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

[FaithT]

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 have come out much different.

Well, that’s Trump’s control problem again. He should’ve let his lawyers do their jobs.

 

[Hank77]

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.

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.

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.

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

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?


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

Here's the link to the article the poster was quoting from.

The show trial of Donald Trump is closing

And the reviews are terrible

alexberenson.substack.com

 

[Pommer]

Remember, these charges come out of a $130,000 “hush money” payment Cohen made to the porn star Stormy Daniels in October 2016. Trump then reimbursed Cohen for the payment.

In reality the case depends on a raft of dubious propositions, including:
Companies shouldn’t classify payments to a lawyer as legal services;
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;
New York state can bring a prosecution that turns on federal election laws.

But even accepting all those theories, the only direct evidence that Trump told Cohen to pay Daniels off before the election comes from Cohen himself. Cohen is a convicted felon who has admitted to lying under oath and wanting to see Trump convicted. Further, a defense witness directly contradicted his testimony.

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.

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.) 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. 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. 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.

You really should include a link to articles you’ve quoted from otherwise we’re liable to think that you wrote these delightful screeds yourself.

 

[A2SG]

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.

If being convicted of multiple felonies improves Trump's chances of winning, then you should be pleased as punch about this verdict, huh?

-- A2SG, "The law is inside out, The world is upside down"...

 

[7thKeeper]

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.

People's opinions seem to vary quite a bit. Most of the ones I heard fell generally into the category of "it's a good and pretty strong case being made, but it's not a surefire thing."

 

[7thKeeper]

Here's the link to the article the poster was quoting from.

The show trial of Donald Trump is closing

And the reviews are terrible

alexberenson.substack.com

Wow.

@Vambram , you're posting copy/pastes of other people's articles/opinion pieces and don't quote your source?

 

[driewerf]

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....

Well, it is not identical, but similar enough.
When the SC struck down the Colorado ruling that removed Trump from then primary ballot, it was people accepted it and moved on.

By unanimous agreement The Supreme Court corrected the errors of lower courts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/read-the-supreme-court-s-opinion-in-the-trump-ballot-eligibility-case/ar-BB1jjgO4 Trump stays on the ballot.

www.christianforums.com

No tantrums, no pitchforks and torches, no "rigged courts".

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

In addition to being a convicted felon, candidate Trump has a track record of being soft on crime? That doesn't seem like a winning combination for the party of law and order.

It isn't too late to nominate someone better qualified for the job.

 

[KCfromNC]

Remember, these charges come out of a $130,000 “hush money” payment Cohen made to the porn star Stormy Daniels in October 2016. Trump then reimbursed Cohen for the payment.

In reality the case depends on a raft of dubious propositions, including:
Companies shouldn’t classify payments to a lawyer as legal services;
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;
New York state can bring a prosecution that turns on federal election laws.

But even accepting all those theories, the only direct evidence that Trump told Cohen to pay Daniels off before the election comes from Cohen himself. Cohen is a convicted felon who has admitted to lying under oath and wanting to see Trump convicted. Further, a defense witness directly contradicted his testimony.

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.

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.) 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. 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. 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.

You might want to cite your source here. And doesn't the site have limits for how much copyrighted material can be copy-pasted verbatim?

 

[wing2000]

It isn't too late to nominate someone better qualified for the job.

The GOP leadership could do just that if they had the will to do so.
They don't.
We likely would not be here today had Republican US Senators done the right thing and convicted Donald J Trump during the impeachment trials. Instead, due to their lack of any moral fiber and spine, here we are.
The Republican Party of "family values", personal accountability and the rule of law is dead.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here's the link to the article the poster was quoting from.

The show trial of Donald Trump is closing

And the reviews are terrible

alexberenson.substack.com

What a delightful site. You can get your predictions from last week that NY's Trump case is imploding right next to anti-vaxx propaganda and rants about how the author is being specifically targeted by the White House but no we're not paranoid, all in one stop.

 

[ralliann]

People only accept court verdicts when it goes their way.

This is normalizing no trust in our justice system for "justice". Simply positions of power to produce a desired outcome. Show them the man, they will find them a crime.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Remember, these charges come out of a $130,000 “hush money” payment Cohen made to the porn star Stormy Daniels in October 2016. Trump then reimbursed Cohen for the payment.

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

It is false to accept and pay fraudulent invoices for work that was never performed.

Candidates illegally “influence” elections if they try to hide negative information;

Cohen pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution when he paid Stormy for her silence. This is already a fact in the matter.

Trump had no non-campaign-related reasons to keep Daniels from telling her story;

He had 10 years to act upon those reasons. In fact, testimony revealed the proximity of the election with the motivating factor.

New York state can bring a prosecution that turns on federal election laws.

The NY law simply says "another crime"

 

[Brihaha]

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.

Your projection notwithstanding, perhaps Hillary committed no indictable crimes. Or else that is simply one more reason Mr Trump is unfit for the presidency. Americans need a leader who respects our rules of law. Lock her up was merely another one of Don's deceptions is what you are now claiming to justify your feelings.

 

[wing2000]

"...it is a sad day for our nation. A former president has been convicted of felonies. The potential next president is a convicted felon. If we worry about our standing in the world—and we should—this isn’t a point of pride. Despite this verdict, America still looks like so many struggling democracies, where strongmen violate laws and bend the system to their will.

The anti-Trump coalition, this uneasy and awkward alliance, must stand together, united to defend the sanctity of our system and the presidency. Our failure will mean that our kids will inherit a nation worse than the one our parents left us. No court case will save us, but voting will."

-Adam Kinzinger

Trump Convicted: A Just, Sad Day for America

Donald Trump’s conviction was the least-bad outcome—but not a victory.

www.thebulwark.com

 

[JustOneWay]

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.

Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial​

Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.

Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial

www.law.cornell.edu

Perhaps next time Donald should do any potential future criming in republican friendly areas of the country....

Blame Donald, not the court system.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

They could have gone with Nikki Haley.

But she is a woman!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Perhaps next time Donald should do any potential future criming in republican friendly areas of the country....

Picking Florida to store his illegally retained classified documents has worked out pretty well so far.

[Trump Appointee] Judge Cannon indefinitely postpones Trump’s classified docs trial​

 

[Vambram]

Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial​

Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed. The court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.

Rule 18. Place of Prosecution and Trial

www.law.cornell.edu

Perhaps next time Donald should do any potential future criming in republican friendly areas of the country....

Blame Donald, not the court system.

I still blame the weaponization and lawfare coming from the Democratic Party.

 

[Brihaha]

I still blame the weaponization and lawfare coming from the Democratic Party.

Which seems like quintessential tribalism. To overlook evidence and facts in preference to a political narrative. It is one of the most counterproductive elements this Trumpism has exacerbated in America. We forgot that we can disagree without being enemies. We Americans are one team of citizens and immigrants. No matter how hard people want to harden their hearts and divide themselves.

Misplaced anger and blame can be rectified by choice. Each of us chooses denial or truth. My experiences with denial force me to deal with truth, regardless of consequences. Truth is liberating and sets you free. Denial is a vicious cycle of anger, bitterness and unhappiness. It is baffling and cunning. I wish you well.