Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (2 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

 

[MT15]

SFL doing a whole lot of coping in here and using corporate media to boot.

 

[Huntn]

Adult Film Star Stormy Daniels Testifies That Donald Trump Told Her She Reminded Him of 'His Daughter'

Stormy Daniels testified under oath on Tuesday that Donald Trump told her she reminded him of "his daughter" during their alleged tryst in 2006.

people.com

So an porn star actress reminds him of his daughter that he has said he wants to ****. Please excuse me while I go hurl.

Daniels also testified that the former president told her he and his wife, Melania, sleep in separate bedrooms

Stormy Daniels testified under oath on Tuesday that Donald Trump told her she reminded him of "his daughter" during their alleged tryst in 2006.
The former adult film actress, 45, took the stand in Manhattan on Tuesday as part of 77-year-old Trump's trial on 34 felony counts of falsified business records with a broader implication of election interference.
Daniels factors heavily into the so-called "hush money" case, which traces back to an alleged affair she had with Trump, rumors of which surfaced in 2018, when the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to the ex-porn star a month before the 2016 election so she'd keep quiet about the alleged sexual encounter they'd had years earlier.

He has said on other occasions that if she was not his daughter, he’d want to “date” her. You can insert what ever disgusting verb between the quotes as you like.

 

[Huntn]

Boohoo.

So you must be convinced that the prosecution has met their burden of proof and that Trump is going to be convicted.

I honestly don't know what the jury is going to decide.

Correct me if in error, but my understanding is that Cohen went to jail for what Thump is accused of…

 

[Huntn]

When teleprompter has nothing to say, Trump goes silent.

When X has nothing to say, SFL goes silent.

uncanny.

Wait as second, Lil’Donny is not the brilliant off the cuff, stand up comedian we all thought he was??

 

[SaintForLife]

We have already gone over this - in order to be a felony records charge, the prosecution has to show that the falsification was in furtherance of another crime. The prosecution has actually submitted substantial testimony about the purpose being related to the campaign and the election - as surely someone with such a command of the charges and evidence would know - did you forget about that already? And, as discussed before, when the jury is presented with the summation, the prosecution will explain how the illegal records conduct was done for the purpose of the illegal campaign activity . . . as was the testimony. And then, the judge will instruct the jury about the elements of the felony charges which will require that the jury find that the falsification of business records was done for purposes related to a crime. If they do so find, it's a felony.

And the idea that the prosecution never uses tainted witnesses is stupid and laughable. See, e.g. every organized crime prosecution in history.

No I haven't forgotten about it, but it still seems sketchy to me based on what I know. But obviously I'm no legal expert.

It's laughable that they would try to claim it's election interference. How did that work out I'm the John Edwards case?

Prosecutor in Trump documents case has history pursuing prominent politicians

David Harbach, who led the DOJ's presentation at Tuesday's hearing, played key roles in ultimately unsuccessful prosecutions of John Edwards and Bob McDonnell.

www.politico.com

Speaking of election interference....

Exclusive: New Leak on Clinton's Cozy Press Relationship

Off-the-record Manhattan cocktail parties. Planting stories with “friendly journalists.” All of it laid bare.

theintercept.com

It doesn't raise any red flags for you how Bragg ignored Cohens felony just so he could put him on the stand? I seriously doubt that Bragg learned about it after the immunity agreement.

What about Cohen getting caught in multiple lies on the stand? You still think it's good for someone who continues to lie to be the star witness?

 

[efil4]

No I haven't forgotten about it, but it still seems sketchy to me based on what I know. But obviously I'm no legal expert.

You didnt have to remind us as its been quite evident for some time now.

 

[SaintForLife]

Boohoo.

So you must be convinced that the prosecution has met their burden of proof and that Trump is going to be convicted.

I honestly don't know what the jury is going to decide.

It is New York so it's hard to expect anything but a conviction, but no they definitely haven't met their burden of proof.

If he does get convicted it will almost assuredly be overturned on appeal, but the Democrats don't care if it's overturned. It's all about being able to say Bidens opponent is a convicted felon because he knows he can't beat Trump in the election without the Lawfare.

 

[MT15]

It doesn't raise any red flags for you how Bragg ignored Cohens felony just so he could put him on the stand? I seriously doubt that Bragg learned about it after the immunity agreement.

There’s no proof he knew anything about it before the indictment. Just your suspicion.

What about Cohen getting caught in multiple lies on the stand? You still think it's good for someone who continues to lie to be the star witness?

What lies on the stand this trial? I don’t believe there were any. I know the defense claims so, but it’s totally not convincing.

And you think Trump is such an upstanding citizen that he hired this guy totally unaware he could get him to lie, cheat and steal for him? lol Cohen is a sleaze bag because that was Trump’s desire for an attorney. That’s who Trump wanted.

 

[MT15]

but no they definitely haven't met their burden of proof.

Have you been reading the transcripts every day?

 

[SaintForLife]

You didnt have to remind us as its been quite evident for some time now.

I haven't seen you clapping like a seal recently about Ukraine. Are you feeling okay?

 

[efil4]

It is New York so it's hard to expect anything but a conviction, but no they definitely haven't met their burden of proof.

If he does get convicted it will almost assuredly be overturned on appeal, but the Democrats don't care if it's overturned. It's all about being able to say Bidens opponent is a convicted felon because he knows he can't beat Trump in the election without the Lawfare.

the "im no legal expert" opining about legal things.

LOL.

 

[superchuck500]

No I haven't forgotten about it, but it still seems sketchy to me based on what I know. But obviously I'm no legal expert.

It's laughable that they would try to claim it's election interference. How did that work out I'm the John Edwards case?

Prosecutor in Trump documents case has history pursuing prominent politicians

David Harbach, who led the DOJ's presentation at Tuesday's hearing, played key roles in ultimately unsuccessful prosecutions of John Edwards and Bob McDonnell.

www.politico.com

Speaking of election interference....

Exclusive: New Leak on Clinton's Cozy Press Relationship

Off-the-record Manhattan cocktail parties. Planting stories with “friendly journalists.” All of it laid bare.

theintercept.com

It doesn't raise any red flags for you how Bragg ignored Cohens felony just so he could put him on the stand? I seriously doubt that Bragg learned about it after the immunity agreement.

What about Cohen getting caught in multiple lies on the stand? You still think it's good for someone who continues to lie to be the star witness?

He's not the star witness - he's the central witness because the activity revolved around him, as a matter of fact, not choice. If anyone wants to call him a star witness, they're just sensationalizing it. A star witness typically has extremely damaging (or exculpatory if a star for the defense) testimony that no one else can give - it's not really the case here.

I don't know when Bragg learned about Cohen's activity regarding the over-billing, it's entirely possible that didn't come up until well into the preparation. It's not really related to the main subject matter or storyline. Cohen had already been convicted for a number of crimes including election crimes related to the hush money payments, so I don't think the prosecution was terribly concerned about granting immunity. It's entirely plausible, even reasonably likely that Bragg's office didn't know about the theft..

I don't know if it's accurate that he was caught in multiple lies on the stand. He certainly admitted to multiple lies - but I think most of it was known. The prosecution's objective with Cohen is to provide participant testimony that is consistent with (a) the documentary evidence, and (b) the other, less tainted, witnesses. Juries often hear testimony from liars and criminals - but when it is entirely consistent with the other evidence in the case, they can decide that it is credible. It's really that simple. I pretty much said the same when asked about the burden of proof a few posts up. Prosecution will argue that its a tidy package that is corroborated by the documents and the witnesses, including Cohen but he's credible because it is all consistent. The defense will say he's a liar and a thief and none of this was actually illegal.

If the jury isn't convinced, they will acquit.

 

[Lapaz]

Lol. Bragg ignored the felony from Cohen to go after Trump on misdemeanors that he's converted to felonies.

Stealing $50k is a serious crime, but violating campaign laws to the tune of several hundred thousand above legal limits is perhaps more serious, because the foundation of the government rests on the integrity of elections, and campaign laws are intended to protect the integrity. I think the current laws are dismally inadequate, but campaign limits and disclosure is one of the few checks left. Also, I'm not sure that Bragg knew about the theft, so Cohen may yet be charged.

 

[J-DONK]

I haven't seen you clapping like a seal recently about Ukraine. Are you feeling okay?

I love that you are panic posting about Donald, and getting feisty.

 

[coldseat]

It is New York so it's hard to expect anything but a conviction, but no they definitely haven't met their burden of proof.

If he does get convicted it will almost assuredly be overturned on appeal, but the Democrats don't care if it's overturned. It's all about being able to say Bidens opponent is a convicted felon because he knows he can't beat Trump in the election without the Lawfare.

Sure, sure.

The ridiculous thing about this trial is that everybody, including you, absolutely know that Trump did exactly what he accused off. He may not be convicted for different reasons, but he's absolutely guilty of it. Hopefully justice will be served and he will be found guilty. I'm going to handicap it at 70/30 in favor of conviction.

 

[MT15]

I don’t think any legal experts who are flatly saying that the prosecution didn’t prove their case should be looked at as anything but partisan hacks at this point. I just turned on the TV for coverage and they are still hashing out jury instructions. This could make or break the case, as is the case a lot of times.

The legal experts on MSNBC are carefully explaining how these issues could affect the case.

 

[J-DONK]

Sure, sure.

The ridiculous thing about this trial is that everybody, including you, absolutely know that Trump did exactly what he accused off. He may not be convicted for different reasons, but he's absolutely guilty of it. Hopefully justice will be served and he will be found guilty. I'm going to handicap it at 70/30 in favor of conviction.

Before this started I would have thought Donald had a 20% chance of conviction. I think it's inversed or higher now. His defense is that Cohen made this all up as a vindictive rat. That's it.

You have to believe Cohen was magnanimous enough to pay Daniel's out of the goodness of his heart. Then turned into a jilted lover when he didn't get brought in during the transition.

 

[superchuck500]

I don’t think any legal experts who are flatly saying that the prosecution didn’t prove their case should be looked at as anything but partisan hacks at this point. I just turned on the TV for coverage and they are still hashing out jury instructions. This could make or break the case, as is the case a lot of times.

The legal experts on MSNBC are carefully explaining how these issues could affect the case.

One way you can tell is how they speak about it - practicing lawyers (except if they're 'working' in advocating for a client) hate to use absolutes and are even less interested in making predictions about highly nuanced elements like credibility in a jury trial. Giving legal opinions about legal questions or giving estimations based on experience are typically about as far as a prudent lawyer is willing to go . . . I think primarily because these things are unpredictable and it’s easy to look a fool. It also bears caution when the person has developed a career/business-model in talking about law and trials while not actually practicing it. On the air, there is no judge of right or wrong - only of viewers, and buzz, and retweets.

I have seen some of the rants that these “experts” like Turley that are just plainly partisan - and not the kind of analysis that a typical lawyer would give. I think Turley has some areas of expertise but he’s not really a trial lawyer and he’s never participated in a criminal trial as far as I can tell.