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

[ralliann]

No, the conversation was about the recorded cases of fraud by Trump in the parts you quoted. Try to stay on topic when replying to specific parts of a person's post. Otherwise it'll just sound like nonsense or you trying to avoid a topic you don't like by trying to distract away from it.

Equal justice, equal application of law was not brought up?
As for a distraction no.
Corruption in the FBI, corruption in the justice department. wouldn't do anything about Hillary. Can't try Biden, he will come across as an old man with a bad memory, remember that?
So you have got all your convictions and labels under Biden to prove how bad Trump is. So I guess I can't say a thing

 

[ralliann]

His rights weren't violated.
Gag orders have been used in a wide variety of cases to prevent damage to the overall law case and to the people involved that cannot be undone. Trump's modus operandi is to attack people rather than actually answer or counter things he is challenged on.
Unfortunately, some of his followers will react violently.

In the opinion of many legal scholars they were. So it is going to appeal. You got what you wanted. be happy

 

[childeye 2]

Trump's defense really failed to provide any believable alternative to why Cohen was paid that money. They didn't counter the testimony of Pecker or Hope Hicks, or McConney, or Rhona Graff or Madeleine Westerhout. They didn't do a good job with Daniels either. Cohen just tied all the previous witnesses testimonies into a bow and explained it so the jurors understood. And what defense did they present? Robert Costello turned out to be a bust.

Trump attorneys were handicapped with putting together a defense that denied the event with the porn star ever even happened, despite the insurmountable mountain of evidence to the contrary. Trump's unwillingness to admit his lies is going to be his downfall.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Equal justice, equal application of law was not brought up?
As for a distraction no.
Corruption in the FBI, corruption in the justice department. wouldn't do anything about Hillary. Can't try Biden, he will come across as an old man with a bad memory, remember that?
So you have got all your convictions and labels under Biden.

That is all just sour grapes. There has to be evidence that is going to hold up in court, and a case that prosecutors feel can be won.
Complaining that the FBI is corrupt and the justice department is corrupt for not prosecuting Hillary is just sour grapes.

In contrast, there is and was evidence against Trump for all the cases against him.
Regarding the hush money trial that just occurred:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/how-donald-trump-got-convicted-his-hush-money-trial-2024-05-30/

In their opening statement at Donald Trump’s criminal trial, the prosecutors seeking to win the first-ever criminal conviction of a sitting or former U.S. president made a bold prediction: they would have hard evidence to back up testimony from Michael Cohen, the star witness branded a liar by the defense.​

Over the next several weeks, jurors heard testimony from insiders at Trump’s real estate company, his 2016 presidential campaign, and his White House that methodically backed up the two core elements of Manhattan District Alvin Bragg’s case: that Trump was aware of a “catch-and-kill” conspiracy to buy the silence of people with negative information before the election, and that he was involved in a cover-up of Cohen’s hush money payment to a porn star.​

​

That testimony - coupled with evidence such as bank records, emails and a surreptitious recording of Trump speaking about a hush money payment - culminated in the 12-member jury finding Trump guilty of criminal charges.​

Its verdict: He illegally falsified business records to hide his reimbursement to Cohen for the $130,000 Cohen paid to buy the silence of porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election about an alleged sexual encounter she had with Trump in 2006.​

 

[Malleeboy]

Trump's defense really failed to provide any believable alternative to why Cohen was paid that money. They didn't counter the testimony of Pecker or Hope Hicks, or McConney, or Rhona Graff or Madeleine Westerhout. They didn't do a good job with Daniels either. Cohen just tied all the previous witnesses testimonies into a bow and explained it so the jurors understood. And what defense did they present? Robert Costello turned out to be a bust.

Cohen was Trumps lawyer, did he work for nothing? He only received that money, but hasn;t sued Trump for not paying him.

 

[ralliann]

Cohen was Trumps lawyer, did he work for nothing? He only received that money, but hasn;t sued Trump for not paying him.

All this will come out in appeal.
Trump will continue to run, and people will continue to vote for him.
I really think people want to spur on anger and violence.

 

[FreeinChrist]

In the opinion of many legal scholars they were. So it is going to appeal. You got what you wanted. be happy

Trump and his lawyers already took the gag order to the court of appeals, and was denied:

Is Trump still under a gag order after his conviction? He thinks so, but the answer isn't clear

Donald Trump says he remains under a gag order after his conviction in his hush money criminal trial.

apnews.com

A state appeals court this month rejected Trump’s request to lift some or all of the gag order during the trial, finding that Merchan properly determined Trump’s public statements “posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses.”​

 

[FreeinChrist]

Cohen was Trumps lawyer, did he work for nothing? He only received that money, but hasn;t sued Trump for not paying him.

He had done work for Trump but wasn't receiving a monthly paycheck. He was paid for specific things. Trump's lawyers never gave a good answer to that.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Trump attorneys were handicapped with putting together a defense that denied the event with the porn star ever even happened, despite the insurmountable mountain of evidence to the contrary. Trump's unwillingness to admit his lies is going to be his downfall.

Well, that and Trump was insistent about how it was going to go. He is the one that wanted Costello.

 

[ralliann]

Trump and his lawyers already took the gag order to the court of appeals, and was denied:

Is Trump still under a gag order after his conviction? He thinks so, but the answer isn't clear

Donald Trump says he remains under a gag order after his conviction in his hush money criminal trial.

apnews.com

A state appeals court this month rejected Trump’s request to lift some or all of the gag order during the trial, finding that Merchan properly determined Trump’s public statements “posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses.”​

Not surprising.

 

[Malleeboy]

but that they care about the rule of Law.

Problem is that a large percentage of the US population disagrees with you.

You watch your news, with your opinion makers presenting the facts that your side likes.
Whilst the other side watches their new, with their opinion makers listening to the facts they like.

People need to engage with the best of the other side, but they just won't.

Is there anybody on the other side that you respect or would listen to, maybe a Dershowitz?

 

[ralliann]

Problem is that a large percentage of the US population disagrees with you.

You watch your news, with your opinion makers presenting the facts that your side likes.
Whilst the other side watches their new, with their opinion makers listening to the facts they like.

People need to engage with the best of the other side, but they just won't.

Is there anybody on the other side that you respect or would listen to, maybe a Dershowitz?

Or Jonathan Turley. Just a couple of legal scholars.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Problem is that a large percentage of the US population disagrees with you.

You watch your news, with your opinion makers presenting the facts that your side likes.
Whilst the other side watches their new, with their opinion makers listening to the facts they like.

People need to engage with the best of the other side, but they just won't.

Is there anybody on the other side that you respect or would listen to, maybe a Dershowi

A large percentage of the US population disagrees with me that the Democrats care about the rule of law? I was responding to a comment (an insult actually) that Democrats don't care about the rule of law. Are you responding to that line of conversation?


A large percentage of the population agrees with me that all should be treated equally under the law and that Trump needs to be treated the same as any other person charged with crimes. Yes, Dems do care about the rule of law.
.
And what matters is how the courts view the rule of law.

Dershowitz? HONESTLY?? The one who got Jeffery Epstein a non--prosecution agreement for the 2005 case?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Just a reminder that a grand jury heard evidence and handed up the indictment for 34 charges. It was tried in a court with a jury of his peers, including some that got their news from Truth social and FOX news. They were given instructions that had been debated and cleared by both the prosecution and the defense. They came to a verdict.

Trump can appeal. That is the way the law works.

 

[7thKeeper]

Equal justice, equal application of law was not brought up?

Not in the post/part of the post you were replying to, no. It was a list of cases where Trump had been found to have commited fraud, which is a fact, that you tried to brush off as opinion. But it's not opinion, it's fact. The rest of your post still had nothing to do with what we were discussing.

 

[Pommer]

Well nobody has ever had a NON DICLOSURE AGREEMENT, turned into a campaign expense.

From where did the money for the NDA ($130,000) come?

 

[Pommer]

Immunity has not even been decided yet either. Oh well, he is one strong man.

The immunity case wouldn’t affect this present case anyways.

 

[Pommer]

I was going to just monitor this thread.....but this begs a response:



As you later clarify that "they" are "Democrats", then you are insulting a group.

It is not that Democrats "don't care about breaking laws" but that they care about the rule of Law. That all are equal under the Law. That Trump gets equal justice under the law - and is held as responsible for it as everyone else would be. Trump flaunts the law and judge's orders all that he can. The gag rule is still in place as sentencing has not occurred yet, but does that matter to Trump? NO. He attacked the witnesses, one in particular, after the verdict. Bet he thinks it won't matter.

I have a lot of reasons for wanting Biden over Trump. Honestly, I don't know why people are so surprised that Trump was found guilty. His defense was pretty lousy. And his history does not show him to a such a wonderful fellow - as in the fraud involved with the Trump University, and the Trump foundation, and a long running tax fraud scheme. This time the fraud was criminal.

The sentencing phase will be interesting since the convicted’s “remorse” is often a factor in the judge’s deliberations.
I will go out on a limb and predict that the convicted shan’t show the Court any remorse whatsoever.

 

[Pommer]

Problem is that a large percentage of the US population disagrees with you.

Our system doesn’t rely on what the popular sentiments of the American people are regarding the administration of Justice, but rather on the laws on the books.

You watch your news, with your opinion makers presenting the facts that your side likes.
Whilst the other side watches their new, with their opinion makers listening to the facts they like.

And things will be decided in the courts. Yes, this is how it’s always worked.

People need to engage with the best of the other side, but they just won't.

Is there anybody on the other side that you respect or would listen to, maybe a Dershowitz?

I like David Frum but he’s a “never-Trumper” so others might not find him a cogent and influential person of note.

 

[A_Thinker]

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.

Right. Trump's insistence that he had done NOTHING WRONG painted him as a liar. If he would lie to Melania, ... why wouldn't he lie to a court ?

If there's anything about the hush-money situation that presents positively for Trump, ... it's that he took great pains to not offend Melania (who probably has Barron in her pocket) ...