Do you agree with CNN?

[Hans Blaster]

Confused - you cared enough to criticize the poster, but don't care enough to look at the information you are criticizing. Interesting.

The information available is an unsourced quote attributed to an unfamiliar individual in your OP. If this is from something you read on CNN . com, then there is a link you could include.

 

[Always in His Presence]

The information available is an unsourced quote attributed to an unfamiliar individual in your OP. If this is from something you read on CNN . com, then there is a link you could include.

Do you have two sign in's? Because I didn't think I was talking to you.????

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you have two sign in's? Because I didn't think I was talking to you.????

I don't remember which poster you are. Your avatar is relatively new, and name vaguely familiar, but whatever interaction we've had in the past does not come to mind.

If you only want to talk to one poster, use the DM. Otherwise it is public. (I also don't have private conversations, so don't bother with a DM to me.)

My point still holds. You challenge others about criticizing without looking at the information when you've given us nothing to look at but a couple paragraphs of uncited text. I suspect it is clipped from some article, but I can't tell where. Link your source and there won't be any questions.

 

[WolfGate]

I agree the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Regarding this trial, I haven't been paying close attention, so my understanding of testimony is limited. Which means I have not basis to believe there is or is not reasonable doubt.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

“The burden of proof is an important one to remind everyone: It’s on the prosecution, right? They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he commit — that Donald Trump broke the law. And you think after listening to all of this, you think they fell short. How?” host Kate Bolduan asked.

Zelin responded, ““They fell way short, because let’s start with reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And it’s not simply a doubt based upon reason. Any time a human being needs to make an important decision in life, if you have enough information, for example, doctor says you need open heart surgery. ‘Doc, go ahead and schedule. I don’t have a reasonable doubt.’”

“Conversely, if I say ‘I appreciate it, but I need a second opinion, I need more information,’ that is having a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt all over this case,” he added.

All I know it's a win ,win for Trump no matter which way this goes.

 

[Fantine]

“The burden of proof is an important one to remind everyone: It’s on the prosecution, right? They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he commit — that Donald Trump broke the law. And you think after listening to all of this, you think they fell short. How?” host Kate Bolduan asked.

Zelin responded, ““They fell way short, because let’s start with reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And it’s not simply a doubt based upon reason. Any time a human being needs to make an important decision in life, if you have enough information, for example, doctor says you need open heart surgery. ‘Doc, go ahead and schedule. I don’t have a reasonable doubt.’”

“Conversely, if I say ‘I appreciate it, but I need a second opinion, I need more information,’ that is having a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt all over this case,” he added.

When I have been on juries, the judge always said you didn't have to have "no" doubts. Would a reasonable person have those doubts?
Where Mr. Trump is concerned, his true followers see him as perfect. No amount of evidence (I hear there are 726!) would convince them. It is hard for them to understand reasonable doubt because even if he broke down and confessed they would vote to acquit.
The main linchpin seems to be whether Trump sought to conceal the affair to win the election or whether it was family concerns.
For me the 726 pieces of evidence plus his behavior, comments, and character since 2015 give me zero doubts.
We have seen him do things that are far worse in the ensuing years, and God willing, he will face trials for them all.

 

[Mayzoo]

All I know it's a win ,win for Trump no matter which way this goes.

Yeah, he may be the first president to serve his term under house arrest, but I seriously doubt it. Even if he is convicted, he will likely serve no time. IMO, a conviction is unlikely. More likely to have a hung jury. I just hope that is only figurative as violence against the jurors is absolutely not out the realm of likelihood.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Confused - you cared enough to criticize the poster, but don't care enough to look at the information you are criticizing. Interesting.

You are correct. Not sure why you're confused.

 

[Pommer]

“The burden of proof is an important one to remind everyone: It’s on the prosecution, right? They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he commit — that Donald Trump broke the law. And you think after listening to all of this, you think they fell short. How?” host Kate Bolduan asked.

Zelin responded, ““They fell way short, because let’s start with reasonable doubt. What is reasonable doubt? And it’s not simply a doubt based upon reason. Any time a human being needs to make an important decision in life, if you have enough information, for example, doctor says you need open heart surgery. ‘Doc, go ahead and schedule. I don’t have a reasonable doubt.’”

“Conversely, if I say ‘I appreciate it, but I need a second opinion, I need more information,’ that is having a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt all over this case,” he added.

The ledgers say “legal fees”, but the checks were to repay a campaign-financial “loan” that would have been illegal if they tried to call it a “campaign loan”, some check were signed by Trump, himself. And he knew.

That said, I think he’ll be acquitted.

 

[Pommer]

Zelin or Zeldin? Zeldin sounds like the former congressman Lee Zeldin from NY who lost when he ran for government. If Zeldin, the bigger question becomes why should we bother with a politician's opinion who likely didn't watch any of the trial.

Confirmation bias?

 

[Pommer]

Confused - you cared enough to criticize the poster, but don't care enough to look at the information you are criticizing. Interesting.

CNN allowed someone to state his opinion and the OP title choice was “do you agree with CNN?”
Yes, I do, I agree that CNN should ask partisan people their feelings about this trial too.

 

[Gene2memE]

New York standards on 'Reasonable Doubt', from the New York State Unified Court System(citations omitted, available at link):

Reasonable Doubt​

What does our law mean when it requires proof of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?https://www.christianforums.com/#_edn1

The law uses the term, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," to tell you how convincing the evidence of guilt must be to permit a verdict of guilty.[ii] The law recognizes that, in dealing with human affairs, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. Therefore, the law does not require the People to prove a defendant guilty beyond all possible doubt.[iii] On the other hand, it is not sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty.[iv] In a criminal case, the proof of guilt must be stronger than that.[v] It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.[vi]

A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence.[vii] It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt.[viii] It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.[ix]

Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced [x] of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identity as the person who committed the crime.

In determining whether or not the People have proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be guided solely by a full and fair evaluation of the evidence. After carefully evaluating the evidence, each of you must decide whether or not that evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.

Whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest upon baseless speculations. Nor may it be influenced in any way by bias, prejudice, sympathy, or by a desire to bring an end to your deliberations or to avoid an unpleasant duty.

Link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1w7KNU1NJkn_cktkwE3ORq

 

[Occams Barber]

Nor has anyone else including Randy Zelin (unless he's been in the courtroom every single day and heard all the testimony).
In any case, it doesn't matter what Zelin or any of us think....the jury will decide.

No Australian would seriously consider the opinion of someone named "Randy".

OB

 

[Bradskii]

The ledgers say “legal fees”, but the checks were to repay a campaign-financial “loan” that would have been illegal if they tried to call it a “campaign loan”, some check were signed by Trump, himself. And he knew.

That said, I think he’ll be acquitted.

It smells to high heaven. And the fact that he literally paid off a porn star for having sex with him because he didn't want anyone to know isn't disputed. If this was to be decided on the balance of probabilities then he'd be filing an appeal in the next few days.

I dunno...I would have honestly had to excuse myself as a jury member as I wouldn't have been able to give an unbiased opinion. I'll admit that. But it only takes one or two people to not be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt for a mistrial.

Apparently the prosecution would then need to decide there and then if they want a new trial. Or at least announce the decision. Surely they've decided already.

 

[Bradskii]

No Australian would seriously consider the opinion of someone named "Randy".

OB

The schoolboy humour is tempting.

 

[wing2000]

...meanwhile in the MAGA world:

Fox News host John Roberts misrepresented the judge’s instructions, launching a wave of fury on right-wing media stations and prompting Florida senator Marco Rubio to write:

“This is exactly the kind of sham trial used against political opponents of the regime in the old Soviet Union.” Utah senator Mike Lee chimed in with his own attacks on Judge Merchan. Roberts later corrected his tweet, but it was too late to change the narrative.

Tonight, those two themes reappeared again and again on social media in both Trump’s feed and those of his supporters. Their frenzy suggested they are concerned about the jury’s verdict. Newsmax host Todd Starnes tweeted: “President Trump needs to get out of New York City RIGHT NOW! Fly back to Mar-a-Lago or another state that will provide him safe harbor.”

 

[iluvatar5150]

.Newsmax host Todd Starnes tweeted: “President Trump needs to get out of New York City RIGHT NOW! Fly back to Mar-a-Lago or another state that will provide him safe harbor.”

and become an interstate fugitive?

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE WITH SPRINKLES ON TOP DO THIS!!!

oh man, I thought I'd laugh hard if he got tazed. This would legitimately be even better.

 

[essentialsaltes]

There are some variations of the OP text online.

you think they fell short. How?” host Kate Bolduan asked.

The Blaze: you think they fell short. How?” Bolduan asked Zelin.

Mediaite: you think they fell short. How?” the network’s Kate Bolduan asked Zelin.

But the exact text seems to match:

Independent Journal Review: you think they fell short. How?” host Kate Bolduan asked.

 

[WolfGate]

I agree the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Regarding this trial, I haven't been paying close attention, so my understanding of testimony is limited. Which means I have not basis to believe there is or is not reasonable doubt.

Apparently they did meet the burden of proof.