Should probably just go ahead and petition SCOTUS right away. Especially since it's involving interference in the election that's going to happen before the appeals process concludes
Can someone explain the "election interference" claim? How is this election interference? If I rob a bank and then immediately say I'm running for president should they not be able to charge me? Should a political campaign be a get out of jail free card? That's insane.
It's was not a clerical error. It was a fraud. And he even knew he was committing it by asking Cohen to help hide it. BTW: Cohen spent 3 years in prison because he helped him commit this exact fraud. Trump didn't get indicted at the same time, because he was a president.
It's only unprecedented, because a president of the United States did it. If it was you or me committing it, we would already be sitting in jail waiting for sentencing.
We often say that justice is blind, that no one is above the law, but then when it comes down to it, we often give pass to rich and powerful.
If in this trial was different name instead of Donald J Trump, would you actually react the same way?
Yes i would react the same because it never should have made it to trial to begin with. The prosecution never said what crime he committed that made the charges possible to begin with. They never met the burden of proof nor even established that Trump knew about the payments. In infact the prosecution made a strong case that he didn't know. Even cnn admits that this case would have never been brought against anyons not named Trump.
Where's that nonsense coming from?
The law was stated in the indictment: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
Before the trial started he was asked if he understand which law was broken.
> They never met the burden of proof nor even established that Trump knew about the payments. In infact the prosecution made a strong case that he didn't know.
Yet the jury of his peers (which he vetted) unanimously decided the law was broken.
"intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."
This right here is what im talking about. The 34 chaeges cannot exist without first proving the other crime was commited. They never charged him with any other crime, they never presented evidence that some other crime was commited for any of the options presented to the jury, in one of the cases they petitioned the judge specifically to exclude testimony by the defense to defend the allegation. They NEVER met the burden of proof to even bring the case forward. Any fair judge would have dropped the case with prejudice before it ever got to trial.
There was no just of his peers if fucking new york.
We dont even know if its unanimous as the judges instructions to the jury did not need them to unanimously agree on what crime allowed the charges to be brought to begin with. Which by the way is a completely violation of his rights. And again, no evidence on these crimes were presented during the trial.
Tehn we get into more legal malpractice not just from the prosecution but from the judge, refusing to allow testimony against one of the 3 possible crimes while also allowing the prosecution to instruct the jury that it was definitively a crime, again a topic of evidence that the judge banned. A topic that 100% favored the defense.
The 34 counts without solid evidence of the other crimes were at best misdemeanors which would have required Trump be knowledgeable of what cohen was doing. A possibility the prosecution all but eliminated with cohens testimony that he often lied in the invoices to steal money from trump and that trump would just pay them without further discusision. Showing that very very likely trump was just paying the invoices, a common practice in business. Making the misdemeanors a weak case to begin with even if they werent outside the statute of limitations.
> This right here is what im talking about. The 34 chaeges cannot exist without first proving the other crime was commited. They never charged him with any other crime, they never presented evidence that some other crime was commited for any of the options presented to the jury, in one of the cases they petitioned the judge specifically to exclude testimony by the defense to defend the allegation.
That's not true, this is what other witnesses were for. Otherwise they only needed the documents and tapes provided by Cohen.
> They NEVER met the burden of proof to even bring the case forward. Any fair judge would have dropped the case with prejudice before it ever got to trial.
The 12 jurors (which Trump vetted) responded that crime was committed beyond reasonable doubt.
> There was no just of his peers if fucking new york.
The fucking New York has 5th largest state in numbers of Republicans, they couldn't find one? What is more likely? That this is a giant conspiracy where they got large pool of jurors, let everyone who said they will be biased to go, then remaining one both sides could vet and somehow bribed those.
Or a person who was known for 3 decades to commit fraud committing a fraud. Where you were when Cohen got 3 years for helping commit this crime? Were you also saying it was bogus?
> We dont even know if its unanimous as the judges instructions to the jury did not need them to unanimously agree on what crime allowed the charges to be brought to begin with. Which by the way is a completely violation of his rights. And again, no evidence on these crimes were presented during the trial.
All the 34 charges required an unanimous agreement. What was not unanimous was which underlining crime this fraud supposed to cover up. 3 crimes were presented, and only one was needed to be presented in addition to those 34 to convict[1]. But the whole argument is moot, because all 12 jurors unanimously decided that all of those 3 laws were broken.
> Tehn we get into more legal malpractice not just from the prosecution but from the judge, refusing to allow testimony against one of the 3 possible crimes while also allowing the prosecution to instruct the jury that it was definitively a crime, again a topic of evidence that the judge banned. A topic that 100% favored the defense.
> The 34 counts without solid evidence of the other crimes were at best misdemeanors which would have required Trump be knowledgeable of what cohen was doing. A possibility the prosecution all but eliminated with cohens testimony that he often lied in the invoices to steal money from trump and that trump would just pay them without further discusision. Showing that very very likely trump was just paying the invoices, a common practice in business. Making the misdemeanors a weak case to begin with even if they werent outside the statute of limitations.
You're forgetting that Cohen had tapes, documents, checks, and Trump paid him over the period of one year. It was extremely damning and that's why it only took 1 and half day of jury deliberation to reach the verdict.
Also now news are coming up that Trump was paying witnesses to testify in his favor.
[1] it's kind of like somebody was driving a car while being drunk and also high on drugs. To get DUI you only need need to be drunk or high. Jury doesn't have to agree if you broke law by being drunk or high.
Youre delusional man.
You have to present evidence of a crime, witnesses alone are not subtantive. And they didnt even allow witnesses to twstify in the case. Cohens documents wouldnt have been enough to even convict on the misdemeanors because none of it actually proves trump had anything to do with the payments.
Jurors can be wrong and biased. Which they were. As can the judge, which he was. He refused to allow testimoney on the fec violations, one of the possible crimes. The fec already looked into this case and found that there was no crime commited. The prosecution then without any evidence stated as a point of fact to the jury in the final arguements that trump DID commit federal election violations. And despite objections the judge allowed it. This is illegal.
New york is also the 2nd farthest left state in the US and new york city is also one of the deepest blue areas in the use, there is no circumstance where they would get all 12 finding him not guilty and as we have already seen death threats have been made all over if the jury didnt convict him, not to mention multiple attempts to out members of the jury to the public.
Irrelavent, the underlying crime is what allows those to be charged at all, and the law requires every single crime to be judged independently on its own evidence. Evidence was NEVER PRESENTED. And the jury instructions themselves were a violation of his rights. And NO they did not rule unanimously that all 3 crimes were commited, we do not know at all how they ruled, and again no testimoney was even allowed to establish a crime.
Irrelavent. Ofcourse we know trump paid him, what was never established is if trump knew what he was paying for, and guess what the prosecution made it very clear that he didnt. And again, no evidence was presented for the underlying crime making the entire case moot.
No he wasnt paying people to testify for him. Its bullshit from highly biased news that lied about him day in day out for 8 years.
No its like charging a drunk guy with a dui when hes walking home with no keys or any car in sight.
Man even the previous far leftist DA from new york admits the entire trial was a sham that will be overturned in appeal
If the defendant wasn't named Donald J Trump, the trial wouldn't have happened. Clinton did the same thing with opposition research funding. No trial, no charges, just a minor fine.
How many cases are you aware of where someone was charged with multiple felonies because a nuisance settlement was marked as legal expenses?
> If the defendant wasn't named Donald J Trump, the trial wouldn't have happened. Clinton did the same thing with opposition research funding. No trial, no charges, just a minor fine.
Yeah the guy who had a 2016 campaign around "lock her up" didn't lock her up?
To actually produce an indictment, you need to specify which law(s) were broken. Looks like AG couldn't come up with any.
It's crazy seeing people shocked about his conviction, Cowherd said the best:
> Donald Trump is now a felon . His campaign chairman was a felon. So is his deputy campaign manager, his personal lawyer, his chief strategist, his National Security Adviser, his Trade Advisor, his Foreign Policy Adviser, his campaign fixer and his company CFO. They’re all felons. Judged by the company you keep. It’s a cabal of convicts.
Disgust that person who was known for 3 decades for fraud finally got a guilty verdict?
We don't even know what the sentence will be. I hope judge won't give him any special treatment. Cohen got 3 years of prison for helping committing this crime.
Here’s a better metaphor for your small brain. You announce you’re running for President then they arrest you for jaywalking and charge you with a felony.
Imagine running for president. While driving by, someone sees a piece of trash land on the ground. Then they arrest you and charge you with a felony, they convict you even though they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the trash even came from your car, or that you were even aware it happened.... All so they can attach the term 'convicted felon' to your name for the remainder of the campaign while they actively try to have you removed from ballots because you are now a 'felon' on paper, despite the conviction likely being appealed by the SC.
Nobody is using the campaign as a get out of jail free card. In fact they are using the courts to smear his name and inhibit him from campaigning.
That's not how it works though, this is the crime that was committed: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
He committed falsifying business records of first degree, which is class E felony.
Remember how he calls Cohen a convicted felon? Cohen got convicted and spent 3 years in prison for helping him commit this very crime.
Ah yes, 12 completely self proclaimed unbiased jurors from a liberal Manhattan district... There isn't anywhere in the country Trump would get a fair trial...
Stop trying to convince yourself it was neutral...
Remember it was a NY judge that said the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to NY
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/jury-convicts-nyc-man-over-gunsmithing-hobby-after-judge-says-the-second-amendment-doesn-t-exist-here/ss-AA1nzwZn
Yep probably will be the SC that winds up ruling he didn't get a fair trial or never should've been charged.
When it becomes necessary, we will take Conviction Appeal to Supreme Court. Fixed that for ya. As if any appeal is going to go anywhere in the Democrat controlled Hell Hole known as NY.
Better do something fast. Washington state has a law that makes it possible to bar felons from being on its ballot. Wonder if other states have similar laws. Perhaps this was the plan all along.
Should probably just go ahead and petition SCOTUS right away. Especially since it's involving interference in the election that's going to happen before the appeals process concludes
Can someone explain the "election interference" claim? How is this election interference? If I rob a bank and then immediately say I'm running for president should they not be able to charge me? Should a political campaign be a get out of jail free card? That's insane.
He didn't rob a bank. It's an unprecedented clerical error charge that was pursued solely because of politics.
It's was not a clerical error. It was a fraud. And he even knew he was committing it by asking Cohen to help hide it. BTW: Cohen spent 3 years in prison because he helped him commit this exact fraud. Trump didn't get indicted at the same time, because he was a president. It's only unprecedented, because a president of the United States did it. If it was you or me committing it, we would already be sitting in jail waiting for sentencing. We often say that justice is blind, that no one is above the law, but then when it comes down to it, we often give pass to rich and powerful. If in this trial was different name instead of Donald J Trump, would you actually react the same way?
Yes i would react the same because it never should have made it to trial to begin with. The prosecution never said what crime he committed that made the charges possible to begin with. They never met the burden of proof nor even established that Trump knew about the payments. In infact the prosecution made a strong case that he didn't know. Even cnn admits that this case would have never been brought against anyons not named Trump.
Where's that nonsense coming from? The law was stated in the indictment: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 Before the trial started he was asked if he understand which law was broken. > They never met the burden of proof nor even established that Trump knew about the payments. In infact the prosecution made a strong case that he didn't know. Yet the jury of his peers (which he vetted) unanimously decided the law was broken.
"intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." This right here is what im talking about. The 34 chaeges cannot exist without first proving the other crime was commited. They never charged him with any other crime, they never presented evidence that some other crime was commited for any of the options presented to the jury, in one of the cases they petitioned the judge specifically to exclude testimony by the defense to defend the allegation. They NEVER met the burden of proof to even bring the case forward. Any fair judge would have dropped the case with prejudice before it ever got to trial. There was no just of his peers if fucking new york. We dont even know if its unanimous as the judges instructions to the jury did not need them to unanimously agree on what crime allowed the charges to be brought to begin with. Which by the way is a completely violation of his rights. And again, no evidence on these crimes were presented during the trial. Tehn we get into more legal malpractice not just from the prosecution but from the judge, refusing to allow testimony against one of the 3 possible crimes while also allowing the prosecution to instruct the jury that it was definitively a crime, again a topic of evidence that the judge banned. A topic that 100% favored the defense. The 34 counts without solid evidence of the other crimes were at best misdemeanors which would have required Trump be knowledgeable of what cohen was doing. A possibility the prosecution all but eliminated with cohens testimony that he often lied in the invoices to steal money from trump and that trump would just pay them without further discusision. Showing that very very likely trump was just paying the invoices, a common practice in business. Making the misdemeanors a weak case to begin with even if they werent outside the statute of limitations.
> This right here is what im talking about. The 34 chaeges cannot exist without first proving the other crime was commited. They never charged him with any other crime, they never presented evidence that some other crime was commited for any of the options presented to the jury, in one of the cases they petitioned the judge specifically to exclude testimony by the defense to defend the allegation. That's not true, this is what other witnesses were for. Otherwise they only needed the documents and tapes provided by Cohen. > They NEVER met the burden of proof to even bring the case forward. Any fair judge would have dropped the case with prejudice before it ever got to trial. The 12 jurors (which Trump vetted) responded that crime was committed beyond reasonable doubt. > There was no just of his peers if fucking new york. The fucking New York has 5th largest state in numbers of Republicans, they couldn't find one? What is more likely? That this is a giant conspiracy where they got large pool of jurors, let everyone who said they will be biased to go, then remaining one both sides could vet and somehow bribed those. Or a person who was known for 3 decades to commit fraud committing a fraud. Where you were when Cohen got 3 years for helping commit this crime? Were you also saying it was bogus? > We dont even know if its unanimous as the judges instructions to the jury did not need them to unanimously agree on what crime allowed the charges to be brought to begin with. Which by the way is a completely violation of his rights. And again, no evidence on these crimes were presented during the trial. All the 34 charges required an unanimous agreement. What was not unanimous was which underlining crime this fraud supposed to cover up. 3 crimes were presented, and only one was needed to be presented in addition to those 34 to convict[1]. But the whole argument is moot, because all 12 jurors unanimously decided that all of those 3 laws were broken. > Tehn we get into more legal malpractice not just from the prosecution but from the judge, refusing to allow testimony against one of the 3 possible crimes while also allowing the prosecution to instruct the jury that it was definitively a crime, again a topic of evidence that the judge banned. A topic that 100% favored the defense. > The 34 counts without solid evidence of the other crimes were at best misdemeanors which would have required Trump be knowledgeable of what cohen was doing. A possibility the prosecution all but eliminated with cohens testimony that he often lied in the invoices to steal money from trump and that trump would just pay them without further discusision. Showing that very very likely trump was just paying the invoices, a common practice in business. Making the misdemeanors a weak case to begin with even if they werent outside the statute of limitations. You're forgetting that Cohen had tapes, documents, checks, and Trump paid him over the period of one year. It was extremely damning and that's why it only took 1 and half day of jury deliberation to reach the verdict. Also now news are coming up that Trump was paying witnesses to testify in his favor. [1] it's kind of like somebody was driving a car while being drunk and also high on drugs. To get DUI you only need need to be drunk or high. Jury doesn't have to agree if you broke law by being drunk or high.
Youre delusional man. You have to present evidence of a crime, witnesses alone are not subtantive. And they didnt even allow witnesses to twstify in the case. Cohens documents wouldnt have been enough to even convict on the misdemeanors because none of it actually proves trump had anything to do with the payments. Jurors can be wrong and biased. Which they were. As can the judge, which he was. He refused to allow testimoney on the fec violations, one of the possible crimes. The fec already looked into this case and found that there was no crime commited. The prosecution then without any evidence stated as a point of fact to the jury in the final arguements that trump DID commit federal election violations. And despite objections the judge allowed it. This is illegal. New york is also the 2nd farthest left state in the US and new york city is also one of the deepest blue areas in the use, there is no circumstance where they would get all 12 finding him not guilty and as we have already seen death threats have been made all over if the jury didnt convict him, not to mention multiple attempts to out members of the jury to the public. Irrelavent, the underlying crime is what allows those to be charged at all, and the law requires every single crime to be judged independently on its own evidence. Evidence was NEVER PRESENTED. And the jury instructions themselves were a violation of his rights. And NO they did not rule unanimously that all 3 crimes were commited, we do not know at all how they ruled, and again no testimoney was even allowed to establish a crime. Irrelavent. Ofcourse we know trump paid him, what was never established is if trump knew what he was paying for, and guess what the prosecution made it very clear that he didnt. And again, no evidence was presented for the underlying crime making the entire case moot. No he wasnt paying people to testify for him. Its bullshit from highly biased news that lied about him day in day out for 8 years. No its like charging a drunk guy with a dui when hes walking home with no keys or any car in sight. Man even the previous far leftist DA from new york admits the entire trial was a sham that will be overturned in appeal
ok, so that's your rebuttal?
If the defendant wasn't named Donald J Trump, the trial wouldn't have happened. Clinton did the same thing with opposition research funding. No trial, no charges, just a minor fine. How many cases are you aware of where someone was charged with multiple felonies because a nuisance settlement was marked as legal expenses?
> If the defendant wasn't named Donald J Trump, the trial wouldn't have happened. Clinton did the same thing with opposition research funding. No trial, no charges, just a minor fine. Yeah the guy who had a 2016 campaign around "lock her up" didn't lock her up? To actually produce an indictment, you need to specify which law(s) were broken. Looks like AG couldn't come up with any. It's crazy seeing people shocked about his conviction, Cowherd said the best: > Donald Trump is now a felon . His campaign chairman was a felon. So is his deputy campaign manager, his personal lawyer, his chief strategist, his National Security Adviser, his Trade Advisor, his Foreign Policy Adviser, his campaign fixer and his company CFO. They’re all felons. Judged by the company you keep. It’s a cabal of convicts.
Don't confuse disgust with shock. I am not shocked at all that New York Democrats are this disgusting.
Disgust that person who was known for 3 decades for fraud finally got a guilty verdict? We don't even know what the sentence will be. I hope judge won't give him any special treatment. Cohen got 3 years of prison for helping committing this crime.
"Known for 3 decades for fraud", but never even indicted until he became a populist president? It's like you're arguing from the other side!
Here’s a better metaphor for your small brain. You announce you’re running for President then they arrest you for jaywalking and charge you with a felony.
Imagine running for president. While driving by, someone sees a piece of trash land on the ground. Then they arrest you and charge you with a felony, they convict you even though they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the trash even came from your car, or that you were even aware it happened.... All so they can attach the term 'convicted felon' to your name for the remainder of the campaign while they actively try to have you removed from ballots because you are now a 'felon' on paper, despite the conviction likely being appealed by the SC. Nobody is using the campaign as a get out of jail free card. In fact they are using the courts to smear his name and inhibit him from campaigning.
That's not how it works though, this is the crime that was committed: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 He committed falsifying business records of first degree, which is class E felony. Remember how he calls Cohen a convicted felon? Cohen got convicted and spent 3 years in prison for helping him commit this very crime.
"He" falsified nothing. This was always a bogus charge and everyone with at least two functioning brain cells knows it. So yeah, it is how this works.
Well, 12 jurors (which he and his legal team vetted) unanimously decided that the above law was broken.
Ah yes, 12 completely self proclaimed unbiased jurors from a liberal Manhattan district... There isn't anywhere in the country Trump would get a fair trial... Stop trying to convince yourself it was neutral...
It will be necessary, the NY Appellate division is more corrupt than NYC courts. And, yes, that is possible.
Remember it was a NY judge that said the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to NY https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/jury-convicts-nyc-man-over-gunsmithing-hobby-after-judge-says-the-second-amendment-doesn-t-exist-here/ss-AA1nzwZn Yep probably will be the SC that winds up ruling he didn't get a fair trial or never should've been charged.
When it becomes necessary, we will take Conviction Appeal to Supreme Court. Fixed that for ya. As if any appeal is going to go anywhere in the Democrat controlled Hell Hole known as NY.
Good because it is. Take it now.
Better do something fast. Washington state has a law that makes it possible to bar felons from being on its ballot. Wonder if other states have similar laws. Perhaps this was the plan all along.
Damn straight!
If necessary? The NY appeals court is 5 black women. Of course it’s fucking necessary.