Three ways for the Jury to convict Trump

Poor Richard Saunders said:
You are free to criticize someone who is Jewish for things they actually do. When you make claims of them buying/owning people then you are simply being antisemitic. Soros is not Hitler's little love muffiin so that statement is antisemitic.
Click to expand...

Dude, you are Hitler.

You opposed Dershowitz.

Your rules - those of a 2 year old who can't grasp real life - but still your rules.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Apparently you have decided that the only evidence that exists is what you want to exist. Cohen called the bodyguard and then talked to Trump on the bodyguard's phone. Pictures from that day show Trump with his bodyguard.
The testimony by Cohen's former attorney was a mess with the judge having to clear the courtroom and reprimand the witness. His testimony is as problematic as Cohen's.
Apparently you missed the explanation from Stormy as to why she felt she had to deny the sex out of fear for her daughter's safety.
It's pretty clear what you have missed.

Claiming something isn't against the law that someone went to jail for isn't much of an argument and I doubt the jury would consider that proof that the crime doesn't exist.
Of course Cohen funded the NDA. You don't seem to realize that his fronting the money is evidence of trying to hide it from being listed as a campaign expense at the time.
I am not the one parroting stupid theories. I am talking about the evidence as a whole. Cohen has lied and committed perjury. That doesn't make his testimony false. It only makes it suspect and what other corroborating evidence exists to support it.

Cohen didn't cheat the company out of $60 grand. He cheated the vendor out of their full payment.

They jury will have heard all the evidence not just the parts you want to highlight. They will make their decision based on all the evidence. You will whine about how they ignored the evidence when it is you that is ignoring the mountain of evidence to concentrate on your molehill.
Click to expand...
Beyond that, i think Robert Costello, despite being a defense witness, Trump's legal team called (but apparently did not want to and was overridden by Trump), might well be the best witness the Prosecution could have hoped for.


Robert Costello’s testimony in Trump criminal trial a ‘disaster,’ experts say​

Costello’s fiery testimony made aspects of the prosecutors’ case even ‘stronger than it was,’ ...

Donald Trump’s biggest defense witness was a “disaster” for his New York criminal trial,..

Trump's attorneys called Robert Costello to the stand on Monday to bolster their argument that Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen acted alone when he paid hush-money to adult film star Stormy Daniels....

... Costello’s testimony actually bolstered the prosecution’s claim that Trump engaged in a pressure campaign to keep Cohen from telling federal prosecutors about the supposed scheme. “If anything, I think it made the people’s case on this whole pressure campaign issue even stronger than it was,”....

Costello, a lawyer who gave Cohen legal advice in 2018, testified Cohen told him Trump knew nothing about the payments to Daniels, and that he handled them on his own. Costello rebuked prosecutors’ claims that he was tasked by Trump to keep Cohen from cooperating.

But on cross-examination, prosecutors confronted Costello with emails that suggested otherwise.

“Our issue is to get Cohen on the right page without giving him the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the president,” Costello wrote in one 2018 email, referencing Trump and the then-president’s close aide Rudy Giuliani.

Grasso believes that Costello’s testimony opened the door for prosecutors to hammer home their account of the so-called pressure campaign even stronger.

“When Costello took the stand for the defense case and was confronted with those emails … he might have locked the prosecution’s narrative on that dynamic,” Grasso said.

That, coupled with Costello’s on-the-stand behavior, leads Grasso to believe that the jury was left with a bad taste in their mouths.
Click to expand...
 
Truth Detector said:
Have we ever had a court state to a jury they have three ways they can find someone guilty without evidence supporting a crime?
Click to expand...
The corrupt kangaroo court judge Merchan (NY) has basically stated that the jury doesn't have to agree on what crime Trump committed in order to find him guilty. The proceedings there are a complete joke, and not the funny kind.
 
gfm7175 said:
The corrupt kangaroo court judge Merchan (NY) has basically stated that the jury doesn't have to agree on what crime Trump committed in order to find him guilty. The proceedings there are a complete joke, and not the funny kind.
Click to expand...
And that is accurate and true.

No agreement on the underlying crime is necessary and that is the NORM in cases like this.
 
Jarod said:
They have no concept of how the law works, or are pretending.
Click to expand...
Correct.

They are magat's which by default, too often means 'as stupid as Trump' is.

As i said in another thread, if a person is caught on your private property he can be charged with a misdemeanor trespass.

If that same person is caught in your private property with tools that can be used for break and enter, and also a gun, and also handcuffs, then that misdemeanor trespass charge can be escalated to a felony despite the fact the person did nothing different in the yard at this point.

The prosecution can present he was in the yard for any of the following reasons, 'to break and enter', 'to steal contents', 'to murder the homeowner', 'to rape the homeowner' and other.


The prosecutor DOES NOT have to pick which underlying crime and the jury can consider ANY and ALL of them.

If the jury BELIEVES, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was there to do one of those underlying crimes, then they can convict with the felony. They do not ever have to SETTLE on which of the crimes they think it was.
 
QP! said:
Correct.

They are magat's which by default, too often means as stupid as Trump is.

As i said in another thread, if a person is caught on your private property he can be charged with a misdemeanor trespass.

If that same person is caught in your private property with tools that can be used for break and enter, and also a gun, and also handcuffs, then that misdemeanor trespass charge can be escalated to a felony despite the fact the person did nothing different in the yard at this point.

The prosecution can present he was in the yard for any of the following reasons, 'to break and enter', 'to steal contents', 'to murder the homeowner', 'to rape the homeowner' and other.


The prosecutor DOES NOT have to pick which underlying crime and the jury can consider ANY and ALL of them.

If the jury BELIEVES, beyond a reasonable doubt, he was there to do one of those underlying crimes, then they can convict with the felony. They do not ever have to SETTLE on which of the crimes they think it was.
Click to expand...
They will run from your excellent example every time you give it.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
On what basis will they take the case? It first has to go through the appeals court and will require an actual federal issue that can be appealed.
If you are arguing that a GOP candidate gets special treatment under the law then clearly you are opposed to the US system.
Click to expand...
you don't think blocking a presidential candidate from running is a federal issue?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
That's a lie - and you are Hitler.

{Hmm.. who should we rely on? Dershowitz or the NY appeals court?}



It seems your problem is that you are Hitler.
Click to expand...
I mentioned Dershowitz in post 191 which you just quoted. I did not mention Dershowitz in post 220 where you claimed I attacked him.
I realize numbers are difficult things for you but surely you can tell the difference between 191 and 220.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I didn't think you would come up with a real reason for an appeal and it appears I was right.

What is a fake felony conviction? if a jury finds a defendant guilty of a felony how is it fake, cuntsoler [sic]?
Click to expand...
when the law is abused.......like it has been for four weeks........I've come with a real reason for an appeal.......Alan Dershowitz has.....even Jake Tapper has......pretty much everyone except the View, Rachel Madcow and the JPP lib'ruls has a list.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top