Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (5 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

What will happen now that former President Donald Trump was found guilty (in 34 counts) by the jury?
*
Speculation on the judge relating to sentencing?
*
Appeals?
*
Political Damage?
*

Trump found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. Here's a breakdown.

A New York jury unanimously found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, a stunning conclusion to the historic trial of the former president.

www.yahoo.com

 

[coldseat]

Wellman says he still talks to GOP strategists. Who knows? I’d like to think they know how awful he is.

Let's hope we see this play out.

 

[fooferdoggie]

She has said on multiple occasions that it was consensual - just not something she particularly enjoyed.

could not imagine such a thing could be enjoyable from such a creature. thats why he had to buy is last wife.

 

[superchuck500]

Well dang- he posted to Truth Social early this am about the case/witness an hour before i said "odds on another contempt violation"

but deleted it not an hour later. But it was screenshot

LOL.

"No time for lawyers to prepare" lllloolol. There are only 2 main obvious witnesses in this case. If your attorney didnt prepare for the 2 most obvious, that says more about your attorney than their ability.

The defense has the proseuction's witness list as required by the pre-trial order. That was many weeks ago and certainly she was on it - and everybody knew they were going to call her. But that's just the list of possible witnesses and what they don't have is the intended witness schedule, which is customary but the prosecution refused in this case because (1) Trump cannot be trusted not to violate the protective order and (2) the defense refused to stipulate to basic facts and documentary evidence which is why the prosecution keeps having to call these custodial witnesses to authenticate.

He literally created the very situation that resulted in the defense not having the witness schedule. Classic Trump behavior: refuse to follow norms and decency to create results that are harmful to his own interests, then cry and complain about it like a victim.

 

[J-DONK]

My wife's adopted family lived in Duluth/Superior. Twin cities north, heh. My first time there, it was mid March, lake was still frozen over and 2 feet of fresh snow on the ground.

No thank you, lol.

If I had the money, I would snow bird in Louisiana, and spend my Summers in Minneapolis.

I think something a lot of southerners sleep on his going north for vacation instead of the beach. It's usually 80 with a nice breeze all summer long.

P.S. Lake Superior is freezing no matter the time of year. Duluth is lovely, and quirky town with a great brewery.

 

[FullMonte]

My takeaway from Stormys testimony…

Donald Trump is a pitiful man.
—He had his security ask her to join him for dinner.
—She shows up, and he walks out wearing satin pajamas.
—They chat, he tells her where the bathroom is.
—She comes out and he’s sitting on the bed in boxers and a t-shirt.

Didn’t ask her himself, didn’t make any attempt to charm her or flirt with her. Just wear your satin pajama, and if that doesnt work, strip down to your boxers while she’s in the bathroom.

 

[superchuck500]

The defense has the proseuction's witness list as required by the pre-trial order. That was many weeks ago and certainly she was on it - and everybody knew they were going to call her. But that's just the list of possible witnesses and what they don't have is the intended witness schedule, which is customary but the prosecution refused in this case because (1) Trump cannot be trusted not to violate the protective order and (2) the defense refused to stipulate to basic facts and documentary evidence which is why the prosecution keeps having to call these custodial witnesses to authenticate.

He literally created the very situation that resulted in the defense not having the witness schedule. Classic Trump behavior: refuse to follow norms and decency to create results that are harmful to his own interests, then cry and complain about it like a victim.

Another example of this: This case is about business records and campaign finance. Trump could have stipulated to facts that would have made Daniels’s testimony unnecessary and bolstered an argument to exclude her. That’s what a smart defendant would have done - but Trump refused to stipulate to anything and he has always denied the Daniels account.

So here we are.

 

[MT15]

Another example of this: This case is about business records and campaign finance. Trump could have stipulated to facts that would have made Daniels’s testimony unnecessary and bolstered an argument to exclude her. That’s what a smart defendant would have done - but Trump refused to stipulate to anything and he has always denied the Daniels account.

So here we are.

I read a lawyer somewhere who said any normal defendant would have negotiated a plea deal long ago. He could have escaped prison time, maybe.

 

[Booker]

I read a lawyer somewhere who said any normal defendant would have negotiated a plea deal long ago. He could have escaped prison time, maybe.

I'm sure he could have plead it down to a hefty fine, and possibly even gotten the charges reduced to misdemeanors, but that would have involved admitting guilt to something, and he doesn't do that.

 

[MT15]

I’m curious about why this wouldn’t be a violation of the gag order also.

 

[superchuck500]

I’m curious about why this wouldn’t be a violation of the gag order also.

Prosecution would have to show he directed her to say it.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I'm sure he could have plead it down to a hefty fine, and possibly even gotten the charges reduced to misdemeanors, but that would have involved admitting guilt to something, and he doesn't do that.

no he has done it before all he would have to do is make sure he does not admit guilt. bu this is just another cash cow for him. look how he is pumping it for money and support.

 

[superchuck500]

no he has done it before all he would have to do is make sure he does not admit guilt. bu this is just another cash cow for him. look how he is pumping it for money and support.

I don’t think the prosecution would have pled to a no lo on this.

 

[MT15]

Prosecution would have to show he directed her to say it.

Her being his designated spokesperson doesn’t imply that she speaks for him?

 

[UriUT]

Another example of this: This case is about business records and campaign finance. Trump could have stipulated to facts that would have made Daniels’s testimony unnecessary and bolstered an argument to exclude her. That’s what a smart defendant would have done - but Trump refused to stipulate to anything and he has always denied the Daniels account.

So here we are.

I know Trump cannot do it based on his personality disorder and his 80s mind set of never admitting error. John edwards admitted he was scum, but he still wanted to protect his family of embarrassment. Trump on the other hand, allowed daniels to testify and she revealed that he didn't give a damn about Melania knowing. They slept in separate rooms. There goes that defense angle

 

[superchuck500]

Her being his designated spokesperson doesn’t imply that she speaks for him?

When you’re talking about sanction for contempt of court, to include incarceration, a careful judge is not likely to rely on implied agency and is going to apply the terms of the order quite literally. She is not enrolled counsel in the case and she doesn’t work at those firms. She is identified as Trump’s legal spokesperson but it’s not clear what that means. At best, the judge would have a hearing to find out either from Trump (via counsel) or from Habba herself whether she was directed to say it. I’m not sure the court is going to bother with that unless it becomes chronic or compelling.

Taking it upon herself to say it - even if she did it solely for his interests in what she believes is her role as spokesperson - isn’t a violation of the order. Everyone else in America that isn’t directly involved in the case has a right to say what they want to say about the case and the witnesses, and that includes her except where he has directed her to say something. And let’s be honest, Habba doesn’t need Trump to direct her, she’s positioned herself as someone who can say all of the Trumpiest things without need for instruction.

Of course if there is evidence that he directed her, yes that’s a violation. I’m just not sure how interested the court is going to be at the moment. They’re trying to keep this trial moving.

 

[MT15]

If he doesn’t have something to keep him busy today, I smell a gag order violation by nightfall.

 

[fooferdoggie]

If he doesn’t have something to keep him busy today, I smell a gag order violation by nightfall.

no this is just vague trash talk that thats so lame its pathetic. but I cant believe he has not attacked stormy yet. man she made him look so bad and pathetic.

 

[SamAndreas]

I read something like this. Today it was this, yesterday it was the news about his Florida case being delayed. etc. ect. Delays like this come up.



Todays ruling doesn't strike me as unexpected or a problem. It the appeals court find against Trump it will strengthen the possibility that Trump's after conviction will not appeals will also not succeed.

This isn't normal law, we're in uncharted territory with Trump. Courts will want to firm up any move they make because it is uncharted, it has to stand for all time so they are being very cautious.


So when I see a report like this, I think yeah, they need to chart this. I don't see a conspiracy to free Trump, I see the courts making sure that if they convict him, it stand for all time.

-----

What I said above doesn't apply to "Ima Cannon" in Florida on the documents case. She's a walking talking conspiracy, the real deal.

With her I wonder if the prosecutors aren't giving her rope to hang herself before moving to remove her.