Trump Found Guilty on All 34 Counts In Hush-Money Trial

[AlexB23]

ADVISOR HAT


FOLKS!! This is a real emotional issue for many on both sides. Let's keep it civil and remember the flaming rule.



​

Amen, agreed 100% here. Keepin' it civil is important.

 

[Vambram]

Trump raises funds off guilty verdict

“My end-of-month fundraising deadline is just DAYS AWAY!” the message added.

www.newsnationnow.com

Former President Trump quickly moved to raise funds off his guilty verdict, writing to supporters that he was the victim of an unfair trial and that he would win back the White House with their help.
“Friend: Is this the end of America? I was just convicted in a RIGGED political Witch Hunt trial: I DID NOTHING WRONG! They’ve raided my home, arrested me, took my mugshot, AND NOW THEY’VE JUST CONVICTED ME! But with your support at this moment in history, WE WILL WIN BACK THE WHITE HOUSE AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” reads a fundraising email from Trump National Committee JFC.
“My end-of-month fundraising deadline is just DAYS AWAY!” the message added.

The request went out shortly after a jury in New York found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in his hush money case, making him the first former president to be convicted of a felony.

Two days after closing arguments in the trial wrapped up, the Manhattan jury reached a unanimous decision to find Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying business records. He was charged in connection with a hush money payment made by his ex-fixer, Michael Cohen, to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to quiet her allegations of an affair.

Trump denies the affair and pleaded not guilty — and he told cameras after the verdict that he is “a very innocent man.”

 

[Vambram]

Jurors viewed Cohen through ‘their political lens’: Jury consultant

Jurors viewed Cohen through ‘their political lens’: Jury consultant

“I suspect that these were 12 Democrats on this jury,” said Stabile. “I suspect they are viewing Michael Cohen through their political lens.”

www.newsnationnow.com

NEW YORK (NewsNation) — Despite Donald Trump‘s legal team’s hammering of Michael Cohen as a repeated liar, a jury consultant believes jurors likely viewed Cohen through their “own political lens.”

“Let’s just take a step back,” said Renato Stabile. “We are in Manhattan. It is what, 88% Democratic? In all of the jury testing that I’ve done when we test cases when politics are involved, it breaks down across party lines.”

Stabile told NewsNation’s Elizabeth Vargas that he suspects that was at play during Cohen’s testimony.
“I suspect that these were twelve Democrats on this jury,” said Stabile. “I suspect they are viewing Michael Cohen through their political lens.”

Stabile’s comments received pushback from Vargas, who noted little is known about the jurors’ politics and mentioned that one juror said they occasionally see Trump’s posts on TruthSocial.

“If the prosecution learned that there were Republicans on the jury, it would have been absolutely permissible, legally, to strike those people,” Stabile said. “So I suspect that that is what we were looking at in terms of this jury.”

Trump on Thursday became the first former president to be convicted of felony crimes as a New York jury found him guilty of falsifying business records in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to a porn actor who said the two had sex.

 

[Vambram]

lol, and what was “Lock her up” supposed to be if not exactly that?

I’m sorry you all hitched your wagons to a criminal, but maybe next time do a better job of weeding out the grifters and you won’t find yourself in this position.

LOL, despite the chants, and that phrase, Hillary was never targeted by the DOJ during the Trump administration. Trump and the Republicans allowed Hillary to get away with her crimes. The biggest and worst grifters in politics today are the leaders of the Democratic political party.

 

[ralliann]

lol, and what was “Lock her up” supposed to be if not exactly that?

Did he do it? No.

I’m sorry you all hitched your wagons to a criminal, but maybe next time do a better job of weeding out the grifters and you won’t find yourself in this position.

Weve all got hitched to this wagon of marxism. Wait till it bites you

 

[NxNW]

LOL, despite the chants, and that phrase, Hillary was never targeted by the DOJ during the Trump administration. Trump and the Republicans allowed Hillary to get away with her crimes.

Hillary didn't commit any crimes.

The biggest and worst grifters in politics today are the leaders of the Democratic political party.

Stay on topic please.

 

[JSRG]

I believe this shows the world no one is above the Law in our country.

But it is also a shameful time in our history. We now know Trump committed a crime to become president. How voters react to this will say a lot about our country.

Well, no. This verdict doesn't make anyone "know" that Trump committed a crime. All people "know" that they didn't before is that he was convicted of it. The key question is how much they think a conviction is worth.

The pro-Trump and anti-Trump people don't really care about this result; the pro-Trump people wave off everything against him as lawfare, and the anti-Trump people want to see him go down for everything. But in regards to the people who are more undecided, there seems to me to be considerable room to plausibly criticize this case as politically motivated and with a biased judge; for example, see here (granted, it also admits that Trump's legal team did a poor job, partially due to Trump himself). And sure, it's from a conservative source, but not one that cares for Trump all that much. But even if you don't agree with the points made there or other criticisms I've seen of the case against Trump, there's at least a plausible case to be made that this was a dubious case that was politically motivated, which will obviously make some people think Trump is being treated unfairly.

What's more worrisome to me is the pernicious effect this kind of doubt can cast on other cases against him. Based on my knowledge of them, some of the (not yet tried) cases against Trump are considerably stronger than this one. But if someone looks at this and, not without reason, thinks it's rigged, then they're going to look far more critically at the stronger cases too.

 

[childeye 2]

Hillary predicted Trump's defense back in 2016.

 

[7thKeeper]

But in regards to the people who are more undecided, there seems to me to be considerable room to plausibly criticize this case as politically motivated and with a biased judge; for example, see here (granted, it also admits that Trump's legal team did a poor job, partially due to Trump himself). And sure, it's from a conservative source, but not one that cares for Trump all that much. But even if you don't agree with the points made there or other criticisms I've seen of the case against Trump, there's at least a plausible case to be made that this was a dubious case that was politically motivated, which will obviously make some people think Trump is being treated unfairly.

Where is the evidence of the judge being biased? By the way, the link doesn't show the full article if you aren't logged in at the site.

 

[childeye 2]

LOL, despite the chants, and that phrase, Hillary was never targeted by the DOJ during the Trump administration. Trump and the Republicans allowed Hillary to get away with her crimes.

If the DOJ is not ensuring justice in our country, then it's not doing its job.

 

[Vambram]

Today, a jury selected from a New York City pool that gave Joe Biden nearly 90 percent of the vote in 2020 convicted Donald Trump on 34 counts of bookkeeping fraud following a trial that many legal experts said was improper and rigged against the former president from the beginning.
What we witnessed today is nothing short of a complete perversion of justice.
The Left claims that their lawfare against former President Trump is purely to protect democracy, ethics, or whatever other nonsense they continue to spew. But let’s be clear, this entire charade is purely about increasing their power to control every institution that rules this nation.

There’s no actual crime. There’s no evidence to support the crime. The star witness might be the worst witness we’ve ever seen in American history. And yet, the whole point of a show trial is to secure a quick and easy conviction. That’s what just happened in New York with a clearly biased jury. The American justice system is being destroyed at the hands of a corrupt regime. If they can do this to a former President and leading presidential candidate, what do you think they can do to you or me?

This is a disgraceful, inexcusable verdict. This case should never have been brought to trial in the first place. The D.A. never explained the underlying crime, and his political motivations were clear — he was elected after having promised to 'get Trump' during his election campaign. Judge Merchan was equally abysmally biased, issuing absurd jury instructions that make the verdict vulnerable to appeal. The jurors themselves clearly were either biased, given the overwhelming liberal make-up of Manhattan, or did not understand the law. What we’re left with is an unprecedented day in American history: A presumptive presidential nominee convicted for a made-up crime to weaken him in an election campaign. President Biden and the Democrats are smiling today. But Trump will prevail come November, and the tables will turn.

 

[Vambram]

2024 U.S. President

www.realclearpolling.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

LOL, despite the chants, and that phrase, Hillary was never targeted by the DOJ during the Trump administration. Trump and the Republicans allowed Hillary to get away with her crimes.

Did he do it? No.

Why didn’t he do it? Was he incompetent? Or did he not give in to the worse desires of his base? If his voters were okay with weaponizing the DOJ before, why are they so bent out of shape about it now?

The biggest and worst grifters in politics today are the leaders of the Democratic political party.

If that’s true, it’s only because Trump was voted out of office.

Weve all got hitched to this wagon of marxism. Wait till it bites you

Lol, I’d like to see you define marxism first.

 

[7thKeeper]

Today, a jury selected from a New York City pool that gave Joe Biden nearly 90 percent of the vote in 2020 convicted Donald Trump on 34 counts of bookkeeping fraud following a trial that many legal experts said was improper and rigged against the former president from the beginning.
What we witnessed today is nothing short of a complete perversion of justice.
The Left claims that their lawfare against former President Trump is purely to protect democracy, ethics, or whatever other nonsense they continue to spew. But let’s be clear, this entire charade is purely about increasing their power to control every institution that rules this nation.

There’s no actual crime. There’s no evidence to support the crime. The star witness might be the worst witness we’ve ever seen in American history. And yet, the whole point of a show trial is to secure a quick and easy conviction. That’s what just happened in New York with a clearly biased jury. The American justice system is being destroyed at the hands of a corrupt regime. If they can do this to a former President and leading presidential candidate, what do you think they can do to you or me?

This is a disgraceful, inexcusable verdict. This case should never have been brought to trial in the first place. The D.A. never explained the underlying crime, and his political motivations were clear — he was elected after having promised to 'get Trump' during his election campaign. Judge Merchan was equally abysmally biased, issuing absurd jury instructions that make the verdict vulnerable to appeal. The jurors themselves clearly were either biased, given the overwhelming liberal make-up of Manhattan, or did not understand the law. What we’re left with is an unprecedented day in American history: A presumptive presidential nominee convicted for a made-up crime to weaken him in an election campaign. President Biden and the Democrats are smiling today. But Trump will prevail come November, and the tables will turn.

Copy/paste from somewhere?

We've seen you throw this "no crime was explained", etc. around like they were free donuts being handed out, yet that has been shown in several threads about the topic to be untrue, there's a clear law that was sited as being broken and the 34 cases where it was broken.
You can't show the bias with the jury, you can't show the bias in the judge, as the only thing you can show for that is that Trump was found guilty. Innocent = not biased, guilty = biased. That's all.
And the arguement that Trump can't get a fair trial in NY because of the people who live there is essentially an arguement for Trump getting to disregard the law entirely in NY, because "well he just can't get a fair trial there". It's silly. Your arguements are silly.

 

[Vambram]

The show trial of Donald Trump is closing

And the reviews are terrible

alexberenson.substack.com

Yet in the last two weeks, acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, has put not just a thumb but his whole hand on the scale in favor of the prosecution.

 

[childeye 2]

Today, a jury selected from a New York City pool that gave Joe Biden nearly 90 percent of the vote in 2020 convicted Donald Trump on 34 counts of bookkeeping fraud following a trial that many legal experts said was improper and rigged against the former president from the beginning.
What we witnessed today is nothing short of a complete perversion of justice.

It's not good to believe lies, and it's wrong to entertain and spread slander that we hear said about others. When we don't know what to believe about others, it's wise to stay neutral.

When a person is manipulated through lies, they become disconnected from reality, and when we believe slander, darkness enters the soul as a form of wickedness. Sound reasoning can only be based on observable facts of reality, not negative prejudice. All such reasonings that are based on falsehood end in contradiction which in turn manifests hypocritical judgment. The observable reality here is that during the Trump administration, Michael Cohen was charged by the Trump DOJ for essentially the same crime.

Michael Cohen goes to prison
"Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former attorney, pleaded guilty today to eight charges in federal court. They included tax evasion and bank fraud but also campaign finance violations, specifically for his role in payments made to women to keep them from talking about alleged affairs with Trump ahead of the 2016 election."

 

[7thKeeper]

In reality the case depends on a raft of dubious propositions, including:
Companies shouldn’t classify payments to a lawyer as legal services;

I'm just going to point out a few things here and there because they don't make sense. If you ask and pay a lawyer to bake a cake, is it still a legal expense? No, because he isn't doing legal work. Same thing applies here, Cohen wasn't doing legal work here, so it's not a legal expense.

Candidates illegally “influence” elections if they try to hide negative information;
Trump had no non-campaign-related reasons to keep Daniels from telling her story;

Which testimony put in question as to whether it was believable, considering Trump himself wasn't worried about his wife finding out about the affair when it occured. Or in the years following, until he was about to campaign.

He kept Trump’s lawyers from offering a witness who could testify about the intricacies of campaign finance law central to the case. He also threatened to strike the testimony of the defense witness who contradicted Cohen because he felt the witness had disrespected him. (Unbelievable but true.)

You could also try to be factual about what actually happened in court, about how witnessed need to be added if either side wants to have them there, how in all court cases witnesses are told not to talk about certain things (the judge struck things Daniels said a few times and was perplexed why the defense didn't object more). The disrespect was unrelated to striking testimony, but I can see why you wish to try to make the connection.

And in closing arguments, Merchan repeatedly overruled defense objections to prosecutors making assertions unsupported by evidence they had presented. Further Manhattan prosecutors have explicitly framed the trial as a referendum on Trump’s 2016 win. They have implied, without any evidence, the payment to keep Daniels quiet might have been the reason Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

For someone complaining about implying without evidence, the next part reads like a hilarious amount of lack of self awareness.

They’ve done so before a jury in Manhattan, where voters favored Clinton by almost 9-1 in 2016, even more heavily than they supported Joe Biden.

Thus the jury likely contains at least a handful of jurors who would vote to convict Trump no matter what, merely to punish him for beating Clinton.

Any evidence that the jury did this merely to punish Trump for something that isn't a crime, yet somehow made it to this point and not because Trump broke a law? Are you psychic? Or are you... *Gasp* implying, without any evidence?

Now, with Merchan buttressing the prosecution, will any juror ask reasonable questions about the credibility of Cohen’s testimony?
Trump’s lead in the polls over Biden has increased since it began. His lead in betting markets has widened even faster. Bettors now give him, for the first time, a better than even chance of winning the 2024 election. Biden has only a 35 percent chance, with minor candidates totaling about 12 percent.

Stunningly, at the start of 2023, betting markets said Trump had only a 1-in-6 shot of winning in 2024. (At the time, Ron DeSantis was the leader.) Nothing did more to improve Trump’s chances than being criminally indicted, and this trial in particular is clearly an abuse of legal process.

Why are you putting up polling information regarding an election in a court case thread? That's off topic and unrelated.

 

[FaithT]

I am willing to accept the verdict - those who are celebrating and mocking - I have a question.

1. Do you accept the courts verdict - yes/no
2. When he appeals will you still accept the courts verdict - even if it reverses this one? yes/no

Let's find out how much we accept courts verdicts....

People only accept court verdicts when it goes their way.

 

[FaithT]

Yes

Yes


Frankly I am surprised by this verdict. By all accounts the case was pretty weak. Will be interesting to see what errors the Trump team tries to bring up as a good reason to overturn the verdict.

I felt the prosecution’s case was strong, although I thought that putting Cohen on the stand was a bad move at the time. Apparently I was wrong.

 

[Belk]

I felt the prosecution’s case was strong, although I thought that putting Cohen on the stand was a bad move at the time. Apparently I was wrong.

I lack the knowledge to claim strength or weakness myself. The legal experts I have listened to have mostly stated they felt it a long shot case. I do find it interesting that one of them said while it was a poor case in their opinion it was Trumps insistence that the defense deny any and all wrong doing that was the decider for the case. They felt if the defense had concentrated on the prosecutions weak points the verdict would of come out much different.