Trump verdict in

[bystander]

Not a lawyer or a judge but that is just wrong.

I do not believe the judge did that. Below is a snip of the jury instruction transcript. Read it carefully. I left out one more line: If the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt each of these two elements, you must find the defendant not guilt of this crime.

 

[theiioftx]

I don't know if Stormy paid the taxes.

The revelation he stole additional funds was just disclosed in his recent testimony. And nobody was personal harmed by the transaction except Trump.

 

[bystander]

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS...ry Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

I added the not guilty language.

 

[nashhorn]

The guilty verdict did not surprise me considering all the nuances but on all 34 counts? That surprised me. That jury either was scared or bold as h***.

 

[nashhorn]

By scared I mean Epstein or Vince Foster scared.

 

[bystander]

The guilty verdict did not surprise me considering all the nuances but on all 34 counts? That surprised me. That jury either was scared or bold as h***.

I believe each of the 34 counts were separate instances of the same thing on different dates.

 

[bystander]

By scared I mean Epstein or Vince Foster scared.

Maybe I should stop talking! Ha...

 

[mchammer]

The guilty verdict did not surprise me considering all the nuances but on all 34 counts? That surprised me. That jury either was scared or bold as h***.

34 counts were the same charge done 34 times.

 

[mchammer]

The issue is not the jury instructions. The trap had already been laid by the prosecution and then supported by the biased judge who didn’t allow the trap to be exposed by potential Trump witnesses.

 

[lkainer]

34 counts were the same charge done 34 times.

34 times to deceive the public

 

[mchammer]

34 times to deceive the public

Sure. Where is the justice for what happened below? No one is above the law, right?

 

[Monahorns]

I do not believe the judge did that. Below is a snip of the jury instruction transcript. Read it carefully. I left out one more line: If the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt each of these two elements, you must find the defendant not guilt of this crime.

In those notes he does not present what the other crime is, just that Trump is guilty of a felony if there was another crime. So you have to infer that there was another crime without any evidence that there was.

 

[Crockett]

This thread is full of succinct opinions. It's great info if you want to know how people feel. If you want authoritative accounts of what actually happened please look beyond Facebook and message boards.

 

[Monahorns]

This thread is full of succinct opinions. It's great info if you want to know how people feel. If you want authoritative accounts of what actually happened please look beyond Facebook and message boards.

My comments are from an analysis a lawyer did, who takes cases to defend civil rights.

 

[Monahorns]

My comments are from an analysis a lawyer did, who takes cases to defend civil rights.

The facts are that some legal analysts will try obfuscate the reality using legal jargon and complicated verbiage. The issues underlying the events can be understood easily by normal people once all that husk is stripped away.

 

[bystander]

This thread is full of succinct opinions. It's great info if you want to know how people feel. If you want authoritative accounts of what actually happened please look beyond Facebook and message boards.

Well, of course this sounds defensive, but I'm trying to discuss the facts with people that I've interacted with for years and years. I'm not a lawyer but I'm bringing in material from outside parties including the judge from the trial.

 

[mchammer]

This thread is full of succinct opinions. It's great info if you want to know how people feel. If you want authoritative accounts of what actually happened please look beyond Facebook and message boards.

To be fair, the issue is an argument among lawyers talking about an unusual law case. It’s not possible for mortals such as us to discuss the legal issues in detail because we don’t have the legal background to do so.

 

[Crockett]

Well you an read the indictments and the jury charge ...it doesn't much resemble what is described on this thread or in Trump friendly media.

 

[mchammer]

Well you an read the indictments and the jury charge ...it doesn't much resemble what is described on this thread or in Trump friendly media.

Anyone can write an indictment to where the defendant is guilty from day one. The issue is the law behind the indictment. Not my problem people on FB on both sides are generally *********.

 

[Crockett]

It's not that complicated. An indictment is an allegation that must be proven in court. Once proven to a jury it is a conviction. Any explanation that ignores the specific allegations and the accepted proofs may be post trial obfuscations.

 

[Crockett]

In the new political world that is the United States I am unsurprised that a call to examine facts and think for yourself would cause some to instantly defacate.

 

[Mr. Deez]

2 points. First, the requirement that the court identify the specific crime and the specificity with which it much do so to reach a felony conviction to a question of NY state law. I'm sure there's some case law or precedent on point. If it requires greater specificity, that would be pretty clear reversible error on appeal.

Second, I never thought my party's nominee's junk would necessitate the examination of such an issue. And again, this doesn't have to be our problem.

 

[lkainer]

In the new political world that is the United States I am unsurprised that a call to examine facts and think for yourself would cause some to instantly defacate.

Dr Phil actually did a good job explaining the situation with some legal experts. Not sure if it will be replayed. Our media overall has done an extremely poor job once again. Everything I've seen makes it pretty obvious this was a Russian show trial.

Dr. Phil Primetime

 

[bystander]

Well you an read the indictments and the jury charge ...it doesn't much resemble what is described on this thread or in Trump friendly media.

If you're talking to me, what I posted was the judge's explanation of the charge and what it take to find him innocent or guilty. I used his comments as an exhibit because I felt it explained the case succinctly.

 

[lkainer]

Dr Phil actually did a good job explaining the situation with some legal experts. Not sure if it will be replayed. Our media overall has done an extremely poor job once again. Everything I've seen makes it pretty obvious this was a Russian show trial.

Dr. Phil Primetime

Joe also practiced lawfare against Jill's ex.
https://nypost.com/2023/07/27/jill-bidens-ex-husband-slams-biden-crime-family/

 

[mchammer]

It's not that complicated. An indictment is an allegation that must be proven in court. Once proven to a jury it is a conviction. Any explanation that ignores the specific allegations and the accepted proofs may be post trial obfuscations.

There is a lot of unseemly behavior that isn’t illegal or at least not a felony. This case isn’t about the facts but the law no matter how hard you insist on it. You are trying to stir up **** against president bone spurs but I don’t give a ****.

 

[mchammer]

It's not that complicated. An indictment is an allegation that must be proven in court. Once proven to a jury it is a conviction. Any explanation that ignores the specific allegations and the accepted proofs may be post trial obfuscations.

So says the man that has never seen or observed prosecutorial abuse up close and personal (friend, family member, etc). In the example that I am aware of, the verdict was overturned upon appeal in very short order.

 

[mchammer]

In the new political world that is the United States I am unsurprised that a call to examine facts and think for yourself would cause some to instantly defacate.

You are the **** disturber here.

 

[mchammer]

So says the man that has never seen or observed prosecutorial abuse up close and personal (friend, family member, etc). In the example that I am aware of, the verdict was overturned upon appeal in very short order.

You can read it here. In this particular case, the DA was in cahoots with the judge to get a felony conviction. https://www.ncbar.gov/orders/volume 2/06025430.pdf

 

[mchammer]

You can read it here. In this particular case, the DA was in cahoots with the judge to get a felony conviction. https://www.ncbar.gov/orders/volume 2/06025430.pdf

The back story is that my uncle, a tax attorney, won a tax case against the DA regarding an alleged drug dealer. My uncle provided legal services for the defendant. The jury or judge found him innocent because the state had done a poor job. The DA was embarrassed and went after my uncle as a result. The process is the punishment.