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

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    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?
    *
    www.yahoo.com

    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 www.yahoo.com
     

    Jury makes four requests​

    The jury bell has gone off. Jurors have a note for the judge, the first so far. Court is reconvening.

    The jury has four requests:

    1) David Pecker's testimony about the phone call from Trump during his meeting in NJ
    2) David Pecker's testimony about the Karen McDougal agreement
    3) David Pecker's testimony about the Trump Tower meeting
    4) Michael Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower meeting

    The note was signed by the foreperson at 2:56 p.m.

    After prosecutors and Trump's team decide which portions of testimony will be provided to jury, Judge Juan Merchan will bring them back to have the evidence read by a court reporter. The jury has been deliberating for nearly 3.5 hours so far.

    Context: The August 2015 Trump Tower meeting is the "prism" that prosecutors told jurors to analyze evidence through during their closing arguments yesterday. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass described it as "three rich, powerful men high up in Trump Tower trying to become even more powerful by controlling the information that might reach the voters."
     

    30 pages of testimony will be read-back to jurors​

    Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says about 30 pages of testimony need to be read back to the jury. This is in response to the jury's initial note containing four requests regarding testimony from David Pecker and Michael Cohen.
    Merchan tells the jurors that we will resume tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. They will be called back into the courtroom once the pages of testimony for read-back have been finalized.
    The jury will decide tomorrow if they want to work late, but they would not have to go past 6 p.m.
    03:58 PM EDT

    Jury asks to rehear instructions​

    The jury just sent another note at 3:51 p.m. They want to rehear the judge's instructions.
     
    04:12 PM EDT

    Jury deliberations done for the day​

    Jury deliberations are paused until tomorrow morning.

    While the jury's day is over, Judge Juan Merchan has ordered the prosecution and defense to stay until all the testimony that will be read to the jury tomorrow, per their four requests, has been agreed upon.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    04:12 PM EDT

    Jury deliberations done for the day​

    Jury deliberations are paused until tomorrow morning.

    While the jury's day is over, Judge Juan Merchan has ordered the prosecution and defense to stay until all the testimony that will be read to the jury tomorrow, per their four requests, has been agreed upon.
    Click to expand...

    You forgot to inform us that Trump was allowed to leave the courtroom by Judge Mercan, but isn't allowed to leave the building. 😉
     
    superchuck500 said:
    I think that's probably true that a quick return of verdict is more favorable to the prosecution - but I'm sure there are enough cases where they aquitted fairly quickly, so that you can't really tell.

    I think at the same time, a lengthy deliberation doesn't necessarily mean aquittal.
    Click to expand...

    Maybe longer deliberations generally favor defendants, but the shortest and longest deliberations don't support that. A judge on CNN said that the shortest deliberation in history was 60 seconds, and it was an acquittal about growing marijuana. The judge said the longest deliberation in history was 4 1/2 months, and it went against the defendant. It was related to the city of Long Beach preventing the opening of Alzheimer's homes.

    legal-info.lawyers.com

    Deliberations in the Jury Room

    Jury deliberations are secret. There are no exact procedures that jurors must follow. The jury is free to deliberate in any manner that it sees fit.
    legal-info.lawyers.com legal-info.lawyers.com
     
    MT15 said:
    Some MAGA idiot on Twitter was posting that Trump needs to flee NY to a state that will give him safe harbor. 🤣
    Click to expand...
    For further historical information about safe harbors read:

    en.wikipedia.org

    Republic of Pirates - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

    They even had a national flag, you've seen it before, everyone has seen it before:

    1280px-Flag_of_the_Flying_Gang.svg.png
     
    Lapaz said:
    Maybe longer deliberations generally favor defendants, but the shortest and longest deliberations don't support that. A judge on CNN said that the shortest deliberation in history was 60 seconds, and it was an acquittal about growing marijuana. The judge said the longest deliberation in history was 4 1/2 months, and it went against the defendant. It was related to the city of Long Beach preventing the opening of Alzheimer's homes.

    legal-info.lawyers.com

    Deliberations in the Jury Room

    Jury deliberations are secret. There are no exact procedures that jurors must follow. The jury is free to deliberate in any manner that it sees fit.
    legal-info.lawyers.com legal-info.lawyers.com
    Click to expand...

    TV lawyers are saying to expect 1 day of deliberation for every week of the trial as a general rule.
     
    Even more of an idiotic statement than usual. What kind of morons are listening to this and saying: “yeah, why didn’t the prosecution call these witnesses that would have exonerated Trump? The fix must be in!” This level of stupidity should be toxic. Good grief.

     
    Never mind, these types of morons:
    1717024359790.png
     
    NEW YORK — Donald Trump’s lawyers ended their defense of the former president in a way uniquely suited to their client: with a ludicrous and easily debunked lie.


    In Tuesday’s closing arguments of Trump’s hush money trial here, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told the jury that the revelation of the “Access Hollywood” tapes — Trump’s “grab ’em by the p---y” moment, which set off the fateful effort to buy Stormy Daniels’s silence — was not the earthshaking event we all remember it being for the 2016 Trump campaign. Rather, Blanche said, it was just one of those things “that happens all the time in campaigns.”

    “The government wants you to believe that the release of that tape, from 2005, was so catastrophic to the campaign that it provided a motive, a motive for President Trump to do something criminal. But there is no evidence of that,” Blanche said.

    Rather, Trump’s lawyer maintained, “it was not a doomsday event,” and Trump “never thought that it was going to cause him to lose the campaign.”

    With indignation, Blanche lied to the jury: “You heard that politicians reacted negatively to the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape. They didn’t testify. You heard that there was even talk about something consequential for President Trump, who was the Republican nominee. But none of that happened. None of that is true.”

    Republican officeholders didn’t rain denunciations on Trump? Party elders didn’t discuss replacing him as the GOP nominee? Blanche must have supposed that these jurors have been sequestered. In a cave. For 10 years.


    Eight years ago, Trump himself worried aloud that the “Access Hollywood” episode would cost him the election (and it may well have, if not for WikiLeaks and James Comey): “If 5 percent of the people think it’s true, and maybe 10 percent,” Trump said in one clip from a rally that prosecutors later played for the jury, “we don’t win.”

    Blanche was also suggesting that Trump’s own former White House assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, perjured herself in the trial when she testified about conversations at the Republican National Committee, where she then worked, about replacing Trump on the ticket.


    Blanche seemed to think that if he provided the jurors with punctuation instructions for his sentences, they would take his nonsense as fact……

     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom