Three ways for the Jury to convict Trump

IMHO This is the likeliest reason that the SCOTUS might use to take this up and set this conviction aside....

'If you believe one of these things is true that we didn't prosecute at all and therefore didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then you get to vote guilty'... He had no way to effectively defend against that kind of shotgun approach that allowed them to select from a menu of crimes that they were not prosecuting in order to come up with some way to convict on the crime they were prosecuting.

I think that some may see this as being against due process... maybe one or two (or six or so) of them might be on the SCOTUS... just sayin'.
 
Damocles said:
IMHO This is the likeliest reason that the SCOTUS might use to take this up and set this conviction aside....

'If you believe one of these things is true that we didn't prosecute at all and therefore didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then you get to vote guilty'... He had no way to effectively defend against that kind of shotgun approach that allowed them to select from a menu of crimes that they were not prosecuting in order to come up with some way to convict on the crime they were prosecuting.

I think that some may see this as being against due process... maybe one or two of them might be on the SCOTUS... just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Trump was born without sin. Good argument.
 
Damocles said:
Not arguing, and that is not what that says... Good strawman... well not that good, it was easy to spot and even the crows didn't fall for it.
Click to expand...
Good point. A man who brags about cheating people is obviously a morally upright citizen.
 
Damocles said:
IMHO This is the likeliest reason that the SCOTUS might use to take this up and set this conviction aside....

'If you believe one of these things is true that we didn't prosecute at all and therefore didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then you get to vote guilty'... He had no way to effectively defend against that kind of shotgun approach that allowed them to select from a menu of crimes that they were not prosecuting in order to come up with some way to convict on the crime they were prosecuting.

I think that some may see this as being against due process... maybe one or two (or six or so) of them might be on the SCOTUS... just sayin'.
Click to expand...
No single piece of evidence of a crime has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Only the crime one is indicted for needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let's say someone is being tried for burglary, the prosecution argues he could have entered through a window, a door, or overstayed when the building was locked. The jury doesn't have to agree how the burglar entered the building to convict.

Let's say someone is being tried for murder. They stabbed, shot and beat the victim. The jury doesn't have to agree which weapon resulted in the death to convict.

Trump was indicted for falsifying business records. Why he falsified them doesn't need to be beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. The jury only needs to agree that he falsified them beyond a reasonable doubt.

SCOTUS is free to agree with your argument but it would put every conviction in the US at risk since it would require that a jury agree about all evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before anyone can be convicted. I don't think even the conservatives on SCOTUS are going to go down that road.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I guess you didn't realize that elections happen in November and results are needed by mid December to allow electors to follow the law.
SCOTUS is in session in November since November comes after October. (SCOTUS is not hearing any cases between now and October.)
SCOTUS can hurry things along if there is a deadline that the case must meet. (No such deadline for criminal cases. They haven't bothered to act fast on Trump's immunity case since it is now June and only a few decisions left to publish for the court. The immunity case will take about 2 months from oral arguments to decision. Four months from first agreeing to hear the case.)
Click to expand...

SCOTUS will need to remedy election interference prior to the election.

What you don't see aware of is the in critical situations, the court can sit outside of normal sessions. In instances of national emergency - such as the corruption of national elections.

I don't know what the court will do, but it could hear the case next week if it chose.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
SCOTUS will need to remedy election interference prior to the election.

What you don't see aware of is the in critical situations, the court can sit outside of normal sessions. In instances of national emergency - such as the corruption of national elections.

I don't know what the court will do, but it could hear the case next week if it chose.
Click to expand...
When is this SCOTUS Putsch supposed to take place? Will you be out in force wearing your little brown or black uniforms, Sybil?
 
Damocles said:
IMHO This is the likeliest reason that the SCOTUS might use to take this up and set this conviction aside....

'If you believe one of these things is true that we didn't prosecute at all and therefore didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then you get to vote guilty'... He had no way to effectively defend against that kind of shotgun approach that allowed them to select from a menu of crimes that they were not prosecuting in order to come up with some way to convict on the crime they were prosecuting.

I think that some may see this as being against due process... maybe one or two (or six or so) of them might be on the SCOTUS... just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Let's hope they only hold up the law and not make law. :clink:

OTOH, if there was any improprieties or reasons to accept the appeal, I'm certain it would be found at lower courts than SCOTUS.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
SCOTUS will need to remedy election interference prior to the election.

What you don't see aware of is the in critical situations, the court can sit outside of normal sessions. In instances of national emergency - such as the corruption of national elections.

I don't know what the court will do, but it could hear the case next week if it chose.
Click to expand...
Correct.
 
Damocles said:
IMHO This is the likeliest reason that the SCOTUS might use to take this up and set this conviction aside....

'If you believe one of these things is true that we didn't prosecute at all and therefore didn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then you get to vote guilty'... He had no way to effectively defend against that kind of shotgun approach that allowed them to select from a menu of crimes that they were not prosecuting in order to come up with some way to convict on the crime they were prosecuting.

I think that some may see this as being against due process... maybe one or two (or six or so) of them might be on the SCOTUS... just sayin'.
Click to expand...
In NY the prosecutor has the last word in closing arguments. That is when the prosecutor finally told the jury what underlying crime they thought Trump was guilty of. Trump had ZERO chances to defend himself..
 
Last edited:
Uncensored2008 said:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Bless your antisemitic heart.
Click to expand...
You calling me Antisemitic is far more ironic than you grasp.

BTW, have you sent your monthly check to Hamas? Jews in Israel aren't going to kill themselves...
Click to expand...
Why ironic, Sybil? Is it because one of your socks is Jewish? Is that the circumcised sock?

I doubt he supports Hamas. Most of that is hype by Putin's troll farms. You're not the only one with an army of socks on line. LOL
 
ExpressLane said:
In NY the prosecutor has the last word in closing arguments. That is when the prosecutor finally told the jury what underlying crime they thought Trump was guilty of. Trump had ZERO chances to defend himself..
Click to expand...
The stupidity of your arguments is simply amazing. Anyone can read the opening statement of the prosecutor and the jury was told the underlying crimes then. It is this stupidity that shows that the conviction will not be overturned because all the arguments for overturning it are factually false.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The Soros trope is antisemitic.
Click to expand...

First off, there is no "trope" moron.

You are attempting to coerce people not to criticize bad acts. It's a sleazy technique that I won't stand for. So fuck off on trying to silence criticism of scumbags with this shit.

SECONDLY, you have already had your racist nose rubbed in the FACT that Soros is behind this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796614879656267871

Poor Richard Saunders said:
You have repeatedly used that trope. That makes your actions antisemitic.
Click to expand...

Criticizing Mao for murdering 65 million people isn't "Anti-Chinese" shitbreath, so fuck off with your bullshit of trying to shut down criticism of truly evil acts with you bullshit.

Oh, and have you sent your check to Hamas this month?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
First off, there is no "trope" moron.

You are attempting to coerce people not to criticize bad acts. It's a sleazy technique that I won't stand for. So fuck off on trying to silence criticism of scumbags with this shit.

SECONDLY, you have already had your racist nose rubbed in the FACT that Soros is behind this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1796614879656267871



Criticizing Mao for murdering 65 million people isn't "Anti-Chinese" shitbreath, so fuck off with your bullshit of trying to shut down criticism of truly evil acts with you bullshit.

Oh, and have you sent your check to Hamas this month?
Click to expand...
Claiming Soros owns or controls the NY AG is an antisemitic trope. It has been for decades because it implies that Soros, a Jew, controls things he doesn't.
Because someone posts online doesn't mean they are the one behind something. It doesn't even mean they are part of it unless you want to admit that you are a Russian troll since you post the same things Russian trolls push.

How am I racist for saying Soros doesn't own or control the NY AG? Am I racist because I don't believe the same antisemitic BS you spout here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top