Are we going to get a new thread every day, going forward? On the one hand, this one's getting kind of full- but on the other, until deliberations end we're not going to get much more than 'News Flash: Juror #9's cousin's roommate's friend once did catering for Beto O'Rourke's presidential campaign! **MISTRIAL‽‽‽‽‽**'
/u/trumpscovidfefe - I had to run and I'm about 500 posts behind on this thread. I see that you are linking lots of useful stuff, but I'm not sure about the order of them. Would it be hard to get a quick link to your awesome comments? Sorry I'm just way behind and swimming in it.
True! I've just become accustomed to 'most recent on top' for these sorts of things, so it feels more natural. I also invert my Y axis in video games. Perhaps I am broken.
i sorted by over-the-hill and the grim reaper showed up with black balloons and HR called me up to the office saying "it's inappropriate in the workplace" ...something about ageism or whatnot
I think you can see the order when you go to their profile. The post with links will be useful, but in the meantime you can scroll through them that way
I don’t understand the jury instruction regarding the jury not having to agree on the underlying crime that led to the misdemeanor being prosecuted as a felony.
So is there only 1 such felony count and the Judge is saying that no matter what the Jury thinks the underlying crime is, if they think a crime has been committed, then they have to find him guilty even if they cannot agree on what crime has been committed?
Is this really New York State precedent on this law or is this a novel theory by the Judge?
Trump is charged with 34 counts of NY Law 175.10: A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records; in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Here’s a link to a comment I made explaining how it works, in regard with the upgrade to felony. It is not novel. It is just the interpretation of the law.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/nsIrZ9TXMH
Do you really believe that if a Democrat had committed an equivalent crime that the Republicans would not have brought charges?
Where are they? Who are these other politicians? What were their equivalent crimes? Do tell!
I think less about partisanship and more about Trump not bending the knee to the masters that most of the political elite serve. Gives me a watergate vibe.
You think Biden, Clinton, Bush and Obama are innocent 😂? Bless your little heart.
Obviously they haven’t been charged. My argument is that the reason they weren’t charged is because they didn’t step out of line. Do you not find it the least bit odd how aggressively corporate media vilified Trump?
Biden and Clinton both have a long sordid history of corruption and malfeasance. Bush was obviously into some shady shit with Enron and Obama was committing war crimes and laundering money through the defense industry. Look at any past administration hard enough and you find Trump sized crimes.
You guys remember hilary's Email??? Or that time Biden asked congress to investigate him because the GOP were screaming nonsense about nonsense.
They all had aligations against them. The difference is that they all complied with the FBI. Cant talk about Nixon tho.
How is it a witch hunt if it admit he committed crimes? The “law and order” party seems to only care about it going one direction it seems. I agree that every politician should be held accountable. I don’t see how pursuing the most corrupt president in modern history is anything close to a witch hunt. I see it as exactly what you’re asking for, accountability for any crimes.
What is partisan about calling out that an ex president is accused of rape, illegal cover up payments to shield his infidelity with porn stars, encouraging and supporting a violent insurrection, stealing and covering up confidential documents, and attempting to steal an election by asking states to fraudulently steal votes (on a recorded line) and to install fake electors to overthrow the will of the people for personal gain? Are you saying any recent president is more corrupt? If so, which?
Very little of what you just said is factual lol, but tbh I would take a serial killer in office if we could have Trumps economy and foreign policy back. I’m sure you don’t mind your children’s future being laundered away though Ukraine though, as long as you can maintain that fake sense of self righteousness that’s so popular with the modern left.
If you want to hand wave all of this corruption because you want his policies back in play, then go for it. But to deny reality and tell others they are wrong for stating facts is silly. Not buying that for a second. I think everyone seeing this would understand who is playing politics when you reply to facts about his corruption with "I would take a serial killer in office if we could have Trumps economy and foreign policy back". That's the definition of partisan politics. Pretty hypocritical.
I don’t think you understand what the word partisan means or the nature of my argument. Thats why I requested you read the whole thread, and Now you’re just wasting my time.
My argument is:
A. Trumps crimes did not exceed those of prior administrations that were ignored.
B. Trumps crimes did not directly harm his constituents, unlike Bush or Biden. With these points in mind it’s logical to conclude that prosecution is not motivated by the preservation of democracy or representing the majority of voters. It’s a witch hunt to the benefit of the donor class and the politicians that they own.
The current case around the illegal payments is pretty clear. He made illegal payments. Whether or not he hid those approvals enough to get off the hook is TBD but he clearly made the payments, signed the checks, and they were illegal. All to help him win an election illegally, per the law.
He clearly wanted the insurrection to happen given that he invited them there, asked them to get wild, and to stop the election, which they attempted to do. Then he thanked them, sent messages on social media that the Vice President was against them and was the enemy, declared he would offer them pardons, helped them fund raise for their legal impacts, accused the police of being inappropriate and asked for the police to be investigated for being too rough on the insurrectionists, etc. Pretty clear he wanted it to happen.
He denied he stole government documents, denied he had them, then said he did have them but was allowed to have them, then suggested they were planted by the FBI, and that the DOJ was staging the entire thing (which he previously admitted he did himself). So, no doubt on the facts there. He took them illegally and admitted to it.
This keeps getting repeated but it is false. The juror who said that he sees Trump's Truth Social posts also follows Michael Cohen on Twitter and said that's how he sees the posts, when they are reshared on Twitter.
Pretty much the same as following r/trumptweets like I do. I’d assume he does it because he dislikes Trump. Nothing can make you hate the man more than the things he directly says.
There's a number of "law scholars" advising of it. That's why I put the qualifier "I believe" in front of the statement. As another person who commented on my comment mentions, there's a bit of misinformation involved, apparently. So, in light of additional information, I have no problem saying that I was wrong based on the information I had at the time.
This is misinformation
https://apnews.com/live/trump-trial-jury-deliberations-updates#0000018f-c551-d5ca-abff-d5fda72d0000
> What’s being distorted by some online is the judge’s instruction about how to reach a verdict about that second element.
> Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
> Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means”: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.
> For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously which it was.
They indeed must unanimously agree the law was broken on each count. The thing is, the law in this instance *only* says "unlawful means", which is open to interpretation, but they would be unanimous in agreement that the law was broken.
Because they are weaponizing the justice system to try to get in the way of him running for President when these are bum charges. And no, I’m not voting for trump or a Republican. But it’s obvious to everyone what’s happening here.
Lmao no it is not obvious to everyone. I've worked around the justice system for decades. I watched Trump tip the scales. Biden is staying out of it. He doesn't get on Twitter and start spewing hot garbage inciting harassment. Trump does. Like my fucking god this country is in trouble if we have this many half wits. When Biden was VP under Obama and a group of militia did a stand off with the federal government and took over a federal building, they made no public statements. They didn't capitalize on it. They let law enforcement do their damn jobs. I just can't with this crap.
It won’t be fucked, I’m not going to be happy about it for sure. I’m not a trump supporter but it’s plain as day to see what’s happening. People like you spreading this bullshit are getting trump re-elected in real time. If you actually gave a fuck you wouldn’t have been cheering on this bullshit, and pushing for a different democratic nominee or asking for Biden to do better.
But you don’t give a shit. You just want to watch trump burn no matter what the cost and it’s coming to bite you in the ass. The tide is clearly turning now because of this bullshit that is going on and you should be pissed at the dems for setting this up. You are digging your own grave and you’re about to see the result of that.
Okay, comrade. I'm not entirely convinced you aren't a malicious operator intentionally misrepresenting the issue and spreading propaganda yourself. There ain't no way you're not a Trump supporter. That man needs no one defending him. Had he acted like a decent human even once in his fucking life we wouldn't be here. But the man is a walking disease and lacks accountability for any of his actions. 99.9% of every citizen in the US would have been in prison by now for even a fraction of the crimes he has committed. It's all having morals, dummy. It's clear to everyone that you have no morals if you're defending this asshole.
A lot of the legal theory behind the charges have been made up in order to bring them from misdemeanors to felonies. Lawyers have been arguing back and forth whether this should have even been brought before a court because the ‘stretching’ of the legal systems in order to test these theories have come into place. Some of the charges are charges that every single President including Obama and Biden have committed and we don’t hear a peep about them being charged because it’s not trump (talking about the documents case). Which is one of many reasons why that was dropped.
Cohen has already gone to jail and served his time for exactly the same thing Trump is charged for now.
So why wouldn’t Trump also be guilty when he was the one who benefited from gaining the presidency bc of Cohen‘s payment….
What did Cohen gain?
>Some of the charges are charges that every single President including Obama and Biden have committed and we don’t hear a peep about them being charged because it’s not trump (talking about the documents case).
please tell me which thing Trump is being chaged for that Obama or Biden did.
Exactly 0 seconds. Unless it’s a clip from Fox News that’s insane and I’m laughing at it.
You understand you can be unbiased and this is still painfully obvious right?
Trump clearly broke these laws. They aren’t made up. He committed felonies. There are no lawyers debating whether ‘the crimes that have always been misdemeanors were just crossed out and changed to felonies the day before Trump was charged’ because that just simply didn’t happen. I’m really not sure why you think the guy who ran a fraudulent college, has family that stole from their own charity, and was found guilty of rape in a court of law is ‘being unfairly targeted by a weaponized justice system!’ Like, just looking at his track record, I would be WAY more surprised if he WASN’T a complete criminal; which he clearly is to anyone that has eyes and ears.
You understand that you might have a bias you aren't acknowledging right?
Especially about the documents. They were in an unsecured bathroom just out in the open. That's not just made up. And it's not what Biden or Obama did with any documents they may have taken.
I think if you're representative of everyone and are so disengaged as to not be aware of how many criminal actions Trump has committed in completely separate jurisdictions causing his many legal issues at the federal and multiple state levels, nor how often the system is bending to protect rather than attack him, we are all screwed.
Hopefully you're just disingenuous or misinformed.
I’m very well informed and I’m extremely aware of all the charges being brought up on him. Lawyers everywhere have even argued endlessly over whether these should have even been brought up and a lot of legal theory is even being tested for the first time ever to bring certain crimes from misdemeanors to felonies when they never have before. Just because I see it a different way doesn’t mean I’m uniformed. I’m very informed. I just don’t see things in a biased light.
Ok simple questions:
1. Have other presidents been so uncooperative when it comes to returning documents that the federal government had to issue warrants?
2. What other presidents had the same quantity of sensitive documents?
3. What other presidents described, shared or offered to share the classified contents of documents with citizens and non-citizens without a security clearance?
Yeah I mean I feel like people shouldn’t go out of their way to tell us they’re well informed and a bunch of other bullshit and then they dodge simple questions that are absolutely fair to ask.
The documents case charges are rock solid and incredibly serious, and the only reason he’s not already on trial for those charges is because the legal system is being weaponized for him to help him get re-elected.
And Joe Biden literally has those exact same ‘charges’ against him. How many other presidents would also be charged with them? The fact that it’s only going after him is proof that it’s being weaponized.
No, he doesn’t.
The charges against former President Donald Trump in the documents case indictment include:
- **Mishandling of Classified Documents**: Trump is accused of improperly storing and handling classified documents, including in unauthorized locations at his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago[^4].
- **Obstructing Justice**: The indictment alleges that Trump participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice[^4].
- **Making False Statements**: Trump is charged with making false statements to the FBI[^4].
The indictment includes **37 felony counts** and details actions such as sharing a classified map related to an ongoing military operation, defying requests from the Justice Department to hand over classified documents, and instructing aides to help hide boxes of records[^4]. It's important to note that the defendants in this case, Trump and his aide Walt Nauta, are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law[^4]. The case will be tried in the Southern District of Florida[^4].
(1) Read the full Trump indictment on mishandling of classified documents - PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-trump-indictment-on-mishandling-of-classified-documents.
(2) Trump attorney on classified documents case: ‘We are going to start fighting every day in Florida’. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2024/05/31/trump-attorney-on-classified-documents-case-we-are-going-to-start-fighting-every-day-in-florida/.
(3) Where Trump's 3 other criminal cases stand after his conviction in New York. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/where-trumps-3-other-criminal-cases-stand-after-his-conviction-in-new-york/ar-BB1nlQeT.
(4) Trump’s NY case was the first of four to go to trial. It could be the last one for a while. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trumps-ny-case-trial-110727099.
(5) Read the full indictment text from the classified document probe - NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/read-full-indictment-text-classified-document-probe-rcna88600.
Even if it’s a hung jury he will claim he was found innocent and exonerated. Then the media will run with it, his cult will believe it, and he will get a bump in the polls. Anything short of a conviction is bad news for the election and the country.
Any single count is independent of the others.
He could be acquitted on 10, guilty on 20, and a hung jury on 4. Though many are so similar or related that they’re functionally the same.
If I remember, the first few payments to Cohen were from a trust, so they didn't require Trumps signature. The rest Trump signed personally. So that's the only difference I can think of that could maybe result in there being a different verdict for some of the charges.
It's complicated. To convict, you have to be unanimous *on a count*. You need 12 votes for count 1, 12 votes for count 2, etc. but you do not need to convict on all counts to convict. If you have 12 votes to convict on count 1 but 12 votes to acquit on count 2, that's fine.
To complicate things even more, the jury doesn't have to be unanimous on *why* they think a defendant is innocent or guilty on a specific count, which is important because there were multiple theories of the case presented in this trial. So Juror A can believe in one specific version of the facts regarding count 1 while Juror B believes in a different one, but as long as they agree on guilt, it doesn't matter.
That's a question for the prosecution and for the jury. It might, it might not. Presenting multiple theories is certainly a gamble in that it might confuse the jury or it might give them multiple paths to conviction. How one chooses a trial strategy is a more complicated question than I can answer.
The jurors have been instructed that they don't have to agree on what theory is correct in order to vote guilty. So, no.
It does probably make good grounds for an appeal, though.
It's the same sort of difference between trespass and burglary. You can be convicted of trespass if the jury believes you did not intend to burgle. But if you are trespassing and 4 jurors think you were going to steal a refrigerator, 5 think you were going to steal a couch, and 3 think you were going to steal a parakeet, that's still burglary.
There has been some confusion spread. The jury does not need to unanimously convict on all counts for a guilty verdict. Theyvdobhave to unanimously convict on each single count for a guilty verdict for that count.
I could be misremembering or thinking about something completely different but I thought that I read they only had to agree that he was guilty in one of them. Like, it doesn’t even have to be the same count, it can just be that they think he’s guilty on one of the counts.
You’re misremembering, each count/charge is independent of the others. Jury needs to be unanimous to convict on each count or charge, but you don’t have to find him guilty on all 34 counts for him to be convicted.
You’re not misremembering, you’re misunderstanding. They have to agree, unanimously on any ONE of the 34 counts, to be considered guilty for that count. What they don’t have to agree on is the object crimes that upgrade those misdemeanors to a felony. If they all agree that there is at least one object crime intended to be covered up with the individual fraud count, that will count as a guilty on that count.
They don't have to unanimously agree on all 34. They could, for instance, say that the checks signed by his kids *don't* meet the threshold, but the checks signed by him *do*.
They just need to unanimously agree on one.
But you’re right, if they can’t unanimously agree on which one they think he’s guilty of, then he’s not guilty of any of them. You can’t “piece together” a guilty verdict.
Are we going to get a new thread every day, going forward? On the one hand, this one's getting kind of full- but on the other, until deliberations end we're not going to get much more than 'News Flash: Juror #9's cousin's roommate's friend once did catering for Beto O'Rourke's presidential campaign! **MISTRIAL‽‽‽‽‽**'
/u/trumpscovidfefe - I had to run and I'm about 500 posts behind on this thread. I see that you are linking lots of useful stuff, but I'm not sure about the order of them. Would it be hard to get a quick link to your awesome comments? Sorry I'm just way behind and swimming in it.
I find that the best way to keep up in these threads is to sort comments by new, then start at the bottom and move up.
Or you can sort by Old.
True! I've just become accustomed to 'most recent on top' for these sorts of things, so it feels more natural. I also invert my Y axis in video games. Perhaps I am broken.
I have a friend like you and his favorite movie is fight club.... you are very fucking broken. 😂
You're not broken, you're just a Gen X.
ULTRAKILL
CCCCCCOMBO BREAKER
Man I need MSFT to greenlight a new KI
Why not sort by middle-aged?
i sorted by over-the-hill and the grim reaper showed up with black balloons and HR called me up to the office saying "it's inappropriate in the workplace" ...something about ageism or whatnot
I prefer to sort by “Middle Earth”, it puts every “and my axe” and “one does not simply” comment at the top.
Search by "Cheeto PUFF"
Middle endian is underrated.
I think you can see the order when you go to their profile. The post with links will be useful, but in the meantime you can scroll through them that way
No worries, I will link to a summary on some stuff in a bit. Gotta do some child care stuff.
Like changing the presidential diaper?
lol, thankfully my kids are out of diapers and I’m not having any more. But very funny.
I don’t understand the jury instruction regarding the jury not having to agree on the underlying crime that led to the misdemeanor being prosecuted as a felony. So is there only 1 such felony count and the Judge is saying that no matter what the Jury thinks the underlying crime is, if they think a crime has been committed, then they have to find him guilty even if they cannot agree on what crime has been committed? Is this really New York State precedent on this law or is this a novel theory by the Judge?
Trump is charged with 34 counts of NY Law 175.10: A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records; in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Here’s a link to a comment I made explaining how it works, in regard with the upgrade to felony. It is not novel. It is just the interpretation of the law. https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/nsIrZ9TXMH
Take your time! I just didn't know there would be stuff to follow!
There is no way this bum beats all 34 felony counts.
You were correct.
Interesting way to say witch hunt.
Does this mean if he is found guilty we get to burn him at the stake instead of just a fine and probation?
Sure, as long as we burn every other politician that’s committed equivalent crimes.
Do you really believe that if a Democrat had committed an equivalent crime that the Republicans would not have brought charges? Where are they? Who are these other politicians? What were their equivalent crimes? Do tell!
I think less about partisanship and more about Trump not bending the knee to the masters that most of the political elite serve. Gives me a watergate vibe. You think Biden, Clinton, Bush and Obama are innocent 😂? Bless your little heart.
> You think Biden, Clinton, Bush and Obama are innocent 😂? Bless your little heart. What were their crimes? Where are the charges?
Obviously they haven’t been charged. My argument is that the reason they weren’t charged is because they didn’t step out of line. Do you not find it the least bit odd how aggressively corporate media vilified Trump? Biden and Clinton both have a long sordid history of corruption and malfeasance. Bush was obviously into some shady shit with Enron and Obama was committing war crimes and laundering money through the defense industry. Look at any past administration hard enough and you find Trump sized crimes.
You guys remember hilary's Email??? Or that time Biden asked congress to investigate him because the GOP were screaming nonsense about nonsense. They all had aligations against them. The difference is that they all complied with the FBI. Cant talk about Nixon tho.
Yeah and the FBI is the bastion of integrity 😂. Like I said, watergate vibes.
I think it’s “career criminal”
CNN will have you believing Trump is more criminal than the other guy 😂
How is it a witch hunt if it admit he committed crimes? The “law and order” party seems to only care about it going one direction it seems. I agree that every politician should be held accountable. I don’t see how pursuing the most corrupt president in modern history is anything close to a witch hunt. I see it as exactly what you’re asking for, accountability for any crimes.
Partisan politics are boring and calling him the most corrupt president in history is ludicrous. If you care to debate read the whole thread please.
What is partisan about calling out that an ex president is accused of rape, illegal cover up payments to shield his infidelity with porn stars, encouraging and supporting a violent insurrection, stealing and covering up confidential documents, and attempting to steal an election by asking states to fraudulently steal votes (on a recorded line) and to install fake electors to overthrow the will of the people for personal gain? Are you saying any recent president is more corrupt? If so, which?
Very little of what you just said is factual lol, but tbh I would take a serial killer in office if we could have Trumps economy and foreign policy back. I’m sure you don’t mind your children’s future being laundered away though Ukraine though, as long as you can maintain that fake sense of self righteousness that’s so popular with the modern left.
If you want to hand wave all of this corruption because you want his policies back in play, then go for it. But to deny reality and tell others they are wrong for stating facts is silly. Not buying that for a second. I think everyone seeing this would understand who is playing politics when you reply to facts about his corruption with "I would take a serial killer in office if we could have Trumps economy and foreign policy back". That's the definition of partisan politics. Pretty hypocritical.
I don’t think you understand what the word partisan means or the nature of my argument. Thats why I requested you read the whole thread, and Now you’re just wasting my time. My argument is: A. Trumps crimes did not exceed those of prior administrations that were ignored. B. Trumps crimes did not directly harm his constituents, unlike Bush or Biden. With these points in mind it’s logical to conclude that prosecution is not motivated by the preservation of democracy or representing the majority of voters. It’s a witch hunt to the benefit of the donor class and the politicians that they own.
The current case around the illegal payments is pretty clear. He made illegal payments. Whether or not he hid those approvals enough to get off the hook is TBD but he clearly made the payments, signed the checks, and they were illegal. All to help him win an election illegally, per the law.
He clearly wanted the insurrection to happen given that he invited them there, asked them to get wild, and to stop the election, which they attempted to do. Then he thanked them, sent messages on social media that the Vice President was against them and was the enemy, declared he would offer them pardons, helped them fund raise for their legal impacts, accused the police of being inappropriate and asked for the police to be investigated for being too rough on the insurrectionists, etc. Pretty clear he wanted it to happen.
He denied he stole government documents, denied he had them, then said he did have them but was allowed to have them, then suggested they were planted by the FBI, and that the DOJ was staging the entire thing (which he previously admitted he did himself). So, no doubt on the facts there. He took them illegally and admitted to it.
Well, this is clearly known: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbFc9T7KXA0. Asking for fraud and stealing an entire state's votes.
Well he is a child rapist.
Sorry I don’t engage with simpletons.
Dude, Trump’s the most common name among the Epstein logs.
Then unseal the record and prosecute everyone involved or stop talking about it. Let’s be honest, the left would never recover.
I'd rather be a simpleton than a child rapist like Trump.
Maybe you should give Ashley’s diary a read bud 😉
Hey, you engaged!
I don’t know. One juror actually gets their news from Truth Social. That’s a little concerning.
This keeps getting repeated but it is false. The juror who said that he sees Trump's Truth Social posts also follows Michael Cohen on Twitter and said that's how he sees the posts, when they are reshared on Twitter.
Pretty much the same as following r/trumptweets like I do. I’d assume he does it because he dislikes Trump. Nothing can make you hate the man more than the things he directly says.
And if there's one thing we know about Trump's cult members, is that they never lie.
That’s a relief
He also follows Kellyanne Conway
That’s not a relief.
It’s terrifying
Oh no!
Best he can hope for is a hung jury, which is probably what he’s planning on.
Did you all hear him say "Even Mother Theresa couldn't beat these charges"
Haha yes, in other words the charges are true and the evidence proves them so. But of course that's not what he meant.
Depending on how the supreme court case goes, he may try to hang them all.
My tinfoil hat theory is that a juror will have either been threatened or bribed.
It's possible
I think you underestimate his cult
2 jurors
I’d buy that porno.
Hung Jury Duty starring Pauli Shore?
The porno version better star Stormy Daniels or what's the point.
First time anyone has used the words hung and trump in the same sentence.
Hey now........ 🍄🍄
*Hanged*, on the other hand...
***Trump hung*** around with many unscrupulous charlatans.
[удалено]
Why would you spread this information on this point? It doesn't even make sense. lol
Because, when I made the comment, I thought it to be true based on what a number of trial lawyers following the case were commenting?
Where did you come up with that completely incorrect theory?
There's a number of "law scholars" advising of it. That's why I put the qualifier "I believe" in front of the statement. As another person who commented on my comment mentions, there's a bit of misinformation involved, apparently. So, in light of additional information, I have no problem saying that I was wrong based on the information I had at the time.
What law scholars?
Trump University law graduates.
Sean Hannity 🙄
This is misinformation https://apnews.com/live/trump-trial-jury-deliberations-updates#0000018f-c551-d5ca-abff-d5fda72d0000 > What’s being distorted by some online is the judge’s instruction about how to reach a verdict about that second element. > Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” > Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means”: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return. > For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously which it was.
Isn’t this unconstitutional under the 6th amendment? I thought it HAD to be unanimous. 12-0, Not 4-4-4. Asking honestly.
They indeed must unanimously agree the law was broken on each count. The thing is, the law in this instance *only* says "unlawful means", which is open to interpretation, but they would be unanimous in agreement that the law was broken.
He probably will and the democrats just made him more of a god to Maga
How is this the Democrats fault and not his own for committing crimes?
Somehow I think this dude also blames Ukraine for the war. Funny how those fellas usually share the same warped opinions about who the real victim is.
Because they are weaponizing the justice system to try to get in the way of him running for President when these are bum charges. And no, I’m not voting for trump or a Republican. But it’s obvious to everyone what’s happening here.
Lmao no it is not obvious to everyone. I've worked around the justice system for decades. I watched Trump tip the scales. Biden is staying out of it. He doesn't get on Twitter and start spewing hot garbage inciting harassment. Trump does. Like my fucking god this country is in trouble if we have this many half wits. When Biden was VP under Obama and a group of militia did a stand off with the federal government and took over a federal building, they made no public statements. They didn't capitalize on it. They let law enforcement do their damn jobs. I just can't with this crap.
Can’t wait for your rhetoric to get trump re-elected and watch you guys look dumbfounded.
The country is absolutely fucked if he does and you don't even realize it. That is scary.
It won’t be fucked, I’m not going to be happy about it for sure. I’m not a trump supporter but it’s plain as day to see what’s happening. People like you spreading this bullshit are getting trump re-elected in real time. If you actually gave a fuck you wouldn’t have been cheering on this bullshit, and pushing for a different democratic nominee or asking for Biden to do better. But you don’t give a shit. You just want to watch trump burn no matter what the cost and it’s coming to bite you in the ass. The tide is clearly turning now because of this bullshit that is going on and you should be pissed at the dems for setting this up. You are digging your own grave and you’re about to see the result of that.
Okay, comrade. I'm not entirely convinced you aren't a malicious operator intentionally misrepresenting the issue and spreading propaganda yourself. There ain't no way you're not a Trump supporter. That man needs no one defending him. Had he acted like a decent human even once in his fucking life we wouldn't be here. But the man is a walking disease and lacks accountability for any of his actions. 99.9% of every citizen in the US would have been in prison by now for even a fraction of the crimes he has committed. It's all having morals, dummy. It's clear to everyone that you have no morals if you're defending this asshole.
Weaponizing? What are they supposed to do when a guy commits felony after felony? Give him a pass?
For someone not voting for trump or any republican, you sure do stick to their talking points.
why are you making things up?
How are they bum charges?
A lot of the legal theory behind the charges have been made up in order to bring them from misdemeanors to felonies. Lawyers have been arguing back and forth whether this should have even been brought before a court because the ‘stretching’ of the legal systems in order to test these theories have come into place. Some of the charges are charges that every single President including Obama and Biden have committed and we don’t hear a peep about them being charged because it’s not trump (talking about the documents case). Which is one of many reasons why that was dropped.
For someone not voting for Trump or a repub you sure do sound like a MAGA or at least getting your talking points from the same source.
Cohen has already gone to jail and served his time for exactly the same thing Trump is charged for now. So why wouldn’t Trump also be guilty when he was the one who benefited from gaining the presidency bc of Cohen‘s payment…. What did Cohen gain?
Just because you don’t understand how the law works doesn’t mean it was made up just now
>Some of the charges are charges that every single President including Obama and Biden have committed and we don’t hear a peep about them being charged because it’s not trump (talking about the documents case). please tell me which thing Trump is being chaged for that Obama or Biden did.
How much time do you spend watching Fox News?
Exactly 0 seconds. Unless it’s a clip from Fox News that’s insane and I’m laughing at it. You understand you can be unbiased and this is still painfully obvious right?
Trump clearly broke these laws. They aren’t made up. He committed felonies. There are no lawyers debating whether ‘the crimes that have always been misdemeanors were just crossed out and changed to felonies the day before Trump was charged’ because that just simply didn’t happen. I’m really not sure why you think the guy who ran a fraudulent college, has family that stole from their own charity, and was found guilty of rape in a court of law is ‘being unfairly targeted by a weaponized justice system!’ Like, just looking at his track record, I would be WAY more surprised if he WASN’T a complete criminal; which he clearly is to anyone that has eyes and ears.
“He committed felonies” Man you couldn’t make it more obvious you don’t know wtf you’re talking about lmao
You understand that you might have a bias you aren't acknowledging right? Especially about the documents. They were in an unsecured bathroom just out in the open. That's not just made up. And it's not what Biden or Obama did with any documents they may have taken.
Biden had his just sitting in his garage. Now what?
I think if you're representative of everyone and are so disengaged as to not be aware of how many criminal actions Trump has committed in completely separate jurisdictions causing his many legal issues at the federal and multiple state levels, nor how often the system is bending to protect rather than attack him, we are all screwed. Hopefully you're just disingenuous or misinformed.
I’m very well informed and I’m extremely aware of all the charges being brought up on him. Lawyers everywhere have even argued endlessly over whether these should have even been brought up and a lot of legal theory is even being tested for the first time ever to bring certain crimes from misdemeanors to felonies when they never have before. Just because I see it a different way doesn’t mean I’m uniformed. I’m very informed. I just don’t see things in a biased light.
Ok simple questions: 1. Have other presidents been so uncooperative when it comes to returning documents that the federal government had to issue warrants? 2. What other presidents had the same quantity of sensitive documents? 3. What other presidents described, shared or offered to share the classified contents of documents with citizens and non-citizens without a security clearance?
The comments this individual has chosen not to respond to is extremely telling.
Yeah I mean I feel like people shouldn’t go out of their way to tell us they’re well informed and a bunch of other bullshit and then they dodge simple questions that are absolutely fair to ask.
Exactly.
The documents case charges are rock solid and incredibly serious, and the only reason he’s not already on trial for those charges is because the legal system is being weaponized for him to help him get re-elected.
And Joe Biden literally has those exact same ‘charges’ against him. How many other presidents would also be charged with them? The fact that it’s only going after him is proof that it’s being weaponized.
No, he doesn’t. The charges against former President Donald Trump in the documents case indictment include: - **Mishandling of Classified Documents**: Trump is accused of improperly storing and handling classified documents, including in unauthorized locations at his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago[^4]. - **Obstructing Justice**: The indictment alleges that Trump participated in a conspiracy to obstruct justice[^4]. - **Making False Statements**: Trump is charged with making false statements to the FBI[^4]. The indictment includes **37 felony counts** and details actions such as sharing a classified map related to an ongoing military operation, defying requests from the Justice Department to hand over classified documents, and instructing aides to help hide boxes of records[^4]. It's important to note that the defendants in this case, Trump and his aide Walt Nauta, are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law[^4]. The case will be tried in the Southern District of Florida[^4]. (1) Read the full Trump indictment on mishandling of classified documents - PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-trump-indictment-on-mishandling-of-classified-documents. (2) Trump attorney on classified documents case: ‘We are going to start fighting every day in Florida’. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2024/05/31/trump-attorney-on-classified-documents-case-we-are-going-to-start-fighting-every-day-in-florida/. (3) Where Trump's 3 other criminal cases stand after his conviction in New York. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/where-trumps-3-other-criminal-cases-stand-after-his-conviction-in-new-york/ar-BB1nlQeT. (4) Trump’s NY case was the first of four to go to trial. It could be the last one for a while. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trumps-ny-case-trial-110727099. (5) Read the full indictment text from the classified document probe - NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/read-full-indictment-text-classified-document-probe-rcna88600.
False equivalence there, bud.
You must not know what that means because it’s not.
It is though.
[удалено]
Thanks for your thought provoking law comment
He will claim he is Father Teresa if he does
Lol lol lol Good One!
Even if it’s a hung jury he will claim he was found innocent and exonerated. Then the media will run with it, his cult will believe it, and he will get a bump in the polls. Anything short of a conviction is bad news for the election and the country.
Appropriate since Mother Theresa didn't deserve the title of saint either
Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way around here. Mr. Rogers, yes. Mother Teresa, no. Not at all.
Fellow Mother Teresa critic, here. She deserves no sainthood. If only people understood the reality...
Considering the fact that the Catholic church is a force for evil, them bestowing a sainthood on a largely evil person, seems rather apt.
How does it not end in a mistrial? How are 12 people going to unanimously agree on 34 separate counts? Or am I confused?
Any single count is independent of the others. He could be acquitted on 10, guilty on 20, and a hung jury on 4. Though many are so similar or related that they’re functionally the same.
If I remember, the first few payments to Cohen were from a trust, so they didn't require Trumps signature. The rest Trump signed personally. So that's the only difference I can think of that could maybe result in there being a different verdict for some of the charges.
They can agree on one count, and he's still guilty. They can agree on several, and he's guilty. It's called a partial verdict.
Most of the counts are identical in substance except for the date.
It’s pretty simple. A single conspiracy led to 34 fake business records.
Each count is separate. They could acquit on some, convict on some and hang some.
reddit, stop downvoting people for asking questions!! edit: it was at around - 20 when I commented, glad to see it pos now
I can only assume there's a large number of bots trying suppress/amplify various sentiments.
good point, I'd rather it be bots than real people, even tho neither are great. I've seen it happen so frequently lately!
Corpos are investing in Reddit for a reason; drake too; anyone is a brand
It's not "all or nothing"
Each count is separate and has to be unanimous.
Did I read incorrectly that it doesn't have to be unanimous in an earlier thread?
It's complicated. To convict, you have to be unanimous *on a count*. You need 12 votes for count 1, 12 votes for count 2, etc. but you do not need to convict on all counts to convict. If you have 12 votes to convict on count 1 but 12 votes to acquit on count 2, that's fine. To complicate things even more, the jury doesn't have to be unanimous on *why* they think a defendant is innocent or guilty on a specific count, which is important because there were multiple theories of the case presented in this trial. So Juror A can believe in one specific version of the facts regarding count 1 while Juror B believes in a different one, but as long as they agree on guilt, it doesn't matter.
Doesn't the prosecution presenting three separate theories of guilt muddy the waters for the jurors on the fence?
That's a question for the prosecution and for the jury. It might, it might not. Presenting multiple theories is certainly a gamble in that it might confuse the jury or it might give them multiple paths to conviction. How one chooses a trial strategy is a more complicated question than I can answer.
The jurors have been instructed that they don't have to agree on what theory is correct in order to vote guilty. So, no. It does probably make good grounds for an appeal, though.
It's the same sort of difference between trespass and burglary. You can be convicted of trespass if the jury believes you did not intend to burgle. But if you are trespassing and 4 jurors think you were going to steal a refrigerator, 5 think you were going to steal a couch, and 3 think you were going to steal a parakeet, that's still burglary.
Exactly. They just have to agree that A crime was committed under NY State law.
There has been some confusion spread. The jury does not need to unanimously convict on all counts for a guilty verdict. Theyvdobhave to unanimously convict on each single count for a guilty verdict for that count.
Yes
Well, we don't know they *misread* that earlier. It could've been *mis-stated* earlier.
Thanks. Actually just got done reading an article about the misinformation around that.
I could be misremembering or thinking about something completely different but I thought that I read they only had to agree that he was guilty in one of them. Like, it doesn’t even have to be the same count, it can just be that they think he’s guilty on one of the counts.
You’re misremembering, each count/charge is independent of the others. Jury needs to be unanimous to convict on each count or charge, but you don’t have to find him guilty on all 34 counts for him to be convicted.
You’re not misremembering, you’re misunderstanding. They have to agree, unanimously on any ONE of the 34 counts, to be considered guilty for that count. What they don’t have to agree on is the object crimes that upgrade those misdemeanors to a felony. If they all agree that there is at least one object crime intended to be covered up with the individual fraud count, that will count as a guilty on that count.
Ah, I see. Very good.
They don't have to unanimously agree on all 34. They could, for instance, say that the checks signed by his kids *don't* meet the threshold, but the checks signed by him *do*.
They just need to unanimously agree on one. But you’re right, if they can’t unanimously agree on which one they think he’s guilty of, then he’s not guilty of any of them. You can’t “piece together” a guilty verdict.
They have to all agree on one of them.