Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[BPPLEE]

Trump's records were falsified to disguise the repayments to Cohen for the illegal campaign donation.

Trump argues ‘legal expense’ was a dropdown label, not a falsification​

During the cross-examination, Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove suggested that the alleged falsification of records was not a falsification at all, because the “legal expense” label on the general ledger was a catch-all label used on the Trump Organization’s internal system when entering payments to lawyers.

McConney described the Trump Organization’s accounting software as an antiquated system, implemented around 1990, and “legal expense” was part of a dropdown menu of a number of different categories.

McConney affirmed that the “legal expense” label was used because Cohen was a lawyer and any payments to attorneys were just classified as a “legal expense”. In doing so, he appeared to credit the Trump defense theory that there was never any intent to mislead.

 

[Belk]

Trump argues ‘legal expense’ was a dropdown label, not a falsification​

During the cross-examination, Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove suggested that the alleged falsification of records was not a falsification at all, because the “legal expense” label on the general ledger was a catch-all label used on the Trump Organization’s internal system when entering payments to lawyers.

McConney described the Trump Organization’s accounting software as an antiquated system, implemented around 1990, and “legal expense” was part of a dropdown menu of a number of different categories.

McConney affirmed that the “legal expense” label was used because Cohen was a lawyer and any payments to attorneys were just classified as a “legal expense”. In doing so, he appeared to credit the Trump defense theory that there was never any intent to mislead.

If only the Trump defense team had started with that and stuck to it the Jury might of found it grounds for reasonable doubt.

 

[rambot]

Trump argues ‘legal expense’ was a dropdown label, not a falsification​

During the cross-examination, Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove suggested that the alleged falsification of records was not a falsification at all, because the “legal expense” label on the general ledger was a catch-all label used on the Trump Organization’s internal system when entering payments to lawyers.

McConney described the Trump Organization’s accounting software as an antiquated system, implemented around 1990, and “legal expense” was part of a dropdown menu of a number of different categories.

McConney affirmed that the “legal expense” label was used because Cohen was a lawyer and any payments to attorneys were just classified as a “legal expense”. In doing so, he appeared to credit the Trump defense theory that there was never any intent to mislead.

I wonder why the jury was not swayed by that explanation?

I vaguely recall this discussion happenning on CF as well.

Lawyers are certainly a "legal expense", but I think there was some disagreement on whether the outcome of a trial and the punishment metted therein would also be considered a "legal expense".....don't remember where we landed with that one.

 

[childeye 2]

"Must be an expert I guess".

So, basically he knows what he's talking about regarding Biden's narcissism.

Crafting propaganda is not just about turning negatives into positives and positives into negatives. It's also about trying to make them look the same so that no one can tell the truth from a lie. So no, you cannot trust the sick mind to make a diagnosis. You cannot trust a blind man to tell you who it is that doesn't see. The sick mind finds fault where there is no fault.

Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.


Here is an example:
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,

17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

 

[KCfromNC]

Listen to your own words! Was he charged with tax evasion? Yet you say they were ask to consider a POTENTIAL crime not charged.

You're complaining he wasn't charged with more than the 34 felony counts of falsifying business documents he was already convicted of?

 

[childeye 2]

I wonder why the jury was not swayed by that explanation?

Probably because the jury was shown the handwritten and initialed calculations of payment to Cohen for reimbursement by Weiselburg.

 

[Bradskii]

There's no time limit in reaching a conclusion as an uninvolved bystander. And one can remain undecided between guilty and not guilty.

But you can't remain undecided about whether to accept the verdict or not. You either do or you don't.

 

[Bradskii]

I've posted Dershowitz...

So let's take the very first thing that he said. That the jury had been hand selected by the judge and the prosecutor. You don't have to know much about how juries are selected to know that that is completely nonsensical. They are selected by ballot and the defence and prosecution have the opportunity to question each juror and accept or reject their involvement.

 

[rambot]

So let's take the very first thing that he said. That the jury had been hand selected by the judge and the prosecutor. You don't have to know much about how juries are selected to know that that is completely nonsensical. They are selected by ballot and the defence and prosecution have the opportunity to question each juror and accept or reject their involvement.

Wait wait wait. That can't be.

Dershowitz? ALAN Dershowitz? It was THAT particular Dershowitz who completely misrepresented reality to fit his desires and enflame those who listen?

That guy seems to drift down toward the Giuliani level of lawyering nowadays.

 

[Whyayeman]

That guy seems to drift down toward the Giuliani level of lawyering nowadays.

That bad?

Harsh.

 

[Bradskii]

Wait wait wait. That can't be.

Dershowitz? ALAN Dershowitz? It was THAT particular Dershowitz who completely misrepresented reality to fit his desires and enflame those who listen?

That guy seems to drift down toward the Giuliani level of lawyering nowadays.

I really don't know why he'd start an interview by telling a blatant lie. If your knowledge of the legal process is just watching a few episodes of Law and Order then you'd know immediately that what he said simply wasn't true. The rest of it was just personal opinion. And if the guy giving his opinion opens his statements by lying, then why should you consider his opinion worthwhile? Notwithstanding that he was watching it all unfold from within Trump's circle of wagons.

 

[Pommer]

And that public opinion is based on....what, exactly? What specific problems are there in our justice system? How, exactly, is it broken?

Oh, by the way, "Trump lost" doesn't count as a valid reason.


Neither of those opinions are based on any actual facts, so they have exactly the same amount of validity.


In this case, the public opinion you cite is nothing more than some people not liking the fact that Donald Trump was found guilty on 34 counts by a jury of his peers. And, based on that, and that alone, they seem to believe the entire justice system is broken. All because one rich guy got caught, and was found guilty.

Nothing else.

Now, if you want to claim there is a legitimate case to be made for judicial irregularities, or procedural errors in this case, feel free to present them. So far, no one's offered anything like that. At best, we get some people who can't seem to understand the basic charges, even when they're given, in plain English, over and over again.

Unless you can cite an actual judicial irregularity or procedural error, your sour grapes will be treated as such.

-- A2SG, otherwise, all you're gonna get is a very, very small violin.....

If a (somewhat popular) rich, white, man can be “convicted”, then obviously ‘the system broken’! seems to be the sentiment, although some might not see that this as their argument and yet are unable to articulate, how, exactly, their argument is different.

 

[Pommer]

Two things: Those are your words, not mine; When I mention Democrats, I'm not talking about voters that call themselves Democrats. I'm talking about the party leadership and elected representatives. Kinda like when I call out a pro football team as "bad". I'm talking about the team and management, not the fans.

Yeah, well, see, the thing is that this prosecution was brought by a NY DA who probably didn‘t consult with or solicit comments from the leadership of the Democratic Party…so vague political threats will probably roll off of their backs.

 

[Pommer]

12 more years!

Narrator: It’ll only be four years but seem like 12.

 

[Pommer]

Trump's going to save the republic the dems and libs are taking down the drain. For some reason everything being unaffordable, rampant crime, rampant homelessness, rampant drug addiction, and all the weird stuff aimed at little kids etc just isn't appealing to us any longer.

This is quite a lot to put on one, rapidly aging man. Too bad the GOP bench isn‘t as deep as it used to be a few years ago.

 

[Postvieww]

But you can't remain undecided about whether to accept the verdict or not. You either do or you don't.

I accept that we now live in a liberal dominated police state. Sadly way too many people are blind to the real state we are in.

 

[Bradskii]

I accept that we now live in a liberal dominated police state.

You need to start studying the concept of the separation of powers. But I got a line on this week's bingo card!

 

[ozso]

So let's take the very first thing that he said. That the jury had been hand selected by the judge and the prosecutor. You don't have to know much about how juries are selected to know that that is completely nonsensical. They are selected by ballot and the defence and prosecution have the opportunity to question each juror and accept or reject their involvement.

Have you looked into jury selection regarding this case?

 

[ozso]

But you can't remain undecided about whether to accept the verdict or not. You either do or you don't.

Or you can be torn between the two.

 

[ozso]

And I think we would be better with a president who gets both sides working together on our most critical issues.

Trump shows no willingness to do that.

Biden shows no ability to do that.