ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Verdict Predictions

Your choice?

  • Guilty

    Votes: 42 35.9%
  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 9 7.7%
  • Hung Jury/Mistrial

    Votes: 66 56.4%

  • Total voters
    117
The guy from the Enquirer and Trump’s administrative asst. pretty much backed up what “the porn star” and “the guy who admittedly lied” said and the Trump team had no rebuttals (except ignoring their testimony).
Now it only takes one to hang the jury…and OJ was found innocent so things look good for Trump. But Faulty, I am sure you know what I know….the Orange Turd conspired to cover up illegal payments to “the porn star”….
But…That’s not what he’s being charged with though. They’re trying to thread the needle of proving he made the payment to help his campaign and knowingly break a NY State campaign finance law rather than doing it just to spare his family embarrassment. And if he knew all about that law he would have known that this wouldn’t have been discovered until AFTER the election, making it useless to hide.

And that right there is already “reasonable doubt”.
 
Even the talking legal heads on CNN said there’s plenty of reasonable doubt. 7-5 against conviction.

Regardless, the country’s still fooked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn
1. I have no doubt trump knowingly paid stormy Daniels to be quiet about their sexy time...o_O (no pukeface emoji).

2. This all seems like a real stretch, and I see why the feds passed it up.

3. The fact that the Judge and the Prosecutor stated their intention to get Trump shortly before any of this was brought up makes it feel more than a little slimy. This feels like an attack on a former president by a couple people in power with a political agenda, and that's not a good precedent to set.

I voted "guilty," but I don't think that's what's best for anyone involved.
Paying Stormy isn't a crime, and the defense never denied she was paid. The counts are all falsifying business records in furtherance of another crime, which hasn't been clearly stated yet, but based on final arguments, is election fraud.

This has been one of the most bizarre cases I've ever followed. The indictment never said what the additional crime is, or cited the statute, or spelled out how the statute was violated. The prosecution never spelled out the additional crime during opening arguments, or during the trial, but only made mention of it in a non-specific way during closing arguments. There's a rumor the jury instructions will tell the jury they don't have to agree on what the additional crime actually is, but just that some additional crime was committed. I'm not sure the defense asked for a directed verdict, which is usually standard procedure. It's just crazy.
 
How long will the jury be out before returning a verdict?

Is a quick verdict more likely a guilty or not guilty?

How many jurors speak to the media afterward?

12 hours in the room.

Quick is generally a not guilty in situations like this.

None if they are smart.
 
this has been stated over and over and over and over

the feds didn't "pass it up"...a political body (the FEC) behind 2 trump appointees decided to just not pursue campaign finance violations related to the allegations in this case

this was not federal prosecutors or a federal grand jury examining evidence and deciding there wasn't enough to pursue...this was a political body doing exactly what it was meant to do (protect the guy who appointed them)


also...when did the judge come out and say he was going to "get Trump"?

people love just making stuff up about the case to justify how they already feel
Or refusing to learn when something is explained to them.
 
The porn star who added nothing and the guy who admittedly lied and stole and perjured himself previously. Only the best witnesses. No idea why the Feds chose not to pursue the case with rock solid stuff like that.

You forget the thief and perjurer was a trusted employee of Trumps, hired to do shady things. The company controller, Alan Weisselberg was in jail for lying under oath and couldn't testifyt. Trump has been found guilty of fraud in a charity scam. Sounds like scumbags on both sides of this case and none of them have any credibility.
 
A bunch of guys, who weren't in the courtroom, thinking they know whether the evidence provided proved or didn't prove something is GIAOT at it's finest.
Dude, CNN has had a running commentary on everything said in the courtroom during the trial. Get over your weak ass self.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Tom Paris
But…That’s not what he’s being charged with though. They’re trying to thread the needle of proving he made the payment to help his campaign and knowingly break a NY State campaign finance law rather than doing it just to spare his family embarrassment. And if he knew all about that law he would have known that this wouldn’t have been discovered until AFTER the election, making it useless to hide.

And that right there is already “reasonable doubt”.
Perhaps… but “the Stare” has done a very credible job of “threading the needle” showing there was a payoff, Trump knew about the payoff and that the payoff was needed because Trump understood the savage the porn star infidelity story would do to his campaign. Your definition of reasonable doubt is different than mine…there is “reasonable doubt” that you or I will not wake up tomorrow.
 
Dude, CNN has had a running commentary on everything said in the courtroom during the trial. Get over your weak ass self.
Finance… were you “in the court room”? Having someone read excerpts from commentary in the court room is not “being there”…Sineonevwith a job, like Paris was not privy to what you speak of. Gelksbelks, I’m retired… I never paid attention to the trial “live” as there was living a life to be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
You forget the thief and perjurer was a trusted employee of Trumps, hired to do shady things. The company controller, Alan Weisselberg was in jail for lying under oath and couldn't testifyt. Trump has been found guilty of fraud in a charity scam. Sounds like scumbags on both sides of this case and none of them have any credibility.
Who could have predicted that an Executive Vice President and the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Org. would be convicted of multiple felonies, including fraud and perjury, and eventually serve jail time?

Those two officers unfairly sullied the owner’s otherwise sterling reputation. That’s the real crime here.
 
Finance… were you “in the court room”? Having someone read excerpts from commentary in the court room is not “being there”…Sineonevwith a job, like Paris was not privy to what you speak of. Gelksbelks, I’m retired… I never paid attention to the trial “live” as there was living a life to be done.
Yet you have made plenty of comments on the trial.....
 
But…That’s not what he’s being charged with though. They’re trying to thread the needle of proving he made the payment to help his campaign and knowingly break a NY State campaign finance law rather than doing it just to spare his family embarrassment. And if he knew all about that law he would have known that this wouldn’t have been discovered until AFTER the election, making it useless to hide.

And that right there is already “reasonable doubt”.
It's pretty clear this was done to benefit the campaign rather than his family. Peckers testimony showed that. And it's not required that he knew the exact law he was breaking. Just that he was falsifying financial records to suppress information that might be of high interest to the voters. On that, the prosecution easily met that standard.
 
It's pretty clear this was done to benefit the campaign rather than his family. Peckers testimony showed that. And it's not required that he knew the exact law he was breaking. Just that he was falsifying financial records to suppress information that might be of high interest to the voters. On that, the prosecution easily met that standard.
No. He’s charged with “falsifying financial records with intent of covering up a crime” and the prosecution can’t and won’t even say what crime he was covering up.

The finance controller who testified, under oath, that as soon as he saw a payment to Cohen’s name HE put it under “legal expenses” automatically and was not instructed to do so by Trump or anyone else.

Reasonable doubt right there.

And again, the Federal government has a 98% win rate on cases they bring and decided against it because reasonable doubt is pretty much impossible to overcome.
 
I think it comes down to the jury composition. 1 MAGA nut or 12 lefty nuts and none of the details of this case matter.
 
If I was on the jury. Most of the testimony would be noise to me. The documents is what speaks volumes. Did Cohen pay Daniels . Did Cohen get reimbursed from Trump. Was it falsely accounted for. Etc etc. Then I look at what the charges are. Do they fit what happened here.
All of the colorful characters and theatrics aren’t what I’m basing a decision on.
 
Sbarros. The home of authentic NYC Pizza ;)

3e6eaa20a65d61997fff6009315d5ccd.jpg
 
No. He’s charged with “falsifying financial records with intent of covering up a crime” and the prosecution can’t and won’t even say what crime he was covering up.

The finance controller who testified, under oath, that as soon as he saw a payment to Cohen’s name HE put it under “legal expenses” automatically and was not instructed to do so by Trump or anyone else.

Reasonable doubt right there.

And again, the Federal government has a 98% win rate on cases they bring and decided against it because reasonable doubt is pretty much impossible to overcome.
The controller said that Trump personally had to sign off on any checks over $10k, that he paid close attention what was being paid, and that the payments for Cohen were out of the typical pattern in which he was usually paid. Trump signed the checks, he wanted to story gone, and the checks were reported as legal expenses when they weren't. His defense hasn't even given a plausible reason how he signed the checks without knowing what they were. There's not reasonable doubt at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nu2u
This seems like a weird take on the law; they should have charged with 15 or 20 crimes if it’s allowed to cherry pick Guilty votes from multiple charges in order to come up with a ‘unanimous’ total of 12 (via Politico).

Prosecutors initially laid out four possible predicate crimes, one of which the judge ruled out before trial. The remaining possibilities are a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.

Defense lawyer Emil Bove argued that jurors should have to agree on a single predicate offense. But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the law doesn't require that.

“The importance of the case is not a basis for deviating from the standard application of the law,” Colangelo said. “There’s no reason to rewrite the law for this case.”

Merchan agreed with the prosecution and said he won't impose the requirement the defense requested.

In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.
 
this has been stated over and over and over and over

the feds didn't "pass it up"...a political body (the FEC) behind 2 trump appointees decided to just not pursue campaign finance violations related to the allegations in this case

this was not federal prosecutors or a federal grand jury examining evidence and deciding there wasn't enough to pursue...this was a political body doing exactly what it was meant to do (protect the guy who appointed them)


also...when did the judge come out and say he was going to "get Trump"?

people love just making stuff up about the case to justify how they already feel
To be honest, that poster believes his superhero is worth 8 billion dollars. So, it's not likely, he is capable of relevant thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McLovin32 and Ree4
The porn star who added nothing and the guy who admittedly lied and stole and perjured himself previously. Only the best witnesses. No idea why the Feds chose not to pursue the case with rock solid stuff like that.
The gal Trump banged and his best employee for years, you mean?

I would think they make for pretty good witnesses.

Of course they are cretinous liars - that is all Trump surrounds himself with.

This is like a mob trial - all those involved are shady and shitty.

Which really is just another thing to put on the pile of why it’s insane this piece of shit is a major party POTUS candidate and a great indictment on the failures of the GOP.
 
This seems like a weird take on the law; they should have charged with 15 or 20 crimes if it’s allowed to cherry pick Guilty votes from multiple charges in order to come up with a ‘unanimous’ total of 12 (via Politico).

Prosecutors initially laid out four possible predicate crimes, one of which the judge ruled out before trial. The remaining possibilities are a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law.

Defense lawyer Emil Bove argued that jurors should have to agree on a single predicate offense. But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said the law doesn't require that.

“The importance of the case is not a basis for deviating from the standard application of the law,” Colangelo said. “There’s no reason to rewrite the law for this case.”

Merchan agreed with the prosecution and said he won't impose the requirement the defense requested.


In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.
Why is that a weird take?
 
  • Like
Reactions: millah_22
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT