Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

[evoeth]

Felon Trump

 

[rambot]

Guilty on all counts? BARELY a day of deliberation?

It doesn't seem fair that Trump is being held accountable...
for ANYTHING bad.

I expect an appeal because...well.....

 

[essentialsaltes]

AAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA

View attachment 348931

Obligatory

 

[iluvatar5150]

Aw, it's his first perfect score in something!

Aw, doesn’t stormy count for anything?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Most guilty verdict ever. Lots of people are saying no one’s ever seen such guilt.

 

[essentialsaltes]

 

[iluvatar5150]

Most guilty verdict ever. Lots of people are saying no one’s ever seen such guilt.

According to his crowd size estimators, he was convicted of 1,329 counts.

 

[wing2000]

Aw, doesn’t stormy count for anything?

...that isn't what she said.

 

[wing2000]

Finally, Donald J Trump is held accountable for hiding his sordid behavior from the American voter.

Sentencing is scheduled for July 11.

IMO, the judge should send him to jail not only for the conviction, but his continuing attacks on our judicial system and complete lack of remorse for his actions.

 

[DaisyDay]

Well, how about that! I was not expecting such a thorough trouncing.

Now for years of appeals....

 

[Arcangl86]

Irrelevant ,their qualifications being professors of law with years of courtroom experience makes their analysis extremely credible except to those bent on the destruction of Trump.

Was any of that courtroom experience in New York? I'm willing to give them credence where federal law is implicated, but this case focused on a pretty obscure NY law.

Irrelevant, to observing the court room shoddiness of Merchant. Even a inexperienced in the law person can see the open bias, except for those bent on the destruction of Trump.

What exactly indicates bias? Gag orders are an accepted power of the courts. And if you are going to bring up his small donation to the Democratic Party or the career of his daughter, the body appointed by New York Law as experts involving judicial ethics disagree that those two things created bias.

There is no reason to believe they do not. This is a baseless statement.

Most people don't understand most laws unless they have specific experience or training around them. Neither of them are licensed to practice law in NY, nor are they specialized in white-collar defense, so there is no reason to think they had that specialized experience or training.

I agree with you that they are "on the underhand".

Yeah, that was clearly a typo, but fine.

To say Turley and Dershowitz are not qualified to analyze this case shows disregard for the proper use of the law. IMHO of course. The two prosecutors cited earlier are far inferior in knowledge of the law just with the time of experience as a factor in my statement.

Let's use an example. Let's say somebody is a masterful engineer, considered one of the finest electronics experts in the world. And let's say you are having trouble wit the transmission in your care. Would you rather the electronics expert take a look at it or somebody with actual hands-on experience in your model of car?

 

[Postvieww]

Was any of that courtroom experience in New York? I'm willing to give them credence where federal law is implicated, but this case focused on a pretty obscure NY law.

This is a bogus , irrelevant argument! A man with life long experience as a lawyer and a professor of law is well capable to analyze and recognize the unreasonable and biased behavior of Merchan. This was not obcsure NY law, it was made as you go law combining unknown never specifically named Federal laws only for the purpose of reviving past statute of limitation charges the BRAGG HIMSELF earlier chose not to bring until Trump was a viable presidential candidate.

What exactly indicates bias? Gag orders are an accepted power of the courts.

I have already addressed this in other posts. Gag orders have traditionally been used to protect the DEFENDANT, NOT to silence him while a witness publicly trashes the man he is testifying against. In any legit court room Cohen would have been gagged.

And if you are going to bring up his small donation to the Democratic Party or the career of his daughter,

You brought it up, so any self respecting judge would recuse himself at even the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest.

the body appointed by New York Law as experts involving judicial ethics disagree that those two things created bias.

NY law is corrupt!

Most people don't understand most laws unless they have specific experience or training around them. Neither of them are licensed to practice law in NY, nor are they specialized in white-collar defense, so there is no reason to think they had that specialized experience or training.

Totally irrelevant and untrue.

Yeah, that was clearly a typo, but fine.

No problem, when I make one the opportunity is seized to amplify it. So I guess that is normal procedure here.

Let's use an example. Let's say somebody is a masterful engineer, considered one of the finest electronics experts in the world. And let's say you are having trouble wit the transmission in your care. Would you rather the electronics expert take a look at it or somebody with actual hands-on experience in your model of car?

Not a very good analogy! This was a political hit job and every fair minded person knows it. Even a few fair mind liberals have been brave enough to speak out against this travesty.

The out cry of "no one is above the law" is sickening to me and millions of others who see this for what it is, a political hit job. Did you notice the sly evil grin from Biden when he was ask about the verdict? That says it, all but politically blind individuals will never admit it.

This is not about the. rule of law it is lawfare and how will it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?

Our country's survival as a free nation is at stake, God help the blind to recognize that fact.

 

[Arcangl86]

This is a bogus , irrelevant argument! A man with life long experience as a lawyer and a professor of law is well capable to analyze and recognize the unreasonable and biased behavior of Merchan.

Why? What qualifies him as an expert in judicial ethics? Especially when it comes to the standards that NY judges need to follow?

This was not obcsure NY law,

You are correct. It was two New York laws, Penal Law § 175.10 with the predicate crime extending it to a felony being Election Law § 17.152

it was made as you go law combining unknown never specifically named Federal laws

The jury instruction specifically named the Federal Elections Campaign Act as a "illegal mean" under Election Law § 17.152, as well as falsifying business records, and both state and city tax laws.

only for the purpose of reviving past statute of limitation charges the BRAGG HIMSELF earlier chose not to bring until Trump was a viable presidential candidate.

Actually, the law seems pretty clear that the SoL would have been tolled by Trump leaving the state. If Bragg had decided to go after the misdemeanor second-degree charge he could have. Instead, he decided to go after the more serious felony charge.

I have already addressed this in other posts. Gag orders have traditionally been used to protect the DEFENDANT, NOT to silence him while a witness publicly trashes the man he is testifying against.

Gag orders are to protect the legal process. Granted that protection is usually invoked in favor of the defendant, but if the defendant can't stop making comments that endanger the integrity of the process, then they can be used for that function.

In any legit court room Cohen would have been gagged.

Cohen wasn't a recipient of a formal gag order, but he was warned to watch what he said and if he proceeded a formal order probably would have followed.

You brought it up, so any self respecting judge would recuse himself at even the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest.

He was concerned enough that he caught official advice and was informed he didn't meet the formal recusal requirements.

NY law is corrupt!

Based on what? The fact that your personal understanding of judicial ethics doesn't match the states?

Totally irrelevant and untrue.

No, it is 100% relevant. Your whole argument is that Dershowitz and Turley are inherently more qualified to discuss this case than former New York prosecutors. And if it wasn't true, there would be no need for the bar exam in the first place.

Not a very good analogy! This was a political hit job and every fair minded person knows it. Even a few fair mind liberals have been brave enough to speak out against this travesty.

Do you deny the things in question happened?

The out cry of "no one is above the law" is sickening to me and millions of others who see this for what it is, a political hit job. Did you notice the sly evil grin from Biden when he was ask about the verdict? That says it, all but politically blind individuals will never admit it.

Biden can be happy about the political implications without the prosecution itself being political.

This is not about the. rule of law it is lawfare and how will it feel when the shoe is on the other foot?

If a former democratic president is shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime, I would hope he gets convicted.

 

[perplexed]

I am very disappointed in the people claiming Johnathan Turley is an expert in New York Law

Johnathan Turley claimed the following Jury instructions were inappropriate

"judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime."

When the defense made a request that the verdict be Unanimous , The judge asked if they were aware that this is not the convention the Defense asked they were aware but due to extreme circumstances the judge should ignore the convention, the Judge said he would follow the law.

 

[BPPLEE]

I am very disappointed in the people claiming Johnathan Turley is an expert in New York Law

Johnathan Turley claimed the following Jury instructions were inappropriate

"judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime."

When the defense made a request that the verdict be Unanimous , The judge asked if they were aware that this is not the convention the Defense asked they were aware but due to extreme circumstances the judge should ignore the convention, the Judge said he would follow the law.

I d don’t know about New York law but it sounds contrary to the 6th amendment. How can I make a defense if I don’t know which crime I’m accused of committting?

 

[Arcangl86]

I d don’t know about New York law but it sounds contrary to the 6th amendment. How can I make a defense if I don’t know which crime I’m accused of committting?

Trump did know what crime he was accused of committing. Turley misrepresented the jury instructions.

 

[BPPLEE]

Trump did know what crime he was accused of committing. Turley misrepresented the jury instructions.

The jury had 3 to pick from and they didn’t have to agree on which one.


1. Violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act
2. Falsification of other business records.
3. Tax law violations

 

[Arcangl86]

The jury had 3 to pick from and they didn’t have to agree on which one.


1. Violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act
2. Falsification of other business records.
3. Tax law violations

Yes, as a predicate of the predicate crime. Trump was on trial for falsifying business records with intent to conceal a conspiracy to effect the election. That charge was broad, but really all Trump needed to do was create reasonable doubt that such a conspiracy existed and the specific illegal means wouldn't matter.

 

[Pommer]

When the defense made a request that the verdict be Unanimous , The judge asked if they were aware that this is not the convention the Defense asked they were aware but due to extreme circumstances the judge should ignore the convention, the Judge said he would follow the law.

B Efore we get too far into this, do we know, for certain that the verdict was arrived at with this 4-4-4 split? (Or did all 12 go down-the-line with “guilty”?

I only ask because this is such a nice rabbit-hole to delve.

 

[Hans Blaster]

B Efore we get too far into this, do we know, for certain that the verdict was arrived at with this 4-4-4 split? (Or did all 12 go down-the-line with “guilty”?

I only ask because this is such a nice rabbit-hole to delve.

The specificity of whichever criminal statute each juror thought Trump violated or conspired to violate in his conspiracy to alter the election by illegal means was not included on the verdict form. We will never know. The did all agree that the conspiracy existed, regardless of which crime(s) they thought trump committed.