Trump's Trials (4 in all, April 2024)

[jusplay4fun]

Since JP likes to argue how the economy is actually doing doesn't matter, and perception of the economy is all that matters... 56% think he's guilty of crime in this one case alone. Trump is a criminal, so say the american people.

If 12 jurors vote this way Trump goes free.

So 5 innocent and 7 guilty. Not sure the curve for being in NY.

You do realize that verdicts need to be UNANIMOUS, right?

[Votanic]

I just want to hear De Niro and Dreyfuss debate the issues.


Who know? They might even get a chance to play the candidates in the upcoming Netflix mini....

Though I think Baldwin has the inside track for the lead...
...especially since he now knows how annoying it is to defend onesself against Trumped-up charges.

[jusplay4fun]

Yeah Dersch is a great legal expert while he gets massages on Eppy island.
Funnily hes one of the 4-5 hardcore trumpers Tump always mentions. They are suely totally unbiased. lol
But to be 100% sure we need to ask the opinion of Rudy and Kyle Rittenhouse too to get a full picture.

So what you do, or do not do, OR MAY have done, will render your opinion invalid? That is GOOD thinking, p-mac.

So now I KNOW that any opinion that you hold is TOTALLY worthless.

[mookiemcgee]

Since JP likes to argue how the economy is actually doing doesn't matter, and perception of the economy is all that matters... 56% think he's guilty of crime in this one case alone. Trump is a criminal, so say the american people.

If 12 jurors vote this way Trump goes free.

So 5 innocent and 7 guilty. Not sure the curve for being in NY.

You do realize that verdicts need to be UNANIMOUS, right?

to get a bit technical, the jury must unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents in order to commit or conceal a separate crime. But the jurors do not all have to agree on what that separate crime was.

[pmac666]

Yeah Dersch is a great legal expert while he gets massages on Eppy island.
Funnily hes one of the 4-5 hardcore trumpers Tump always mentions. They are suely totally unbiased. lol
But to be 100% sure we need to ask the opinion of Rudy and Kyle Rittenhouse too to get a full picture.

So what you do, or do not do, OR MAY have done, will render your opinion invalid? That is GOOD thinking, p-mac.

So now I KNOW that any opinion that you hold is TOTALLY worthless.

Idk, you render my opinion as invalid anyways, no matter if im a biased Trump buddy who enjoyed Eppys hospitality or not.

[Votanic]

Yeah Dersch is a great legal expert while he gets massages on Eppy island.
Funnily hes one of the 4-5 hardcore trumpers Tump always mentions. They are suely totally unbiased. lol
But to be 100% sure we need to ask the opinion of Rudy and Kyle Rittenhouse too to get a full picture.

So what you do, or do not do, OR MAY have done, will render your opinion invalid? That is GOOD thinking, p-mac.

So now I KNOW that any opinion that you hold is TOTALLY worthless.

Idk, you render my opinion as invalid anyways, no matter if im a biased Trump buddy who enjoyed Eppys hospitality or not.

(chuckle) Oh, those desperately horny libs, ...always pitching tents thinking about imagined couplings on (ooh!) Eppy Island.

[jusplay4fun]

I just want to hear De Niro and Dreyfuss debate the issues.

Who know? They might even get a chance to play the candidates in the upcoming Netflix mini....

Though I think Baldwin has the inside track for the lead...
...especially since he now knows how annoying it is to defend onesself against Trumped-up charges.

Is this the same actor, de Niro, who wanted to play the disgraced Gov. Cuomo?

If there's a movie about the coronavirus pandemic, Robert De Niro has already called dibs on playing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

During a virtual appearance on Wednesday's "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert," the late night host asked De Niro who he'd like to play. Colbert reminded the actor he couldn't pick Dr. Anthony Fauci because he was already taken by Brad Pitt, who played the infectious disease expert on a recent episode of "SNL."

"I guess I'll play Cuomo," De Niro said. "He's doing what a president should do."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 094729001/

de Niro makes LOTS of good choices; YEAH, right...! We can take de Niro's insights on Politics to the Bank Jail Cell.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo resigns over sexual harassment allegations

https://apnews.com/article/andrew-cuomo ... 6ecf8d2a34

[mookiemcgee]

Since JP likes to argue how the economy is actually doing doesn't matter, and perception of the economy is all that matters... 56% think he's guilty of crime in this one case alone. Trump is a criminal, so say the american people.

If 12 jurors vote this way Trump goes free.

So 5 innocent and 7 guilty. Not sure the curve for being in NY.

You do realize that verdicts need to be UNANIMOUS, right?

SO IT SHALL BE DONE

-GOD

[Dukasaur]

Since JP likes to argue how the economy is actually doing doesn't matter, and perception of the economy is all that matters... 56% think he's guilty of crime in this one case alone. Trump is a criminal, so say the american people.

If 12 jurors vote this way Trump goes free.

So 5 innocent and 7 guilty. Not sure the curve for being in NY.

You do realize that verdicts need to be UNANIMOUS, right?

SO IT SHALL BE DONE

-GOD

[pmac666]

And that was the weakest case.
Trump better becomes president.

[mookiemcgee]

sentencing not till July 11th... 4 days before republican convention to officially nominate him.

[pmac666]

sentencing not till July 11th... 4 days before republican convention to officially nominate him.

Lastest last chance for the reps to do the right thing.
But will they? (rhetorical question since a right thing is involved)

[DirtyDishSoap]

Since JP likes to argue how the economy is actually doing doesn't matter, and perception of the economy is all that matters... 56% think he's guilty of crime in this one case alone. Trump is a criminal, so say the american people.

If 12 jurors vote this way Trump goes free.

So 5 innocent and 7 guilty. Not sure the curve for being in NY.

You do realize that verdicts need to be UNANIMOUS, right?

SO IT SHALL BE DONE

-GOD

[mookiemcgee]

[DirtyDishSoap]

Harambee?! You've returned!

[Votanic]

I know this is suppposed to just be a throwaway meme... but I find it absolutely fascinating.

Whatever is the backstory behind this Jesus-freaking toddler deep in Divine Rapture (or maybe a K-hole).
Btw, is this one of those Mega-Churches? Why does it have a widescreen on the backwall?
So the preacher can monitor his performance?

[DirtyDishSoap]

I haven't the slightest clue

[Votanic]

I haven't the slightest clue

Well... can you find out?!?!?
Don't tell me have anything better to do.

Best to start the research first thing after you wake up, while you're still clear-headed.
You know, before you start in on you first cups of "water" for the day.

Okay, yeah, you will probably need a few stiff hairs off the tail of the 'cup' that bit you before you'll even be able to function... but just try to keep it in bounds.

[pmac666]

To support the points I made earlier, I offer the following, from a recognized legal expert:

Trump’s trial is a stupendous legal catastrophe
Opinion by Alan Dershowitz

Some had asked whether a jury selected in Manhattan, which voted overwhelmingly against Trump, could be fair in judging the former president. But now that we have moved beyond this point, the real problem Trump has is that his best arguments are legal in nature: prosecutors appeared to cobble together misdemeanours and felonies in order to find something with which to “get Trump.”

The underlying crime is seemingly a minor misdemeanour – falsifying business records – which long ago expired under the statute of limitations. In order to turn it into a felony within the statute of limitations, prosecutors will have to show that Trump falsified the records in order to impact his election, thus constituting a federal election felony. The problem is, however, that federal authorities have not prosecuted Trump for this federal election crime. Moreover, state prosecutors have no jurisdiction over federal election law. Finally, we were not even clear, when the trial began, as to precisely which federal election laws the District Attorney was relying on.

I have been teaching, practising and writing about criminal law for 60 years. In all those years, I have never seen or heard of a case in which the defendant has been criminally prosecuted for failing to disclose the payment of what prosecutors call “hush money”. Alexander Hamilton paid hush money to cover up an affair with a married woman. Many others have paid hush money since. If the legislature wanted to criminalise such conduct they could easily enact the statute prohibiting the payment of hush money or requiring its disclosure. They have declined to do so.

Prosecutors cannot simply make up new crimes by jerry-rigging a concoction of existing crimes, some of which are barred by the statute of limitations others of which are beyond the jurisdiction of state prosecutors.

Appellate courts should be able to see through this ruse and reverse any conviction resulting from it. But that would likely occur after the election. In the meantime, however, a conviction prior to the election that might influence independent voters to cast their ballot against a convicted felon.

In addition to the legal problems with the prosecution’s case, there are also some factual weaknesses. Prosecutors are relying on witnesses who have previously lied and whose credibility is very questionable. They should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump authorised the statement in business records that the alleged hush money payments were legal expenses and that this statement was knowingly false. They might also have to prove that the reason he authorised the statements was to help him get elected, not to avoid embarrassment to his wife and children or losses to his business.

If the defendant were not Donald Trump and the venue were not Manhattan, this ought to be a slam dunk win for the defendant. Indeed, this extraordinarily weak case would never have been bought.

I am not a Trump political supporter. I voted for Joe Biden in the last election and I have an open mind about the coming election. But I want it to be fair. Whoever loses the election should not be able to complain about election interference by the weaponisation of the criminal justice system for partisan advantage.

All Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should be appalled at this selective prosecution. Today the target is Trump. Tomorrow it may be a Democrat. After that, you and me. The criminal justice system is on trial in New York. If Trump is convicted based on the distortion of law and facts that we’re seeing, the system will have failed us all.

Alan Dershowitz is an emeritus professor at Harvard Law School

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/ ... 0981&ei=62

Lets check back to the legal opinion of brilliant, recognised legal scholar and absolutley not Trump buddy and Epstein connoisseur Alan Derschowitz.

[DirtyDishSoap]

I haven't the slightest clue

Well... can you find out?!?!?
Don't tell me have anything better to do.

Best to start the research first thing after you wake up, while you're still clear-headed.
You know, before you start in on you first cups of "water" for the day.

Okay, yeah, you will probably need a few stiff hairs off the tail of the 'cup' that bit you before you'll even be able to function... but just try to keep it in bounds.

I'm a busy man!

[saxitoxin]

Great news!

A Georgia appeals court has halted all pretrial proceedings in Donald Trump’s Atlanta-based criminal case while a three-judge panel considers whether to disqualify the lead prosecutor, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

The order issued Wednesday effectively confirms that the sprawling racketeering case against Trump and more than a dozen codefendants — charging them with an attempt to corrupt Georgia’s 2020 election results — will not come before a jury in 2024.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/0 ... s-00161883

And that's that - with NY over and Jack Smith stalled out, there'll be no more trials this year. (And even when it does pick up, if Fani is disqualified it's reassigned to the DA lottery pool and 70% of the DAs in Georgia are Republicans so the odds are in favor of Trump and the forces of global peace and anti-war.)

[saxitoxin]

[lokisgal]

all this means is it wont come to trial in 2024 which everyone already knew. No surprises for anyone here and it hardly means dumpster is going to skate out of this.

The more fascinating question is how is dumpster going to travel to all these countries which dont allow convicted felons entry.

[pmac666]

We are starting new again.

No, he didnt do it.
No, there wont be a trial.
He will never found guilty.
He will win on appeal.

[HitRed]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ny-v-t ... ty-verdict

Investigation ongoing

NY v. Trump: Judge reveals Facebook post implying juror discussed guilty verdict with family ahead of time