Trump NY Hush Money Trial: Guilty on all 34 charges

[begooode]

Just now, HurrayTitans!!! said:

Fair enough, probably wasn’t you, although I’m still kind of learning who everyone is here.

and I don’t have to do anything.  Haven’t propped him up once with a penny or even a vote.

[Jamalisms]

38 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

Having a judge that has donated to Biden, in a district that is 9 to 1 Democrat, with a DA that vowed to prosecute Trump as a candidate, it's not shocking of the verdict.

 

If this trial were in a 9 to 1 Republican district, do you think the same verdict would be produced?

 

The whole reason for the trial was so the Dems could label Trump a convicted felon. 

 

If, upon appeal, he is acquitted will you still call Trump a felon?

 

You'd vote for the devil if he admitted who he was but promised to pimp your policies of choice.

 

Reconsider your life.

[Jamalisms]

8 minutes ago, HurrayTitans!!! said:

I’m still kind of learning who everyone is here

 

[nine]

No doubt Alvin Bragg saw this case as an opportunity to advance his career and any political ambitions he may harbor.   No doubt about that.  
 

But despite what DJT would have us think…the vast majority of well-adjusted adults are perfectly capable of putting politics and rhetoric aside and making decisions based on the information and reality in front of them.   In fact, a very significant percentage of the American population pays little or no attention politics…because they find all politicians fake and dishonest;   it’s simply not worth their time and  aggravation. 
 

judges and juries are specifically charged to set aside all politics and personal convictions and judge each case strictly on the basis of the evidence that is presented….and the American judicial system and jury selection processes are designed  to help ensure this. 
 

No doubt DJT is convinced all these cases are politically motivated and that he’s done absolutely nothing wrong ….the quintessential narcissist worldview.   And he’s convinced his supporters to buy into this belief to make it easier to overlook and excuse his antics and transgressions.  
 

But the fact is, the verdict in this case was based on the evidence that was presented and testimony from numerous witnesses who were directly involved or had firsthand knowledge of the Trump Organization operations and payment arrangements.  
 

The jury reached a verdict after carefully considering and reviewing the evidence and testimony that was presented in court.    The Trump defense team was afforded every opportunity to refute this by offering similarly compelling evidence and testimony to prove Trump’s innocence…but they failed to do so.

[LongTimeFan]

12 minutes ago, nine said:

No doubt Alvin Bragg saw this case as an opportunity to advance his career and any political ambitions he may harbor.   No doubt about that.  
 

But despite what DJT would have us think…the vast majority of well-adjusted adults are perfectly capable of putting politics and rhetoric aside and making decisions based on the information and reality in front of them.   In fact, a very significant percentage of the American population pays little or no attention politics…because they find all politicians fake and dishonest;   it’s simply not worth their time and  aggravation. 
 

judges and juries are specifically charged to set aside all politics and personal convictions and judge each case strictly on the basis of the evidence that is presented….and the American judicial system and jury selection processes are designed  to help ensure this. 
 

No doubt DJT is convinced all these cases are politically motivated and that he’s done absolutely nothing wrong ….the quintessential narcissist worldview.   And he’s convinced his supporters to buy into this belief to make it easier to overlook and excuse his antics.  
 

But the fact is, the verdict in this case was based on the evidence that was presented and testimony from numerous witnesses who were directly involved or had firsthand knowledge of the Trump Organization operations and payment arrangements.  
 

The jury reached a verdict after carefully considering and reviewing the evidence and testimony that was presented in court.    The Trump defense team was afforded every opportunity to refute this by offering similarly compelling evidence and testimony to prove Trump’s innocence…but they failed to do so.

Tell me about Bradley Smith.

Edited May 31 by LongTimeFan

[LongTimeFan]

22 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

 

You'd vote for the devil if he admitted who he was but promised to pimp your policies of choice.

 

Reconsider your life.

Have you gotten he 27th COVID booster for you and your kids yet?

[TitansPDO]

1 hour ago, LongTimeFan said:

 

 

If, upon appeal, he is acquitted will you still call Trump a felon?

 

Just FYI, acquittals on direct appeal are rare. Review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is highly deferential in favor of the verdict. I pulled the sufficiency standard in New York and am pasting it below (It's pretty much the same across ever State).  I note that I cleaned up some of the language and removed the case citations:

 

In New York, a verdict is legally sufficient when, viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the People, there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. A sufficiency inquiry requires a court to marshal competent facts most favorable to the People and determine whether, as a matter of law, a jury could logically conclude that the People sustained [their] burden of proof. The courts' role on legal sufficiency review is simply to determine whether enough evidence has been presented so that the resulting verdict was lawful. Importantly, in determining the legal sufficiency of the evidence for a criminal conviction, an appeals court indulges all reasonable inferences in the People's favor, mindful that a jury faced with conflicting evidence may accept some and reject other items of evidence. It is the province of the jury to assess witness credibility . . .  and an appellate court therefore assume on a legal sufficiency review that the jury credited the People's witnesses. 

 

With all of that said, from what I read, Trump's attorneys lodged numerous objections and did a pretty good job of what an appellate lawyer calls "protecting the record" at trial. I'm not saying Trump's appeal would or would not be successful, but his appellate lawyer should have some items to litigate. 

Edited May 31 by TitansPDO

[IsntLifeFunny]

35 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

I am sure that your news sources have convinced you of this outcome. Ok.

I am sure he's been convicted...his appeal is unlikely to overturn the conviction. I am also sure of that. Has nothing to do with the media. It's called common sense. Try it. 

[LongTimeFan]

38 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

He won't be. He's a convicted felon now and his appeal will he shotdown just like all the others. He's a criminal, a tax cheat, and has rightfully been labeled as such...finally.

Tax cheat? Are you referring to Weisselberg?

[LongTimeFan]

2 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I am sure he's been convicted...his appeal is unlikely to overturn the conviction. I am also sure of that. Has nothing to do with the media. It's called common sense. Try it. 

You went from shotdown to unlikely. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

Glad to see you know, in a poor attempt to save face, that you're reduced to arguing semantics 

Edited May 31 by IsntLifeFunny

[nine]

8 hours ago, LongTimeFan said:

Tell me about Bradley Smith.

Bradley Smith is an expert on the subject of campaign finance law.  
 

Nowhere in any of the 34 charges against Trump was there any mention of campaign law/finance violations.    
 

It was clearly the defense’s intention to dilute and muddy the waters by introducing expert witness testimony for laws that had absolutely no relation whatsoever to the charges against him.    
 

The defense’s strategy for Bradley Smith was the embodiment of the old lawyers’ saying: “ If the facts and the law are against you…stand on the table and shout like hell!”

 

Merchan saw through these smoke screen delay tactics and ruled that Smith would be allowed to testify….but that the scope of his testimony would be limited to talking about the law as it pertained to the charges at hand.   
 

This ruling effectively eliminated the defense’s ability to delay the proceedings and confuse the jury by bombarding them with non-pertinent information….and since they could no longer use Smith as a smoke screen, they chose not to call him to the stand, period.

[LongTimeFan]

Just now, nine said:

Bradley Smith is an expert on the subject of campaign finance law.  
 

Nowhere in any of the 34 charges against Trump was there any mention of campaign law/finance violations.    
 

I personally think it was the defense’s intention to dilute and muddy the waters by introducing expert witness testimony for laws that had absolutely no relation whatsoever to the charges against him.    
 

The defense’s intent for calling Bradley Smith was the embodiment of the old lawyers’ saying: “ If the facts and the law are against you…stand on the table and shout like hell!”

 

Merchan saw through these attempted smoke screen delay tactics and ruled that Smith would be allowed to testify….but that the scope of his testimony would be limited to talking about the law as it pertained to the charges at hand.   
 

This ruling effectively eliminated the defense’s ability to delay the proceedings and confuse the jury by bombarding them with non-pertinent information….and since they could no longer rely on Smith to act as a smoke screen, they elected not to call him to the stand.

So tell me about Stormy Daniel's  pertinent information.

[Strunk'sDessert]

10 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

So tell me about Stormy Daniel's  pertinent information.

 

Again, you think Trump is just guilty of being too great without any crimes. He's never done anything he's been accused of over dozens of accusations? His supporters don't have any sort of savior complex. 

 

The Dems are so evil they orchestrated this entire thing even though they can't orchestrate competent campaign. Biden has dementia, but is also an evil mastermind. 

 

The logical leaps you have to take get to your opinion are astounding, yet you claim to be a centrist. In reality, your so far out in your bubble, you can't tell up from down, politically. 

 

Good luck to you, but I'll be actively rooting against all your endeavors. 

Edited May 31 by Strunk'sDessert

[nine]

12 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

So tell me about Stormy Daniel's  pertinent information.

 

Trump's entire defense was predicated on his insistence that Daniels was lying about  everything....that the whole thing never happened.

 

This attack on Daniels' character opened the door for the prosecution to put her on the stand to give her version of events....so the jury could  decide for themselves whether her allegations were credible.

 

I haven't read her testimony....I understand it got pretty steamy and fairly inappropriate.    But the defense made a conscious choice to open that door that led to her being called as a witness.