Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (3 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

 

[fooferdoggie]

the defendant is now allowed to attack anyone. but I wonder if the judge does something to trump because of his big mouth. can trump appeal it and delay things? the man would appeal his death so it makes me wonder.

 

[zztop]

 

[MT15]

 

[Lapaz]

It seems innocuous, but I get why saying "no one is above the law" would flag a person, because it makes it apparent that that is their focus, rather than leaning in the defendant's favor by emphasizing the other tenet that "everyone is innocent until proven guilty". It's all the more important with Trump, because it appears that he is above the law, and he is certainly using every lever to possibly remain above the law, so when the juror cited that tenet, she gave a clue that she resents Trump. Taken together with her news sources being CNN and NYT, makes it seem unlikely that she doesn't have a negative opinion of Trump. I think the inference is that if she were being honest, she would've admitted to having a negative opinion on Trump, but she may have been able to credibly claim that she can be fair. The flags would've still be present, but not as obvious.

 

[superchuck500]

It seems innocuous, but I get why saying "no one is above the law" would flag a person, because it makes it apparent that that is their focus, rather than leaning in the defendant's favor by emphasizing the other tenet that "everyone is innocent until proven guilty". It's all the more important with Trump, because it appears that he is above the law, and he is certainly using every lever to possibly remain above the law, so when the juror cited that tenet, she gave a clue that she resents Trump. Taken together with her news sources being CNN and NYT, makes it seem unlikely that she doesn't have a negative opinion of Trump. I think the inference is that if she were being honest, she would've admitted to having a negative opinion on Trump, but she may have been able to credibly claim that she can be fair. The flags would've still be present, but not as obvious.

I think the obvious counterpoint here is that this specific defendant has made dozens of public statements and advanced a case to the Supreme Court that he is indeed immune from prosecution . . . which is a generic legal way of saying he believes that he is above the law. That very issue is an elephant in the courtroom in this specific case, so it is a relevant question, which may have been posed to her in some fashion. She may very well also have affirmed her belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that's certainly a widely held belief in America and it is the law of that very courtroom - and is a common voir dire question to jurors proposed by the criminal defense. Without a full transcript of what she said and the questions she was asked that prompted her response, we can't draw inferences about what her "focus" appears to be.

And the Fox News audience may not like it but CNN is still a pretty widely cited source of "news" in America, and it doesn't mean the person watches CNN's opinion media. And I don't think a New York City resident saying they read the New York Times is particularly revealing as to someone's politics. It is the city's primary newspaper and while it has a national presence and someone living in Omaha reading the NYT likely reads it for a different purpose, it is also full of NYC local interest news and content if you ever spend any time with it. It's also worth noting that the NYT has moved quite a bit in its political orientation over the past several years (to the point that there has been a genuine liberal backlash).

Certainly suggesting that Jesse Watters's flagging of a few pieces of information about her shows that she likely "resents" Trump seems quite a reach. Note that he also chose to highlight that she lives with her partner, unmarried, which is also relevant as to trustworthiness in the socially and culturally regressive world of his audience.

The fact is that the Trump team didn't strike her. The only people with an actual legal obligation to represent Trump's interests in this case didn't think she was worth a peremptory strike and they know that "she watches CNN and lives with her fiance" isn't a legal basis to strike a juror for cause.

 

[superchuck500]

Note that Wednesdays are this judge's reserved day for attending to all of the other matters requiring his attention while in a trial. So there won't be proceedings on Wednesdays.

 

[Lapaz]

I think the obvious counterpoint here is that this specific defendant has made dozens of public statements and advanced a case to the Supreme Court that he is indeed immune from prosecution . . . which is a generic legal way of saying he believes that he is above the law. That very issue is an elephant in the courtroom in this specific case, so it is a relevant question, which may have been posed to her in some fashion. She may very well also have affirmed her belief that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, that's certainly a widely held belief in America and it is the law of that very courtroom - and is a common voir dire question to jurors proposed by the criminal defense. Without a full transcript of what she said and the questions she was asked that prompted her response, we can't draw inferences about what her "focus" appears to be.

And the Fox News audience may not like it but CNN is still a pretty widely cited source of "news" in America, and it doesn't mean the person watches CNN's opinion media. And I don't think a New York City resident saying they read the New York Times is particularly revealing as to someone's politics. It is the city's primary newspaper and while it has a national presence and someone living in Omaha reading the NYT likely reads it for a different purpose, it is also full of NYC local interest news and content if you ever spend any time with it. It's also worth noting that the NYT has moved quite a bit in its political orientation over the past several years (to the point that there has been a genuine liberal backlash).

Certainly suggesting that Jesse Watters's flagging of a few pieces of information about her shows that she likely "resents" Trump seems quite a reach. Note that he also chose to highlight that she lives with her partner, unmarried, which is also relevant as to trustworthiness in the socially and culturally regressive world of his audience.

The fact is that the Trump team didn't strike her. The only people with an actual legal obligation to represent Trump's interests in this case didn't think she was worth a peremptory strike and they know that "she watches CNN and lives with her fiance" isn't a legal basis to strike a juror for cause.

Given his audience, it's likely that Jesse Watters did the best he could to cherry pick things that would make her seem dubious, yet most of the things he picked don't in and of themselves make her seem dubious, except the part about her not having an opinion about Trump. I think that she loses credibility with that statement, because I don't believe anyone can follow CNN and not form an opinion about Trump. I wasn't intending to castigate CNN, but they spend a large part of their time opining on Trump, so I don't believe she doesn't have an opinion about Trump. The fact that the defense team didn't use a preemptory strike on her could mean that she is the best of their poor options, since they only get 10 strikes, and her statements don't justify removing her for cause. Most in NYC will harbor strong negative opinions about Trump, so they may consider her dubious claim to not have an opinion, better than the majority of the alternatives.

I agree that given the cherry picked statements, without the full transcript, inference is fraught, but my point was that there is a valid reason to infer that that statement may indicate that she might be resentful of Trump. It is only a clue, not conclusive, but the X post from Bowers made it seem as though there was no basis for concern that she may be biased. It mocked that concern, but I see why that statement can be meaningful due to Trump, whereas it wouldn't be a reasonable inference for 99.9% of defendants.

 

[superchuck500]

Given his audience, it's likely that Jesse Watters did the best he could to cherry pick things that would make her seem dubious, yet most of the things he picked don't in and of themselves make her seem dubious, except the part about her not having an opinion about Trump. I think that she loses credibility with that statement, because I don't believe anyone can follow CNN and not form an opinion about Trump. I wasn't intending to castigate CNN, but they spend a large part of their time opining on Trump, so I don't believe she doesn't have an opinion about Trump. The fact that the defense team didn't use a preemptory strike on her could mean that she is the best of their poor options, since they only get 10 strikes, and her statements don't justify removing her for cause. Most in NYC will harbor strong negative opinions about Trump, so they may consider her dubious claim to not have an opinion, better than the majority of the alternatives.

I agree that given the cherry picked statements, without the full transcript, inference is fraught, but my point was that there is a valid reason to infer that that statement may indicate that she might be resentful of Trump. It is only a clue, not conclusive, but the X post from Bowers made it seem as though there was no basis for concern that she may be biased. It mocked that concern, but I see why that statement can be meaningful due to Trump, whereas it wouldn't be a reasonable inference for 99.9% of defendants.

Yeah, I’d agree that it’s dubious for an American in 2024 to claim “no opinion” of Donald Trump. I think it’s counsel’s job to explore that answer and without the transcript we don’t really know if anything else was said.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

Yeah, I’d agree that it’s dubious for an American in 2024 to claim “no opinion” of Donald Trump. I think it’s counsel’s job to explore that answer and without the transcript we don’t really know if anything else was said.

They can’t possibly exclude everyone who has an opinion on Trump, good or bad. What they have to figure out is if the person has enough integrity to put their opinions aside and vote on the evidence. Maybe they set the bar at “strong opinion”?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Is that the two tiered justice system I’ve been hearing so much about?

 

[superchuck500]

They can’t possibly exclude everyone who has an opinion on Trump, good or bad. What they have to figure out is if the person has enough integrity to put their opinions aside and vote on the evidence. Maybe they set the bar at “strong opinion”?

Totally agree - but I don't think the point here is that any given juror should be excluded or not for having an opinion on Trump, the question is whether this juror was being truthful in saying that she has no opinion of Trump. I think jurors are supposed to answer the questions truthfully so that the parties can make informed decisions about whether the strike the juror.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Trump faces grilling about sexual abuse and fraud if he testifies in hush money trial

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said he intends to use this information at the hush money trial ‘to impeach the credibility of’ the former president

www.independent.co.uk

 

[LA - L.A.]

Totally agree - but I don't think the point here is that any given juror should be excluded or not for having an opinion on Trump, the question is whether this juror was being truthful in saying that she has no opinion of Trump. I think jurors are supposed to answer the questions truthfully so that the parties can make informed decisions about whether the strike the juror.

I'm being genuine and not a smart arse. She might honestly think she doesn't have an opinion of Trump, because even the perception of whether or not one has an opinion is more in the realm of subjective opinion than it is in the realm of objective fact.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm being genuine and not a smart arse. She might honestly think she doesn't have an opinion of Trump, because even the perception of whether or not one has an opinion is more in the realm of subjective opinion than it is in the realm of objective fact.

It's possible - hard to know what she thinks based on one line accounts of what she said. Clearly the prospective juror's voir dire answers are under oath and she has a duty to be truthful, but there are different ways that a person may interpret their own views on something and such a response isn't necessarily false. It's counsel's job to follow-up with questions designed to learn more about the juror's views and beliefs. Without a transcript we just don't know if that happened but if you presume it didn't, and she does in fact have an opinion of Trump, that's on Trump's counsel - they're the professionals, she's just trying to answer a question.

 

[Lapaz]

It's possible - hard to know what she thinks based on one line accounts of what she said. Clearly the prospective juror's voir dire answers are under oath and she has a duty to be truthful, but there are different ways that a person may interpret their own views on something and such a response isn't necessarily false. It's counsel's job to follow-up with questions designed to learn more about the juror's views and beliefs. Without a transcript we just don't know if that happened but if you presume it didn't, and she does in fact have an opinion of Trump, that's on Trump's counsel - they're the professionals, she's just trying to answer a question.

I can believe that a person that doesn’t follow the news doesn’t have an opinion. I can also believe that a person who follows the news could be unsure about their opinion about Trump, but that is an opinion. I suppose you could give her the benefit of the doubt about how she defines an opinion. If she believes that having an evolving position is the same as not having an opinion, then I question her analytical ability, because she has drawn the wrong conclusion about what it means to have an opinion. Once she claimed to follow CNN, her statement about not having an opinion didn’t make sense, even if it is evolving. I believe having a neutral opinion on Trump in NYC is much better for the defense than most. On the other hand, this juror is more likely to go along with whatever everyone else believes on the jury, so that may also work well for the prosecution.

 

[superchuck500]

One of the seven jurors has asked for (and been granted) dismissal due to concerns that the news coverage provided sufficient information for people to identify where she works - raising a security concern. The judge dismissed her and instructed the press pool to no longer provide any information about where jurors work.

 

[superchuck500]

Prosecutors: Trump violated gag order seven more times​

Prosecutors claim that Trump violated the gag order seven more times.

One of the posts in question links to an article referring to Michael Cohen. Another relates to Fox News host Jesse Watters claiming liberal jurors are trying to get on the jury.