Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[ozso]

Here's the thing: Alan Dershowitz is very biased. I don't mean regarding his politics or his political party (I hear people say he's liberal and a democrat, I have no idea if these are true or not). He's a defense attorney. He's always been a defense attorney. He looks at a case, and he automatically picks holes in the prosecution's case. It's what he does, it's how he thinks.

As to some of the specific things he mentioned: the crime was not made up. NY law 175.10 (Falsifying business records in the first degree) is a real, existing Class E felony. As to his characterizing the jury or the judge as "Get Trump" partisans, well, there's no evidence for that, and none has been offered by anyone. If there were any irregularities on the part of either the judge or jury, that will come out in the appeal, so we'll have to see what Trump's legal team comes up with. Same for Dershowitz' suggestion that the prosecution was "overzealous."

We've heard everything before, and none of it comes with any actual proof or any actual evidence, so all we can do is see if Trump's legal team will find some they can present to the appeals court when the time comes. Unless they've got some other theories to base an appeal on...who knows?

As to Dershowitz, it sounds to me like he's trying to make a strong case for Trump to hire him as his appeals counsel. I make nothing more of his analysis than that, truthfully.

-- A2SG, hey, can't blame a guy for trying to get a job, though.....

See I knew that would be a waste of time.

Here's another:

 

[BPPLEE]

I know pretty much what public opinion is on this. But the public at large isn't involved in the discussion. It's just a couple of dozen forum members. Including you. And 'the whole topic and all the public controversy that surrounds it' most definitely doesn't 'hinge on one person's personal viewpoint.' Don't be ridiculous.

What does depend on personal viewpoints is personal credibility. And I'm sure that you'd agree that credibility is important in forum discussions. So it is certainly worth finding out if, in this matter, someone was to make a decision on whether the judicial system is broken solely based on the decisions it makes.

So maybe you could give us a hint if you're likely to accept the appeal decision or not.

If it’s not overturned on the appeals it will go to the Supreme Court and I will accept their decision.

 

[A2SG]

See I knew that would be a waste of time.

Not even going to bother responding to anything I said, huh?

-- A2SG, got it.....

 

[A2SG]

If it’s not overturned on the appeals it will go to the Supreme Court and I will accept their decision.

Out of curiosity, why would you only accept the SCOTUS decision, but not the decision of the NY appeals court? If the SCOTUS denies cert, will you then accept the NY appeals court ruling?

-- A2SG, then, but only then.....

 

[BPPLEE]

Out of curiosity, why would you only accept the SCOTUS decision, but not the decision of the NY appeals court? If the SCOTUS denies cert, will you then accept the NY appeals court ruling?

-- A2SG, then, but only then.....

What other choice is there?

 

[ozso]

If it’s not overturned on the appeals it will go to the Supreme Court and I will accept their decision.

I've thought over that question some. And when it comes to the current verdict I'm not completely sure about it yet.

There was a guilty verdict in another high profile case. I won't say what it was because I don't want an argument to break out over it. And it didn't have anything to do with Trump.

Initially I was firmly convinced the person was guilty and that he acted wrongly. But over time as more info trickled in, I'm less sure of that. Up to the point where I could defend his actions in a debate. Even though I'm not completely decided either way.

So since I'm not completely sure regarding this case with Trump, because I know I might change my mind over time, I can't really say how I'd feel about the results of a future appeal that might take place.

Also a big factor in determining how fair this case is, is what kind of sentence is passed. How reasonable or unreasonable it is.

 

[A2SG]

What other choice is there?

You'd be surprised. Certainly, we know how far some MAGA acolytes will go when things don't go their way.

-- A2SG, not mentioning any specific examples, though....

 

[A2SG]

I've thought over that question some. And when it comes to the current verdict I'm not completely sure about it yet.

There was a guilty verdict in another high profile case. I won't say what it was because I don't want an argument to break out over it. And it didn't have anything to do with Trump.

Initially I was firmly convinced the person was guilty and that he acted wrongly. But over time as more info trickled in, I'm less sure of that. Up to the point where I could defend his actions in a debate. Even though I'm completely decided either way.

So since I'm not completely sure regarding this case with Trump, because I know I might change my mind over time, I can't really say how I'd feel about the results of a future appeal that might take place.

Also a big factor in determining how fair this case is, is what kind of sentence is passed. How reasonable or unreasonable it is.

True enough...people can, and will, debate endlessly about pretty much any trial. I know someone who will vociferously argue for Scott Peterson's innocence, despite the guilty verdict. Nancy Grace would disagree.

-- A2SG, you don't have to like a verdict to accept it, though.....

 

[ozso]

Not even going to bother responding to anything I said, huh?

-- A2SG, got it.....

I know from past experience with you it would go on forever and get nowhere. If it consisted of short exchanges that would be one thing. But I know if I post 20 words, you'll post a really long reply and insist that I address every point. And even then you'll say there's something I didn't address even though I did and or there's a question that I didn't answer. And that no matter how many times I try answering that question, you'll keep saying that you're still waiting for an answer.

I'm sure it's fun to take people down rabbit holes. But it's something most people are going to avoid in the future when it comes to getting into a debate with you.

 

[A2SG]

I know from past experience with you it would go on forever and get nowhere. If it consisted of short exchanges that would be one thing. But I know if I post 20 words, you'll post a really long reply and insist that I address every point. And even then you'll say there's something I didn't address even though I did and or there's a question that I didn't answer. And that no matter how many times I try answering that question, you'll keep saying that you're still waiting for an answer.

How about this, I'll do my level best to be nice. Okay?

I tried to be concise and direct in my response. I didn't even ask any questions, if that helps.

I think you and I have different perspectives and differing memories of past encounters. But I'm willing to put it aside, and try again.

Are you game?

-- A2SG, and I'll even try to keep it short and sweet.....

 

[Bradskii]

Also a big factor in determining how fair this case is, is what kind of sentence is passed. How reasonable or unreasonable it is.

The matter at hand is whether the verdict is acceptable. And whether the appeal decision would likewise be acceptable. Neither depends on whether one thinks they were 'fair'. The sentence is another matter entirely. We can all have a personal view on whether any given sentence is just or not.

 

[KCfromNC]

This whole case was a joke with only one goal, election interference.

That's not true. In addition to being asked to deliberate on Trump's attempts at state and federal election interference, they were also asked to consider the evidence of his potential tax evasion.

 

[KCfromNC]

I know from past experience with you it would go on forever and get nowhere. If it consisted of short exchanges that would be one thing. But I know if I post 20 words, you'll post a really long reply and insist that I address every point. And even then you'll say there's something I didn't address even though I did and or there's a question that I didn't answer. And that no matter how many times I try answering that question, you'll keep saying that you're still waiting for an answer.

I'm sure it's fun to take people down rabbit holes. But it's something most people are going to avoid in the future when it comes to getting into a debate with you.

Sure reads a lot like an attempt to distract the discussion to forum members after the posted facts run counter to the far-right stories trying to be sold here.

 

[ozso]

The matter at hand is whether the verdict is acceptable. And whether the appeal decision would likewise be acceptable. Neither depends on whether one thinks they were 'fair'. The sentence is another matter entirely. We can all have a personal view on whether any given sentence is just or not.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Postvieww]

Only 1 minute in and Dershowitz is already lying. He claimed the jury was hand picked by the judge and the prosecutor. Trump's lawyers had just as much power to select as the prosecutors and it was the lawyers from both sides that did all of the questioning.

Dershowitz was actually there with a front row seat where was your seat? I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, what I saw shocked me: Alan Dershowitz Trump should have had a change of venue at the very least. Your opinion of Dershowitz is worthless because of your bias . He was there you were not, he has 60 years experience in the law, you do not, he is professor of law, you are not. What you have in common is neither of you like or support Trump, but Dershowitz is a defender of the constitution. I do not find that quality in your posts. You are out of your league calling Dershowitz a liar.

 

[Bradskii]

Speak for yourself.

You have two options with the trial verdict and the appeal verdict. He is guilty or not. And that is either acceptable or not. It's a binary decision. Sentencing is varied. From zero punishment to a few years in jail and everything in between. It's more or less fair on a continuum. Not binary.

 

[Postvieww]

That's not true. In addition to being asked to deliberate on Trump's attempts at state and federal election interference, they were also asked to consider the evidence of his potential tax evasion.

Listen to your own words! Was he charged with tax evasion? Yet you say they were ask to consider a POTENTIAL crime not charged. This was a sham case brought by desperate liberals to destroy the leading candidate for President.

 

[Postvieww]

You'd be surprised. Certainly, we know how far some MAGA acolytes will go when things don't go their way.

-- A2SG, not mentioning any specific examples, though....

MAGA definition: Make America Great Again

Acolytes definition:

1. noun
   a devoted follower or assistant
   
   
2. noun
   someone who assists a priest or minister in a liturgical service; a cleric ordained in the highest of the minor orders in the Roman Catholic Church but not in the Anglican Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches. (not relevant)

Obviously your statement was derogatory in nature and purpose. Please explain what is bad about trying to Make America Great Again!

I will plead guilty to being a (follower or assistant) to Making America Great Again!

 

[ozso]

You have two options with the trial verdict and the appeal verdict. He is guilty or not. And that is either acceptable or not. It's a binary decision. Sentencing is varied. From zero punishment to a few years in jail and everything in between. It's more or less fair on a continuum. Not binary.

There's no time limit in reaching a conclusion as an uninvolved bystander. And one can remain undecided between guilty and not guilty. And guilty or not guilty doesn't change whether or not it was a proper trial. And the more unreasonable the sentence, the more it's going to look like trying to stop Trump from reaching his goal.

 

[ozso]

There's a 2003 movie called Runaway Jury. It's fictional and takes a lot of license. But it's about jury tampering and comes up with methods probably most wouldn't think of.