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

[ozso]

So you're continuing with the conspiracy theory that the jury was in on it, huh? Oh well, I guess you gotta go with what ya got.

Considering the defendant, and the huge agenda against him, it's not unlikely.

They weren't on the jury. And how many of them saw all of the evidence and heard all of the testimony as the jury did?

There's a fully detailed transcript. What you're saying is an a appeals court can't render a proper verdict, since they weren't present during the trial.

 

[BPPLEE]

The Manhattan DA’s office has filed charges for falsification of business records 9,794 times since 2015.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how they took a misdemeanor which the statute of limitations had expired on and turned it into a felony.

 

[ozso]

It's those who see nothing wrong with fudging a few business ledger lines to hide infidelity/immorality from their spouse/significant other or general public.

"They must be morally bankrupt" seems to be the main running narrative. There's no way it could be they simply weren't convinced. No, they have to be bad people .

 

[ozso]

ozso hasn't been arguing that Trump is innocent, evidence has nothing to do with it either way. By touting lawfare the argument is that the prosecution of his crimes was politicaly motivated.
The sentiment seems to be, He may or may not be guilty, but since he's rich and powerful it should've been ignored.

Evidence does have something to do with it. And a lot of people don't agree with the jury's decision based on the evidence.

 

[FenderTL5]

"They must be morally bankrupt" seems to be the main running narrative. There's no way it could be they simply weren't convinced. No, they have to be bad people .

Agree.
or they simply don't care. Either is possible.

 

[ozso]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how they took a misdemeanor which the statute of limitations had expired on and turned it into a felony.

Right, that's the part that gets glossed over. That's why there's so many who see it as a bogus trial.

 

[ozso]

Agree.
or it's possible they simply don't care.

That's still the "they must be bad people" narrative.

 

[FenderTL5]

That's still the "they must be bad people" narrative.

One can be apathetic without necessarily being "bad." (imho)

 

[ozso]

One can be apathetic without necessarily being "bad." (imho)

But it's still a character flaw to find fault with. More likely they did care and did not agree with what took place. Instead of being apathetic, they were disgruntled over what took place with that trial.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how they took a misdemeanor which the statute of limitations had expired on and turned it into a felony.

Are you suggesting that NY state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree is not a felony?

 

[BPPLEE]

Are you suggesting that NY state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree is not a felony?

Clearly you don't know the details of the case.

Law Professor: The Manhattan District Attorney’s Convoluted Legal Case Against Donald Trump Gets More Convoluted

To request an interview with Professor Germain, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu. By Gregory Germ ...

news.syr.edu

 

[DaisyDay]

Considering the defendant, and the huge agenda against him, it's not unlikely.

It's unlikely when you take into consideration that Trump's high end lawyers chose them (in conjunction with the prosecuting team).

There's a fully detailed transcript.

Have you read the transcript or the evidence presented?

What you're saying is an a appeals court can't render a proper verdict, since they weren't present during the trial.

He didn't say that at all as appeals are not based on the evidence already presented or not presented, but only on whether proper procedure was followed. If proper procedure was followed, then the defendant is deemed to have gotten a fair trial.

The actual evidence very much attested to the guilt of the defendant. Cohen fronted the money to pay off Stormy Daniels just after the Grab 'Em By The [Private Parts] tape came out in order to squash the story. This was not part of lawyer duties. The refund as listed as "legal expenses" which was false. The jury convicted him. Read the testimony, read the indictment, read the transcripts with the appendices.

The Florida documents case was even more slam dunk, but judicial misconduct and general ineptitude got in the way.

 

[DaisyDay]

Whatever term you prefer and approve of, only one case ended up with a conviction which will finalize in an anticlimactic unconditional discharge. For years I've been hearing about how badly Trump was going to be punished, how he's going to end up in jail, how big bad Jack Smith was going to put him away, over and over again. It has all ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.

These prosecutors have had years to put Trump away and nada. Which is supposedly all Trump's fault, rather than a lacking on their part. Most of these cases were simply left hanging out there, not getting anywhere, up to the election, and then the prosecutors dropped their cases. Tons of hype with lots and lots of build up, to a bland mediocre ending on their part and Trump hip deep in victory.

You realize, of course, that Jack Smith was appointed late November 2022? That is not a lot of time, particularly when Trump's delay tactics were abetted by the Supreme Court and Judge Cannon.

View attachment 359462

How appropriate that this picture is entitled "smug.png"

 

[Pommer]

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how they took a misdemeanor which the statute of limitations had expired on and turned it into a felony.

I seem to recall that this issue had been raised by the defense only to be rebuffed by the court, pointing out that the charges had been filed in a timely manner but the defendant’s own (perfectly legal and above-board) actions to preclude the prosecution’s attempts to get the financial records from him, pushed the trial date back beyond the statute of limitations, which rendered the argument moot.

 

[BPPLEE]

I seem to recall that this issue had been raised by the defense only to be rebuffed by the court, pointing out that the charges had been filed in a timely manner but the defendant’s own (perfectly legal and above-board) actions to preclude the prosecution’s attempts to get the financial records from him, pushed the trial date back beyond the statute of limitations, which rendered the argument moot.

I would refer you to the article I posted

 

[Pommer]

I would refer you to the article I posted

Uh huh, I’ll rather go by what Judge Merchan wrote, starting at page 3.
The good Judge took pains to explain why Mister Trump didn’t get the relief that he sought for the prosecution to have been delayed until after “the usual” time under the statute-of-limitations gambit.

 

[BPPLEE]

Uh huh, I’ll rather go by what Judge Merchan wrote, starting at page 3.
The good Judge took pains to explain why Mister Trump didn’t get the relief that he sought for the prosecution to have been delayed until after “the usual” time under the statute-of-limitations gambit.

I wouldn't call him good.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Manhattan DA’s office has filed charges for falsification of business records 9,794 times since 2015.

Sounds like a place with questionable business practices. Thankfully we can all avoid doing businesses with companies in .. Manhattan. [gulp]

 

[Pommer]

I wouldn't call him good.

Why’s that?

 

[Arcangl86]

Historically, Trump is the only one prosecuted under this law that makes a misdemeanor a felony

Not counting Trump there have been at least 30 prosecutions of falsifying business records in the first degree have happen since 2009.