Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[DaveXA]

I think the argument is that, for example, Hope Hicks testimony about conversations they had in 2017 were official acts, since he was president and she was an adviser, therefore, that testimony should be excluded.

I would posit that conversations about things unrelated to official duties are not only not privileged, but also not official acts. Hope Hick's testimony is still valid.

 

[MT15]

I think the argument is that, for example, Hope Hicks testimony about conversations they had in 2017 were official acts, since he was president and she was an adviser, therefore, that testimony should be excluded.

That’s what I am reading. It’s almost like SCOTUS tailored this decision to help Trump. Who am I kidding. It’s exactly like that. They tailored the decision for a specific set of crimes that Trump committed. He’s going to get away with everything. Every single thing.

And Thomas, the corrupt bribe taker, already wrote that he thinks Jack Smith isn’t properly appointed. So they have teed that case up quite nicely as well.

This court is quite possibly the most corrupt court the US has ever seen. Major, sickening corruption.

 

[MT15]

I would posit that conversations about things unrelated to official duties are not only not privileged, but also not official acts. Hope Hick's testimony is still valid.

I think the wording of the decision is that their conversations are presumed to be privileged. And the case cannot consider Trump’s motivation to try to prove they are not privileged. In some cases, maybe not Hicks’, the prosecution cannot even mention the conversation at all.

 

[DaveXA]

I think the wording of the decision is that their conversations are presumed to be privileged. And the case cannot consider Trump’s motivation to try to prove they are not privileged. In some cases, maybe not Hicks’, the prosecution cannot even mention the conversation at all.

The thing is, we already know the content of the conversations. Maybe it changes, maybe not, idk. I don't think it does. But I definitely can see the defense appealing this part of the case, but I don't think it changes the decision. The judge will still proceed to the penalty phase in September after all that is done.

 

[MT15]

What do they do when evidence that was allowed in during the trial is later deemed to be inadmissible? I think, but I don’t know, that they declare a mistrial.

 

[DaveXA]

What do they do when evidence that was allowed in during the trial is later deemed to be inadmissible? I think, but I don’t know, that they declare a mistrial.

It's possible, but I'd be surprised that happens.

 

[fooferdoggie]

That’s what I am reading. It’s almost like SCOTUS tailored this decision to help Trump. Who am I kidding. It’s exactly like that. They tailored the decision for a specific set of crimes that Trump committed. He’s going to get away with everything. Every single thing.

And Thomas, the corrupt bribe taker, already wrote that he thinks Jack Smith isn’t properly appointed. So they have teed that case up quite nicely as well.

This court is quite possibly the most corrupt court the US has ever seen. Major, sickening corruption.

Don't worry when they knock on hevans door there will be a big t on it. they open it ad the devil will greet them.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Trump finally spoke the truth the courts are corrupt. but not in the way he keeps saying. this all seems liked together they all got together and planned this all out. the delays the SC crap rules all of it

 

[Optimus Prime]

Why delay the sentencing?

Trump was going to appeal the sentence (no matter the sentence) even before the SCOTUS ruling, and remain free during that process

Why not give the sentence now, he appeals, then consider if the immunity ruling affects the sentence during the appeal?

 

[MT15]

Why delay the sentencing?

Trump was going to appeal the sentence (no matter the sentence) even before the SCOTUS ruling, and remain free during that process

Why not give the sentence now, he appeals, then consider if the immunity ruling affects the sentence during the appeal?

From the lawyers I read, they all agreed this was the right thing to do. This will get the question out of the way before the appeal because if Trump prevails on this, the result could be a mistrial.

Also, most criminal sentences are carried out immediately, they don’t usually allow the criminal to be free for the appeal. I don’t know about this case, though.