This horse is dead. Your guy's lost. Gloat as you will...but you already know what the outcome will be in the end. I already know you're not a dumb girl. You know what the final outcome will be.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Well Under the Sixth Amendment every Criminal Defendant has a Right to Know the Exact Charges against them . In Mr. Trump's Case that was Never put forth to the Jury nor the Defense .

Yes. I've heard this talking point parroted several times. I have not, however, heard Trump's lawyers claim this will be listed as grounds for an appeal though.

That’s the major flaw in all there arguments isn’t it? It’s simply not what the defense was using as arguments in court nor what the defense will use as an argument in the appeal.

Because the fact is it’s all just a bunch of MAGA conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Game's over, hon.

What game? You mean the multi-thread pretend nobody knows the charge game?

If so, then you're right. Game over, indeed.
If you can't beat 'em, just claim you did.

The next level of this game will begin July 11.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

can you just answer one simple question for me please.

What should the entry of paying his lawyer have been listed as to make this not a crime?

a reply to: network dude

I bet you only get word salad.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Care to link where your getting your info from?

Trump lawyer eager to move forward with appeal of New York conviction

www.cbsnews.com...


"Getting to an appeal is important for him and important for the American people," Blanche said, adding that the legal team plans to bring up "a lot of issues" during appeal, including matters related to the state's statute of limitations, jurisdiction questions and evidentiary decisions.

What's next after Trump's conviction in his "hush money" trial? How he might appeal the verdict

www.cbsnews.com...


Blanche previewed some of the "key" issues they plan to raise on appeal in his interview with CBS News, including the statute of limitations for the charges; Manhattan as the venue for trying the case; the structure of the prosecution; and whether Merchan should have recused himself. Merchan donated $35 to Democratic causes during the 2020 election cycle and his daughter worked for a Democratic consulting firm, but he rejected requests by Trump to step aside from the case.

Wonder what “the structure of the prosecution” is referring to?

a reply to: Lazy88

MSNBC?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Um. Stormy Daniels was paid in November of 2016, so not long before the election.

I stand corrected, my point was Daniels initially came forward in 2011 and the only thing on Trump's mind was to keep it away from his family.

LOL, SURE! That's why the whole thing was plastered all over the MSN for months and weeks, and every other social media thread was about Access Hollywood, Me Too, Stormy Daniels and poor Trump's persecution.

I meant the voters didn't care, as they didn't care about Clinton who was 100 times worse. Trump didn't lose any votes over it, so there was nothing on the political side he was concerned about, but he had to deal with it with his family.

What will you say when this gets overturned?

a reply to: Xtrozero

What will you say when this gets overturned?

They should all apologize.

But they won’t because they have no integrity or morals or even a conscience.

They’ll just jump on the next “Hate Trump” bandwagon and start all over again.

It’s a mental illness.