[Politics] The 2024 US Election - *MATCH DAY*

[lasvegan]

Not at all

View attachment 183278

You are really much smarter than this…

Lasvegas seems to be conflating the original charges of falsifying accounts with the underlying issue the Prosecution wanted to prove - that the 34 counts of financial misdemeanours on the indictment sheet were really about an overall pattern of election interference - aggravating issues which elevated the case to a Felony (which will be reflected in the punishment).

Well, duh…the original charges are a misdemeanor, statute of limitations long since expired. The election interference charges were not brought up until the closing arguments/ jury instructions, by a state DA and judge who have no jurisdiction over federal crimes. Do you know what felonies the jury agreed upon? There were three (I think) and we’ll never know because they only had to choose one, didn’t even have to be unanimous. It really is quite pathetic.

It will be really interesting to hear the comments on here when the conviction is reversed.

 

[Nobby]

You are really much smarter than this…

Well, duh…the original charges are a misdemeanor, statute of limitations long since expired. The election interference charges were not brought up until the closing arguments/ jury instructions, by a state DA and judge who have no jurisdiction over federal crimes. Do you know what felonies the jury agreed upon? There were three (I think) and we’ll never know because they only had to choose one, didn’t even have to be unanimous. It really is quite pathetic.

It will be really interesting to hear the comments on here when the conviction is reversed.

So how come 12 jurors - some of whom will be Maga loons all voted him guilty.

That has absolutely nothing to do with when or how the charges were drawn up.

Do you think they’re all corrupt or just thick?
Or maybe Joe Biden paid them?

Perhaps they’re ordinary American citizens who can see a criminal when he sits in front of them.
And who now must be very worried that Trumps supporters are threatening them

How far does your supporting of President Trump go? Do you agree that they’re corrupt? Or just stupid? Would you threaten them?

Genuinely interested to hear why you think even the Trump supporting jury members voted him guilty.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Well, duh…the original charges are a misdemeanor, statute of limitations long since expired. The election interference charges were not brought up until the closing arguments/ jury instructions, by a state DA and judge who have no jurisdiction over federal crimes. Do you know what felonies the jury agreed upon? There were three (I think) and we’ll never know because they only had to choose one, didn’t even have to be unanimous. It really is quite pathetic.

It will be really interesting to hear the comments on here when the conviction is reversed.

You can boo-hoo as much as you want but the evidence against Trump was overwhelming, and was laid out before the jury over several weeks. It was just about impossible for any reasonable, rational juror to reach any conclusion other than that Trump paid off the porn star he’d f***ed because he was worried about his activities impacting his electoral chances, and that this 'hush money' payment was illegally laundered through the accounts. People have already been convicted and jailed for their part in the process, and made full confessions, while others have testified as actual witnesses to what went on. Trump's guilt is way beyond all reasonable doubt.

If you’re saying the verdict should be overturned and buried because of a technicality over something mentioned in the closing argument, you are absolutely deluded and desperate.. Trump's guilt was as plain as day long before that point.

Ultimately this is about the suitability of a man to be president, and if you can’t see what’s staring any reasonable person in the face — that Trump is a depraved and corrupt egomaniac with all the hallmarks of a dictator — then this reflects poorly on your own ethical standards, and your own lack of respect for the office of president.

 

[Zeberdi]

@lasvegan

- you are asking me to retry the case in a short post on a football forum, which I am neither qualified to do nor have the appropriate space here to do without pissing people off with a TLDR which is unfair of you to do - Also, no one wants to hear me detailing the FACTS of the case, they just want hyperbolic soundbites and posts slagging off Trump which they can react to with a “like” - that’s just about the level of debate you are going to get on this forum

- but as much as you live in hope of more and as much as I can provide you with an unemotional and non-partisan response:

Well, duh…the original charges are a misdemeanor,

Yes, as I and several others said.

However, the original charges of falsifying accounts is a felony under NY State laws if done with the intention of covering up another crime. In Trump’s case, aggravated by three NY State crimes which were brought up in pre-trial motions by the prosecution, including an alleged violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”. Under New York law, to be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records. This happens in the course of legal arguments in Court.

statute of limitations long since expired.

Bragg argued successfully that Trump’s time outside the State, including his time as President did not count - because the low-level felony charges were as a result of NY State laws not federal ones, they did not apply to non-residents.

The election interference charges were not brought up until the closing arguments/ jury instructions, by a state DA and judge who have no jurisdiction over federal crimes

You are misinformed/confused on a number of issues I think - as I said above, the felony E level charges of falsifying business accounts with intent to cover up a crime were brought up in pre-trial motions and comes under NY State laws not Federal crimes - the 34 counts of falsifying business records were the indictment charges but the seriousness of those charges were bumped before it came to trial to low-level felonies on the grounds that the conduct was intended to conceal another underlying crime: the use of those funds to advance Trump’s presidential campaign allegedly in violation of campaign finance laws.

In New York, the bare-bones crime of falsifying business records is a misdemeanour as you say. But as outlined above, it becomes a felony if the defendant falsified the records with the intent to commit or conceal a separate underlying crime. “Intent” is an evidentiary element of a crime that is proven in Court through prosecutorial argument - that’s why it was not presented as having been proven until the summing up.

Prosecutors charged Trump at the onset therefore with felony-level falsifying business records, and they said he falsified the records to conceal a separate violation of a New York election law - over which the NY State Attorney’s office does have jurisdiction - that prohibits conspiring to promote a political candidate (in this case, Trump himself) through “unlawful means.” The hush money to Daniels, prosecutors said, was unlawful because it violated campaign finance laws. And they said Trump’s reimbursement arrangement to Cohen violated NY tax laws as well.

Prosecutors described the payments to Daniels as a “catch and kill scheme” (which is not illegal) to suppress negative stories about Trump “in furtherance of his candidacy for President.” which was an illegal falsifying of records in breach of election laws. (They also noted that two parties engaged in the scheme—Cohen and the National Enquirer publisher—have already “admitted to committing illegal conduct in connection with the scheme” - Cohen was imprisoned for his role in it.

So no, the election interference wasn’t sprung out of no where in closing argument. The Prosecution in summing up, simply said they had proven the “intent” required for the felony level charge of falsifying records to further Trump’s election campaign in the course of argument. Not least through the testimony of Michael Cohen and other witnessess.

. Do you know what felonies the jury agreed upon?

No Jury deliberations are secret - but the Judge would have directed them to consider whether the prosecution had proven that Trump paid off Daniels with intent to further his election campaign as a separate issue (the breaches of NY State tax and election laws) on top of the misdemeanour of falsifying records. The Jury clearly concluded unanimously that the Prosecution had not only proven the misdemeanour crime but that it was carried out with the intent of influencing the campaign.

Again as I said in a post above, the 12 Jurors were selected in a process of voir dire in which both Prosecution and Defence teams can question them on their political affiliation - to imply all Jurors were Democrats/anti-Trump is simply misinformed

The whole legal rationale for trial by Jury is that the Defendant is tried by his peers ie the “common man” - perhaps it is just the case, Trump’s peers found him guilty eh? Would you have rather had him tried before the Bench?

There were three (I think) and we’ll never know because they only had to choose one, didn’t even have to be unanimous

Yes, the Jury had to make a unanimous decisision

. It really is quite pathetic.

It will be really interesting to hear the comments on here when the conviction is reversed.

As I said in my earlier reply to you - the Defence also had a case - there is a presumption of innocence in criminal law as most people know - until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Of course the Defence will say the Prosecution failed to discharge that burden, it is common-sense, crackerjack. In fact most of the literature arguing that is coming from sources that also cannot accept the results of the 2016 election

The Defence aren’t going to drive a coach and horses through any arguments they have for grounds to appeal by admitting the Prosecution proved it’s case in the Court of first instance.

The Prosecutorial system of ’Justice’ isn’t about who is innocent and who is guilty but who can be proven to be in legal arguments in a Court of Law.

Duh.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

His own words.

 

[Curious Orange]

Rules, morals and ethics are for other people, not Mr Trump. See his views on people invoking their fifth amendment rights (disgraceful), versus his own use of that right (invoked more than 400 times in one deposition).

 

[Motogull]

34 charges. 12 Jurors. Unanimous verdicts on all. The score becomes:

Prosecution 408, Bunglekunnt 0

He's been stitched up. Obviously a fake jury.

 

[Bodian]

You are really much smarter than this…

Well, duh…the original charges are a misdemeanor, statute of limitations long since expired. The election interference charges were not brought up until the closing arguments/ jury instructions, by a state DA and judge who have no jurisdiction over federal crimes. Do you know what felonies the jury agreed upon? There were three (I think) and we’ll never know because they only had to choose one, didn’t even have to be unanimous. It really is quite pathetic.

It will be really interesting to hear the comments on here when the conviction is reversed.

@lasvegan

- you are asking me to retry the case in a short post on a football forum, which I am neither qualified to do nor have the appropriate space here to do without pissing people off with a TLDR which is unfair of you to do - Also, no one wants to hear me detailing the FACTS of the case, they just want hyperbolic soundbites and posts slagging off Trump which they can react to with a “like” - that’s just about the level of debate you are going to get on this forum

- but as much as you live in hope of more and as much as I can provide you with an unemotional and non-partisan response:

Yes, as I and several others said.

However, the original charges of falsifying accounts is a felony under NY State laws if done with the intention of covering up another crime. In Trump’s case, aggravated by three NY State crimes which were brought up in pre-trial motions by the prosecution, including an alleged violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means”. Under New York law, to be charged as a felony, prosecutors must also show that the offender intended to "commit another crime" or "aid or conceal" another crime when falsifying records. This happens in the course of legal arguments in Court.


Bragg argued successfully that Trump’s time outside the State, including his time as President did not count - because the low-level felony charges were as a result of NY State laws not federal ones, they did not apply to non-residents.

You are misinformed/confused on a number of issues I think - as I said above, the felony E level charges of falsifying business accounts with intent to cover up a crime were brought up in pre-trial motions and comes under NY State laws not Federal crimes - the 34 counts of falsifying business records were the indictment charges but the seriousness of those charges were bumped before it came to trial to low-level felonies on the grounds that the conduct was intended to conceal another underlying crime: the use of those funds to advance Trump’s presidential campaign allegedly in violation of campaign finance laws.

In New York, the bare-bones crime of falsifying business records is a misdemeanour as you say. But as outlined above, it becomes a felony if the defendant falsified the records with the intent to commit or conceal a separate underlying crime. “Intent” is an evidentiary element of a crime that is proven in Court through prosecutorial argument - that’s why it was not presented as having been proven until the summing up.

Prosecutors charged Trump at the onset therefore with felony-level falsifying business records, and they said he falsified the records to conceal a separate violation of a New York election law - over which the NY State Attorney’s office does have jurisdiction - that prohibits conspiring to promote a political candidate (in this case, Trump himself) through “unlawful means.” The hush money to Daniels, prosecutors said, was unlawful because it violated campaign finance laws. And they said Trump’s reimbursement arrangement to Cohen violated NY tax laws as well.

Prosecutors described the payments to Daniels as a “catch and kill scheme” (which is not illegal) to suppress negative stories about Trump “in furtherance of his candidacy for President.” which was an illegal falsifying of records in breach of election laws. (They also noted that two parties engaged in the scheme—Cohen and the National Enquirer publisher—have already “admitted to committing illegal conduct in connection with the scheme” - Cohen was imprisoned for his role in it.

So no, the election interference wasn’t sprung out of no where in closing argument. The Prosecution in summing up, simply said they had proven the “intent” required for the felony level charge of falsifying records to further Trump’s election campaign in the course of argument. Not least through the testimony of Michael Cohen and other witnessess.



No Jury deliberations are secret - but the Judge would have directed them to consider whether the prosecution had proven that Trump paid off Daniels with intent to further his election campaign as a separate issue (the breaches of NY State tax and election laws) on top of the misdemeanour of falsifying records. The Jury clearly concluded unanimously that the Prosecution had not only proven the misdemeanour crime but that it was carried out with the intent of influencing the campaign.

Again as I said in a post above, the 12 Jurors were selected in a process of voir dire in which both Prosecution and Defence teams can question them on their political affiliation - to imply all Jurors were Democrats/anti-Trump is simply misinformed

The whole legal rationale for trial by Jury is that the Defendant is tried by his peers ie the “common man” - perhaps it is just the case, Trump’s peers found him guilty eh? Would you have rather had him tried before the Bench?

View attachment 183312

Yes, the Jury had to make a unanimous decisision

As I said in my earlier reply to you - the Defence also had a case - there is a presumption of innocence in criminal law as most people know - until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Of course the Defence will say the Prosecution failed to discharge that burden, it is common-sense, crackerjack. In fact most of the literature arguing that is coming from sources that also cannot accept the results of the 2016 election

The Defence aren’t going to drive a coach and horses through any arguments they have for grounds to appeal by admitting the Prosecution proved it’s case in the Court of first instance.

The Prosecutorial system of ’Justice’ isn’t about who is innocent and who is guilty but who can be proven to be in legal arguments in a Court of Law.

Duh.

On the question of unanimity - they had to be unanimous on the charge of falsifying records. And they had to be unanimous on the charge of doing this with the intent to conceal a crime.

Where they didn't have to be unanimous was on deciding what that crime intending to be concealed specifically was. As I read it, there were three things he could have been concealing, and the Judges' instructions to the jury were that it did not matter which one each individual juror considered was being concealed - it was enough to determine that he was intending to cover up one crime or another. He wasn't actually being tried for the secondary crimes.


I notice that Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, says there is a good ground for appeal on the basis that there was 'more evidence that should have gotten in there'. Well, sorry - but isn't that the defence team's job?

 

[drew]

On the question of unanimity - they had to be unanimous on the charge of falsifying records. And they had to be unanimous on the charge of doing this with the intent to conceal a crime.

Where they didn't have to be unanimous was on deciding what that crime intending to be concealed specifically was. As I read it, there were three things he could have been concealing, and the Judges' instructions to the jury were that it did not matter which one each individual juror considered was being concealed - it was enough to determine that he was intending to cover up one crime or another. He wasn't actually being tried for the secondary crimes.


I notice that Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, says there is a good ground for appeal on the basis that there was 'more evidence that should have gotten in there'. Well, sorry - but isn't that the defence team's job?

Add in the fact that in one of his rants, Trump is complaining that he wasn't allowed to testify. Well that would also be something that his defence team were in control of. They probably know that if he had taken the stand then he would have been a liability to the their defence!!!

 

[Curious Orange]

Add in the fact that in one of his rants, Trump is complaining that he wasn't allowed to testify. Well that would also be something that his defence team were in control of. They probably know that if he had taken the stand then he would have been a liability to the their defence!!!

Actually, the defence team can only advise their client not to take the stand, the actual decision whether or not to is entirely the clients.

 

[BadFish]

You are really much smarter than this…

Well, duh…the original charges are a misdemeanor, statute of limitations long since expired. The election interference charges were not brought up until the closing arguments/ jury instructions, by a state DA and judge who have no jurisdiction over federal crimes. Do you know what felonies the jury agreed upon? There were three (I think) and we’ll never know because they only had to choose one, didn’t even have to be unanimous. It really is quite pathetic.

It will be really interesting to hear the comments on here when the conviction is reversed.

Do you mean you expect folk will refuse to accept the appeal and instead call the whole think a hoax, fraud or Witch hunt.

It seems to me that your comment suggests that you and the cult members are simply picking and choosing which parts of the judicial system are okay and which are fake news.

The mental gymnastics much be exhausting.

Perhaps we can all agree to wait for and accept the decision made after the appeal? The same won't be said for the cult members of course, they are in way too deep.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Do you mean you expect folk will refuse to accept the appeal and instead call the whole think a hoax, fraud or Witch hunt.

It seems to me that your comment suggests that you and the cult members are simply picking and choosing which parts of the judicial system are okay and which are fake news.

The mental gymnastics much be exhausting.

Perhaps we can all agree to wait for and accept the decision made after the appeal? The same won't be said for the cult members of course, they are in way too deep.

I fear people are falling for his game again, giving, starting to call him a felon etc before the appeal is done, seems there is a chance it could be overturned, then what? He comes back even more deranged but can point to the corrupt system.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Court verdicts are sometimes wrong, there are sometimes miscarriages of justice.

However, to undermine the very fabric of your democracy, your justice system; this only goes one way. Margret Atwood probably terrified her writing has been quite so prophetic.

For a country that will allow thousands of children to be murdered by guns but not passing laws because of a constitution, and yet letting that constitution get ripped to pieces by this man is lamentable it really is.

 

[drew]

Actually, the defence team can only advise their client not to take the stand, the actual decision whether or not to is entirely the clients.

Appreciate that but either way, his claim was he wasn't allowed and that isn't true. We can presume his defence strongly recommended he didn't. Perhaps a journalist could stick their head above the parapet and ask him?

 

[chickens]

Seems a nasty piece of work. I wouldn’t vote for him.

 

[Bodian]

Appreciate that but either way, his claim was he wasn't allowed and that isn't true. We can presume his defence strongly recommended he didn't. Perhaps a journalist could stick their head above the parapet and ask him?

To be fair to him, I don't think he has actually claimed since the trial that he wasn't 'allowed' to testify. He said something along the lines that he really wanted to testify, but was advised not to, because people would have been out to get him, and so if he had testified that horrible judge would have done him for perjury if he had got the smallest thing wrong like mentioning it was a sunny day when it had been raining (yes - that was the example he gave)..

His lawyer (Blanche) was asked in an interview about Trump testifying. He said something like it was Trump's own decision after listening to advice, and that he agreed with the decision. The interviewer asked him if that meant he had advised Trump not to testify - and he blathered a bit about client confidentiality. To which the interviewer pointed out that if Trump didn't testify because he had listened to his legal advice, and that he agreed with Trump not testifying - then he must have advised him not to.

 

[Motogull]

Over here, in a criminal trial, the general position is that the defendant's case is at its strongest after the prosecution has closed. This is because the defence has likely caused damage under cross examination. The normal position is not for a defendant to give evidence for the same reason.

Had the Bungelkunnt given evidence, the jury turnaround time would have been 12 minutes not 12 hours. He would have sunk himself completely. He was advised well.

 

[Rookie]

To be fair to him, I don't think he has actually claimed since the trial that he wasn't 'allowed' to testify. He said something along the lines that he really wanted to testify, but was advised not to, because people would have been out to get him, and so if he had testified that horrible judge would have done him for perjury if he had got the smallest thing wrong like mentioning it was a sunny day when it had been raining (yes - that was the example he gave)..

His lawyer (Blanche) was asked in an interview about Trump testifying. He said something like it was Trump's own decision after listening to advice, and that he agreed with the decision. The interviewer asked him if that meant he had advised Trump not to testify - and he blathered a bit about client confidentiality. To which the interviewer pointed out that if Trump didn't testify because he had listened to his legal advice, and that he agreed with Trump not testifying - then he must have advised him not to.

Hmm I wonder if his legal team advised him not to take the stand because, oh I don’t know, the truth would have found him guilty anyway and everyone would have seen him tied up little notes by the big scary questions. The easy way to not perjure yourself is to tell the truth.
It is generally worrying that people actually believe the crap he spouts

 

[vegster]

Court verdicts are sometimes wrong, there are sometimes miscarriages of justice.

However, to undermine the very fabric of your democracy, your justice system; this only goes one way. Margret Atwood probably terrified her writing has been quite so prophetic.

For a country that will allow thousands of children to be murdered by guns but not passing laws because of a constitution, and yet letting that constitution get ripped to pieces by this man is lamentable it really is.

The constitution was put together by men who never anticipated that someone with the morals of Trump could exist. At the time there was no point in excluding felons or those who instigated a coup attempt from standing for office as.....who would vote for them ?

I Genuinely think that the strictures of the US constitution will be such a straight jacket that it will lead to the countries own destruction within 50 years unless there is a major sea change in the next 5-10 years.....

 

[Bodian]

Hmm I wonder if his legal team advised him not to take the stand because, oh I don’t know, the truth would have found him guilty anyway and everyone would have seen him tied up little notes by the big scary questions. The easy way to not perjure yourself is to tell the truth.
It is generally worrying that people actually believe the crap he spouts

He would have been disastrous for his own defence on the stand. Just look at the way he twists stuff in his speeches and statements - he gets away with it because no-one picks him up on it (or if they do he just talks bollocks over them). He wouldn't have got away with that in court - it would have been even more obvious to the jury that he was a liar, and would do anything to save himself / get himself elected. I bet the prosecution were looking forward to having him take the stand.