Will he be found guilty? Will he be Acquitted (not guilty)? Will there be a hung jury?

[VakAttack]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

One was that though the alternates aren’t in the deliberations, they are included in the judges responses to the jury questions.  Also the question of why are the instructions not written.  May be a way for the judge to maintain closer contact with jury proceedings. 

These two are easy:  the alternates are included in the judge's responses in case they are called to sit in the actual deliberations, they have all the same information.  Written instructions apparently aren't allowed in New York, except in certain circumstances and "remain a minefield for judges" which can end up in convictions being overturned if they're given.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/nyregion/written-jury-instructions-trump-judge.html

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

You choose not to see it being applied unequally because you want them to go after Trump.  And the application of equity has many different facets...one being wealthy versus not wealthy, and another being political in nature.  I am speaking to the political side of things...which you tried to discount by comparing a senator to a president and saying the jury determines guilt.  Not to mention the massive implication this trial (and others upcoming) has on both our political system and our justice system. 

 It is almost like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth by saying things that indicate the justice system is blind (in Trump's case), but then turn around and admit it isn't (rich vs poor).  You are actually making my original point.

Only because you're choosing to see it this way.  I don't see this trial as having any potential political benefit for the Dems or any negative baggage for Trump.  I think the only person who is likely to benefit politically is Trump himself if he wins or gets a hung jury.  If he's found guilty, people will discount it for the reasons you're claiming now.

[WrestlingRasta]

21 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Do you honestly think this is the same thing as an ex-president who is also running for president again??  Come on!

Can you find an example in history where an ex-President running for President has faced the level of charges/claims, in multiple states by multiple jurisdictions from multiple agencies, having passed through multiple appellate courts, of the individual's appointing,....to qualify this 'same thing' argument.

Of course it is not the same thing, because there is absolutley no example whatsoever of the same thing as above to try and compare it to.   Just because someone is an ex President running for president does not automatically mean charges and claims are false or nothing more than political motivation. (Again, look at the countless number of republican's, people on his staff, who are involved in some way in all of these many many many claims and charges)

If you are all for someone being found guilty if they are guilty, then why don't you wait for the justice system to fully play out and form your opinions, instead of forming them as soon as he has to sit in front of one of his many many many claims and charges, because your news media told you it was political.  Because lets be honest, you (I'm going to assume) have not and will not sit in a courtoom for one day of his many many many claims and charges, so the only information you have is from your news media.  Which, you have agreed on here several times, is incredibly slanted and bias beyond all trust.  

But when its convenient or fits....

 

[NM1965]

30 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I have no problem if Trump is found guilty if he is guilty.  For me it is a matter of applying our justice system in a consistent matter.  Take away the names of the big players in politics right now, it is blatantly clear...to me...that the justice system is NOT being applied consistently...and it is clear...to me...it is based on political affiliation.  And because it is political, depending on what side of the isle people lean, people will either justify the inequity of the application of the justice system (aka. deny it is happening), or they will question every single move by the justice system.

That's preposterous. The Republicans crying about a "two tiered justice system" are horrified at the prospect that wealthy Republican Donald Trump will be tried for his many, many crimes. It makes them look bad by association, you know. They are bitching about a two tiered system they are trying to enforce for their own purposes, creampuff trials in front of rightwing judges (like Cannon) for their own, and hardcore trials for the rest of us. Trump should've been in jail long ago for illegally disclosing Top Secret information to foreign nationals (which he did multiple times at Mar A Lago, including on recordings). If anybody else did that they'd be in Ft Leavenworth awaiting trail. Trump consistently violated his gag order and has inspired stochastic terrorism, and never got thrown in jail or even seriously fined. If anybody is benefiting from a two tiered system, it's Donald Trump. Hypocrisy, thou art Republican. The REAL two tiered justice system is the one in which poor people are tried and sentenced for crimes that rich people routinely buy themselves out of. 

[Offthemat]

19 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

These two are easy:  the alternates are included in the judge's responses in case they are called to sit in the actual deliberations, they have all the same information.  Written instructions apparently aren't allowed in New York, except in certain circumstances and "remain a minefield for judges" which can end up in convictions being overturned if they're given.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/nyregion/written-jury-instructions-trump-judge.html

Well sure.  Kinda like using a private email server to avoid FOIA.  

[mspart]

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/30/a-manhattan-canned-hunt-the-trump-jury-is-out-but-is-the-case-in-the-bag/

First, the judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime.

Second, the judge said that he would instruct the jury on the law but then omitted the key elements that established there was no federal campaign violation. Indeed, the blocked legal expert, Ben Smith, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, was going to testify that this could not have been a federal election violation. Moreover, even if Trump’s legal settlement money could be viewed as a federal campaign contribution, it could not have been part of a conspiracy to influence the election since any reporting of a contribution would have had to occur after the election.

Third, not only can the jury disagree as to what occurred, but one of the three crimes is so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room. The prosecutors zapped a dead misdemeanor back into life by claiming a violation under New York’s election law 17-152. The argument is that the crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, that other crime can be the falsification of business records. So the jury (or some jurors, at least) could find that some documents were falsified as an unlawful means of falsifying other documents.

Finally, Merchan is allowing conviction based on a  “general intent” to defraud “any person or entity,” a dangerously vague concept in this novel criminal case. Merchan has largely stuck to the standard jury instructions but this case is anything but standard. With an ambiguous claim of “influencing” an election, a general intent instruction without better definition to this case can be an invitation for bias.

In other words, Merchan told the jury that it wasn't important that they find Trump did something unanimously because the prosecution has never really been clear on what is being alleged so there is ambiguity there.   Since when are charges ambiguous?   Since never.   That is where you can find folks on right leaning media and left leaning media wondering exactly what the allegations are in this case.  

I think just these 4 points are ammo for an appeal.

mspart

 

[WrestlingRasta]

9 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/30/a-manhattan-canned-hunt-the-trump-jury-is-out-but-is-the-case-in-the-bag/

First, the judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime.

Second, the judge said that he would instruct the jury on the law but then omitted the key elements that established there was no federal campaign violation. Indeed, the blocked legal expert, Ben Smith, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, was going to testify that this could not have been a federal election violation. Moreover, even if Trump’s legal settlement money could be viewed as a federal campaign contribution, it could not have been part of a conspiracy to influence the election since any reporting of a contribution would have had to occur after the election.

Third, not only can the jury disagree as to what occurred, but one of the three crimes is so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room. The prosecutors zapped a dead misdemeanor back into life by claiming a violation under New York’s election law 17-152. The argument is that the crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, that other crime can be the falsification of business records. So the jury (or some jurors, at least) could find that some documents were falsified as an unlawful means of falsifying other documents.

Finally, Merchan is allowing conviction based on a  “general intent” to defraud “any person or entity,” a dangerously vague concept in this novel criminal case. Merchan has largely stuck to the standard jury instructions but this case is anything but standard. With an ambiguous claim of “influencing” an election, a general intent instruction without better definition to this case can be an invitation for bias.

In other words, Merchan told the jury that it wasn't important that they find Trump did something unanimously because the prosecution has never really been clear on what is being alleged so there is ambiguity there.   Since when are charges ambiguous?   Since never.   That is where you can find folks on right leaning media and left leaning media wondering exactly what the allegations are in this case.  

I think just these 4 points are ammo for an appeal.

mspart

 

Is Truly quoting actual full court transcripts, or is this just what Turley is saying on his website? 

Edited May 30 by WrestlingRasta

[VakAttack]

8 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/30/a-manhattan-canned-hunt-the-trump-jury-is-out-but-is-the-case-in-the-bag/

First, the judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime.

Second, the judge said that he would instruct the jury on the law but then omitted the key elements that established there was no federal campaign violation. Indeed, the blocked legal expert, Ben Smith, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, was going to testify that this could not have been a federal election violation. Moreover, even if Trump’s legal settlement money could be viewed as a federal campaign contribution, it could not have been part of a conspiracy to influence the election since any reporting of a contribution would have had to occur after the election.

Third, not only can the jury disagree as to what occurred, but one of the three crimes is so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room. The prosecutors zapped a dead misdemeanor back into life by claiming a violation under New York’s election law 17-152. The argument is that the crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, that other crime can be the falsification of business records. So the jury (or some jurors, at least) could find that some documents were falsified as an unlawful means of falsifying other documents.

Finally, Merchan is allowing conviction based on a  “general intent” to defraud “any person or entity,” a dangerously vague concept in this novel criminal case. Merchan has largely stuck to the standard jury instructions but this case is anything but standard. With an ambiguous claim of “influencing” an election, a general intent instruction without better definition to this case can be an invitation for bias.

In other words, Merchan told the jury that it wasn't important that they find Trump did something unanimously because the prosecution has never really been clear on what is being alleged so there is ambiguity there.   Since when are charges ambiguous?   Since never.   That is where you can find folks on right leaning media and left leaning media wondering exactly what the allegations are in this case.  

I think just these 4 points are ammo for an appeal.

mspart

 

While I disagree with Turley's assertions (largely), you're 100% right there will be an appeal, and not unfairly; when new or unusual applications of the law come up, you want appeals to clarify for future guidance.

[WrestlingRasta]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

While I disagree with Turley's assertions (largely), you're 100% right there will be an appeal, and not unfairly; when new or unusual applications of the law come up, you want appeals to clarify for future guidance.

So, are you saying let the justice system fully play out??

[VakAttack]

Just now, WrestlingRasta said:

So, are you saying let the justice system fully play out??

Yes.  The political actors in this case have largely broken down as follows from my observations:

Democrats and Democrat adjacent nervous that he will be acquitted, but believing firmly he's guilty.

MAGA Republicans and adjacent pre-deciding that only a not guilty verdict or a hung jury is valid, a guilty verdict is meaningless, and believing the whole thing is a political witch hunt.

This is not helped by the fact that without videos from the courtroom, it's left wide open to bad faith actors taking commonplace criminal practice things and framing them as trying to attack Trump, like the alternate jurors thing.

 

For me, I would say that I THINK he's probably guilty of these charges, but don't think I particularly care one way or the other on what's alleged; I think the Georgia and documents cases are much more consequential.

 

[VakAttack]

25 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Well sure.  Kinda like using a private email server to avoid FOIA.  

I mean, the case that controls was decided in the 1980s.  Are you saying it was a plan hatched back then to get Trump 40 years later?

[ionel]

On 5/29/2024 at 7:56 AM, Paul158 said:

Who knows. One thing we know for sure is the media will be talking about it 24/7 for months. They might even melt down the airways if he is acquitted. Have a great day everyone. This has been quite an education for the American public.

Will he be found guilty? Will he be Acquitted (not guilty)? Will there be a hung jury?

You forgot the: Does it matter?

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I mean, the case that controls was decided in the 1980s.  Are you saying it was a plan hatched back then to get Trump 40 years later?

Was the FOIA avoiding private email server a plan to get Trump? 

[Paul158]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Will he be found guilty? Will he be Acquitted (not guilty)? Will there be a hung jury?

You forgot the: Does it matter?

I think acquittal would be nice. If he is guilty, it will be appealed immediately. I'm not sure what happens if it is a hung jury.

[ionel]

Just now, Paul158 said:

I think acquittal would be nice. If he is guilty, it will be appealed immediately. I'm not sure what happens if it is a hung jury.

But will it cange any votes or will he get more if found guilty?

[Paul158]

Just now, Paul158 said:

I think acquittal would be nice. If he is guilty, it will be appealed immediately. I'm not sure what happens if it is a hung jury.

I think it matters. if it is a hung jury we might get some relief from all the media overload. 

[mspart]

1 hour ago, NM1965 said:

Do you actually believe anything you wrote there? Do you think "the system" is coming after Trump and putting him on trial for things that are unspecified? How do you think things are done in this country? Do you think people are dragged away for trial without knowing what charges they face? That isn't a thing in the USA and if you believe it is then you are in error. 

 

I would like to believe you.   But my eyes tell me a different story.   The legal system is being used to damage a political enemy.  DOJ did not go after Trump for these charges.   Alvin Bragg ran his campaign to get Trump no matter what.  He was not willing to do this either at the beginning, nor was his predecessor.   But he finally did bring this case just in time to run right into the election.   I would like to believe you but my eyes tell me a different story.   I would like the criminal justice system to be blind.   But it is apparent it is not.  That's why the vague charges.   The inability for the parties to give jury instructions regarding the allegations that made any sense. 

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/04/16/pitch-legal-analysis-of-hush-money-trial-facing-former-president-donald-trump/

District Attorney Bragg’s indictment charges Trump with 34 felony counts, each of which relates to a business record disguising a payment made to Cohen as attorney fees.  The indictment alleges that Trump disguised the payments with intent to cover up another crime.  But the indictment does not say what that other crime is.

...  I believe the District Attorney must show (1) that the payments were disguised as attorney fees to commit a fraud on someone, (2) that the underlying payments constituted an independent crime, (3) that Trump knew that the underlying payments constituted a crime, and (4) that the reason he covered up the payments was to disguise that crime.  Those are going to be hard things to prove.

Judge Merchan’s summary of the case for the jury glosses over all of these difficult statutory questions.  After being unable to get the parties to agree on the language of a statement to be read to the jurors to describe what the case is about, Judge Merchan decided to read the following statement to the jurors to summarize the case:

“The allegations reflect in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election. Specifically, it is alleged that Donald Trump made or caused false business records to hide the true nature of payments made to Michael Cohen, by characterizing them as payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement. The People allege that in fact, the payments were intended to reimburse Michael Cohen for money he paid to Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, in the weeks before the presidential election to prevent her from publicly revealing details about a past sexual encounter with Donald Trump.”

Judge Juan Merchan’s statement fails to explain when it is a crime to “unlawfully influence” an election?  Obviously, all politicians attempt to influence voters to vote for them.  Politicians regularly misstate facts and fail to disclose facts during their campaign.  The law has never allowed members of the public or the government to bring claims for fraud against politicians who make misleading or even downright false statements; indeed our laws broadly protect campaign speech under the First Amendment.

The judge could not even clearly state the issue and left out very important things like when is the allegation represent a crime to unlawfully influence an election.   But I don't need to justify myself to you.   You won't buy it.   But I would like to believe what you say about the justice system, I am just not seeing it.   You have DA's like Bragg that don't prosecute crimes (we had/have that here is Seattle), and allow criminals on the street to keep stealing and assaulting.  We have too many examples of this.   We have examples of Hillary and Joe with similar crimes to Trump not getting prosecuted but Trump is with tampered and placed evidence which is the subject of hearing in that court right now.   Selective prosecution is a thing and it is being done all over the country, but to have 4 cases against Trump during the election is manifestly political in nature.   You may not see it but I do.   And I don't even like him.  I wanted DeSantis for President.   But this is eggregious in nature.   The system has been corrupted to go after political enemies and the press does not call it out even though it is plain to see.   I want the justice system to be fair and impartial but that is not what I see happening. 

mspart

 

 

[Paul158]

2 minutes ago, ionel said:

But will it cange any votes or will he get more if found guilty?

At this point i don't think it changes any votes. Hey what is cange.LOL

[VakAttack]

4 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I think acquittal would be nice. If he is guilty, it will be appealed immediately. I'm not sure what happens if it is a hung jury.

If there's a hung jury on all counts, the DA has the option to try him again, though I personally doubt they would. 

[Paul158]

Just now, VakAttack said:

If there's a hung jury on all counts, the DA has the option to try him again, though I personally doubt they would. 

I appreciate that. Thanks.

[Offthemat]

5 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

If there's a hung jury on all counts, the DA has the option to try him again, though I personally doubt they would. 

That’s another point being brought up.  They could keep Trump off the campaign trail for eight more weeks. 

[ionel]

10 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

At this point i don't think it changes any votes. Hey what is cange.LOL

"cange" is what happens when you are at an outdoor pizza place in brigt sun light typing on a tony mart phone keeboard. 

[mspart]

Cohen's big lie about calling the Trump's security guard to discuss the payments backfired when it was shown he was complaining to the guard about some 14 year old harassing him and can he get secret service to do anything about it. 

The whole case on the prosecution side was hilarious.   Their witnesses ended up not saying what the prosecution wanted them to say or admit on cross that things were actually quite different.  

Even folks on MSNBC are wondering what the heck Bragg is doing.  https://dailycaller.com/2024/05/27/msnbc-alvin-bragg-donald-trump-acquittal/

Former Department of Justice spokesman Anthony Coley said prosecutors should be concerned that the presence of two lawyers on former President Donald Trump’s jury could contribute to an acquittal.

The panel of 12 jurors includes a young corporate law attorney and a civil litigation attorney in the trial pertaining to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s allegations Trump falsified business documents to conceal a payment to porn star Stormy Daniels. Coley on “Jonathan Lemire Reports” said the lawyers on the jury may overthink the case and have an outsized influence on other jurors, which could hurt the prosecution.

Now why would that be I wonder?   Because maybe lawyers can see through all the shenigans?   The case was not strong is what the legal analyst is saying. 

mspart

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

That’s another point being brought up.  They could keep Trump off the campaign trail for eight more weeks. 

Is there anybody in the country who doesn't know who Trump is?  Does he need to campaign?  Is just knowing that Dem's heads will explode enough for many to vote for him, even besides the anti Biden vote and that whole lesser of two weasels thing?

[Offthemat]

13 minutes ago, mspart said:

I would like to believe you.   But my eyes tell me a different story.   The legal system is being used to damage a political enemy.  DOJ did not go after Trump for these charges.   Alvin Bragg ran his campaign to get Trump no matter what.  He was not willing to do this either at the beginning, nor was his predecessor.   But he finally did bring this case just in time to run right into the election.   I would like to believe you but my eyes tell me a different story.   I would like the criminal justice system to be blind.   But it is apparent it is not.  That's why the vague charges.   The inability for the parties to give jury instructions regarding the allegations that made any sense. 

https://news.syr.edu/blog/2024/04/16/pitch-legal-analysis-of-hush-money-trial-facing-former-president-donald-trump/

District Attorney Bragg’s indictment charges Trump with 34 felony counts, each of which relates to a business record disguising a payment made to Cohen as attorney fees.  The indictment alleges that Trump disguised the payments with intent to cover up another crime.  But the indictment does not say what that other crime is.

...  I believe the District Attorney must show (1) that the payments were disguised as attorney fees to commit a fraud on someone, (2) that the underlying payments constituted an independent crime, (3) that Trump knew that the underlying payments constituted a crime, and (4) that the reason he covered up the payments was to disguise that crime.  Those are going to be hard things to prove.

Judge Merchan’s summary of the case for the jury glosses over all of these difficult statutory questions.  After being unable to get the parties to agree on the language of a statement to be read to the jurors to describe what the case is about, Judge Merchan decided to read the following statement to the jurors to summarize the case:

“The allegations reflect in substance, that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election. Specifically, it is alleged that Donald Trump made or caused false business records to hide the true nature of payments made to Michael Cohen, by characterizing them as payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a retainer agreement. The People allege that in fact, the payments were intended to reimburse Michael Cohen for money he paid to Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, in the weeks before the presidential election to prevent her from publicly revealing details about a past sexual encounter with Donald Trump.”

Judge Juan Merchan’s statement fails to explain when it is a crime to “unlawfully influence” an election?  Obviously, all politicians attempt to influence voters to vote for them.  Politicians regularly misstate facts and fail to disclose facts during their campaign.  The law has never allowed members of the public or the government to bring claims for fraud against politicians who make misleading or even downright false statements; indeed our laws broadly protect campaign speech under the First Amendment.

The judge could not even clearly state the issue and left out very important things like when is the allegation represent a crime to unlawfully influence an election.   But I don't need to justify myself to you.   You won't buy it.   But I would like to believe what you say about the justice system, I am just not seeing it.   You have DA's like Bragg that don't prosecute crimes (we had/have that here is Seattle), and allow criminals on the street to keep stealing and assaulting.  We have too many examples of this.   We have examples of Hillary and Joe with similar crimes to Trump not getting prosecuted but Trump is with tampered and placed evidence which is the subject of hearing in that court right now.   Selective prosecution is a thing and it is being done all over the country, but to have 4 cases against Trump during the election is manifestly political in nature.   You may not see it but I do.   And I don't even like him.  I wanted DeSantis for President.   But this is eggregious in nature.   The system has been corrupted to go after political enemies and the press does not call it out even though it is plain to see.   I want the justice system to be fair and impartial but that is not what I see happening. 

mspart

 

 

Do you believe for a minute that Mathew Colangelo saw moving from #3 at the DoG to Alvin Bragg’s assistant as a promotion?  Or that this is not all orchestrated through the White House?