Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

No I do not.

You have no reason nor basis to proffer your implied position that she was dishonest.

So much for your prior statement to respect the jury verdict.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

Shame on you. I thought Ann and Lane were the only people here authorized to spin up baseless conspiracy theories.

If he hadn't pissed off or stiffed Michael Cohen none of this including his earlier trial under Ergoron would have ever come out.

I will never understand why he did not pardon Cohen. That would have made the federal case that hit this started to have gone away.

Trump appears to have been unindicted conspirator 1.


Now, that I say it out loud, I know why. Cohen cooperated w Muller.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

>>>A juror in Donald Trump’s hush money trial who indicated he gets news from the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social is assumed a likely supporter of the former president by some trial watchers, but he never actually claimed to have a Truth Social account and instead clarified he primarily just sees Truth Social when Trump's posts there are re-posted on X.<<<<

https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...two/?sh=5d651bc842ea

So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?

I don't believe that there is a trial, just a judicial review by 1 or more judges. Mite just as well go for the en banc approach if that is possible.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

The prosecution wouldn't have been able to articulate "cause", so would have had to use a peremptory challenge better used elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?

I don't believe that there is a trial, just a judicial review by 1 or more judges. Mite just as well go for the en banc approach if that is possible.

Go look up a picture of the Manhattan Court of Appeals.

Think of the last 5 people Trump would want deciding his fate...

quote:

Originally posted by BushPeter:
@Lane In none of statements you posted there are any reasons as to why the trial and verdict were a disgrace. They are all: 'It's a disgrace, because it's bad, and it should have never happened and we don't like it'.
None of them tell us why it's bad, or a why it really is a digrace. None of them state: It's a disgrace, marking nda payments as legal fees for tax purposes is legal, see case abc of blabla vs the state, and case xyz of blabla vs such and so. Or: 'See the Supreme Court ruling of....'

In my view, Trump's defence knew they had a very weak case, they also know that the legal implications are likely minor. There will be a fine, and that's it. A 'not guilty' verdict would have been nice, but nearly impossible given the evidence. So they, and the Trump campaign team, decided to take the hit, but milk it in every way possible for the campaign, which is what we see happening now. And this might, overall, be a beneficial happening for Trump.

I agree. Trump and his team will spin this into a rally cry for himself. If there is one thing that Trump is really good at that is convincing his followers that he is a victim and to send him their money and support.

Two of his sons have hunted in Zimbabwe. Don’t remember how long ago or which safari, but they were there 2 weeks before me. P.H. Said they were very polite gentlemen, cleaning up after themselves, complimenting the kitchen staff, etc. He said they did not act as if they were entitled in anyway, but we’re very gracious and thankful for the good times provided. I’m sure this was before Trump was elected.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?

I don't believe that there is a trial, just a judicial review by 1 or more judges. Mite just as well go for the en banc approach if that is possible.

Go look up a picture of the Manhattan Court of Appeals.

Think of the last 5 people Trump would want deciding his fate...

If this case is no different from other cases prosecuted under the same statute [except for the personality involved] can the NYSC decline to hear it?

All this whining is repulsive. Here is a man who has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules. A man who can afford the best attorneys money (raised off his clueless supporters) can buy. He has his day in court represented by counsel of his choosing and loses. Bigly. Then we are all supposed to feel sorry for him because he is being persecuted. Gimme a break.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
All this whining is repulsive. Here is a man who has a history of playing fast and loose with the rules. A man who can afford the best attorneys money (raised off his clueless supporters) can buy. He has his day in court represented by counsel of his choosing and loses. Bigly. Then we are all supposed to feel sorry for him because he is being persecuted. Gimme a break.

100% agree.

Cant say I have any sorry feelings for him, or any politician.
What is an en banc approach?
So an appeal, would not allow any new witness or evidence, just a review of what is out there?

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Two of his sons have hunted in Zimbabwe. Don’t remember how long ago or which safari, but they were there 2 weeks before me. P.H. Said they were very polite gentlemen, cleaning up after themselves, complimenting the kitchen staff, etc. He said they did not act as if they were entitled in anyway, but we’re very gracious and thankful for the good times provided. I’m sure this was before Trump was elected.

Hearsay, Your Honor.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Cant say I have any sorry feelings for him, or any politician.
What is an en banc approach?
So an appeal, would not allow any new witness or evidence, just a review of what is out there?

En banc means the entire appeals court, as opposed to a panel of fewer justices.

Your last sentence is correct--if by "out there" you mean the trial court record on appeal.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?

I don't believe that there is a trial, just a judicial review by 1 or more judges. Mite just as well go for the en banc approach if that is possible.

Go look up a picture of the Manhattan Court of Appeals.

Think of the last 5 people Trump would want deciding his fate...

If this case is no different from other cases prosecuted under the same statute [except for the personality involved] can the NYSC decline to hear it?

Yes, a Court of Appeals can decline to hear a case if the one filing the appeal fails to raise substantive questions of law.

"I don't wanna be a convict" isn't enough, nor is "The jail commissary doesn't have my brand of makeup."

This is the Supreme Court of Appeals...

This is a bit different…

Sees truth social occasionally secondhand vs “gets all their news from truth social”

I didn’t and don’t follow the trial that intensively.

The comment that they didn’t put in the instructions that a misdemeanor offense was a possible conviction, and given that statute of limitations had ran out, that could not be found as a guilty plea sounds like an issue. Reading the instructions, I didn’t see that they removed the option of the lesser charge.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

>>>A juror in Donald Trump’s hush money trial who indicated he gets news from the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social is assumed a likely supporter of the former president by some trial watchers, but he never actually claimed to have a Truth Social account and instead clarified he primarily just sees Truth Social when Trump's posts there are re-posted on X.<<<<

https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...two/?sh=5d651bc842ea

Almost six weeks of testimony. Jury deliberates less than two days. Jury of twelve people unanimously finds Trump guilty on all 34 counts. There was no doubt in the jury's mind of his guilt. So the answer is, it was all rigged.

Does this story sound familiar? Trump loses in 2020. Loses both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Then the answer is, it was all rigged.

Add to his long list of absent virtues . . . accepting personal responsibility. His toadies are just as bad.

Got it, thankyou Rolland.

Lane

I suggest you read your statement and reflect on your attitude and behavior towards Obama and even his children.

Remember that one day you will have to answer for it.

Where is your moral compas, sir?

Lane said
"You just point out your willingness to disparage someone at any cost because you hate the person"

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

why the trial and verdict were a disgrace.

@BP
The trial was litigated over occurrences that similar could likely be ferreted out of any campaign in modern history. The evidence presented was very subjective. The trial was basically over a potential accounting error. There was no great revelation from it. The last paragraph from your post above reveals the trivialness of the litigation.

Thus, the disgrace comes from “the why” it was brought and here is the explanation. It was brought solely in an attempt to weaken an opponent. Further, power held by our governance was exploited to yield this blow.

Even further, IMO, the judge was extremely prosecutorial friendly. The judge has political experiences that question recusal.

In other words it was a political prosecution. In my estimation and those whose opinions I posted…a purely political prosecution by a party in power over opposition constitutes a disgrace.

If such occurences could be ferreted out of any campaign, why haven't they out of Biden's campaign in conservative state? If the evidence was subjective, why wasn't objective evidence presented by the defence to counter it?
So yes, the whole Trump team and important GOP members complain, but it's part of their plan, the campaign leading up to the coming elections. Likely also why they don't seek to open cases against Biden, as it might help Biden too, so would be a waste of time and money.
But, big crooks fell over trivial errors before. Capone wasn't convicted for his crimes, but for tax evasion, this is some kind of tax evasion, so there is some risk for Trump playing this game (not too big though imo). Thus far, it seems to work quite well for Trump. Donations are streaming in, and appeals for this case won't be done before the elections anyway, nor would any of the other cases be brought to an end before that. But should crimes (by law), be ignored for people where it would be suspected that the case could be seen as political? But at what point to draw the line?

What baffles me though, is that a party who sees the family as the cornerstone of society, puts forward a candidate who ended his first marriage after an affair, and now, during his second marriage, pays six figures to keep a pornstar quiet about what happened between them. Is there really not a better candidate who aligns with the values of the party?

Not that I'm a fan of Biden, lots of dirt on him too, and both Trump and Biden seem too old for the position, with both showing signs of Alzheimer. The one thing America, and many other countries, need, is to reduce polarization, reduce extremism, but it seems harder and harder to find candidates of political parties who bring people together. Are there no decent candidates who could do that? Some less extreme politicians in either party?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?

I don't believe that there is a trial, just a judicial review by 1 or more judges. Mite just as well go for the en banc approach if that is possible.

Go look up a picture of the Manhattan Court of Appeals.

Think of the last 5 people Trump would want deciding his fate...

If this case is no different from other cases prosecuted under the same statute [except for the personality involved] can the NYSC decline to hear it?

Yes, a Court of Appeals can decline to hear a case if the one filing the appeal fails to raise substantive questions of law.

"I don't wanna be a convict" isn't enough, nor is "The jail commissary doesn't have my brand of makeup."

This is the Supreme Court of Appeals...

The court of appeals is going to hear his case.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
This is a bit different…

Sees truth social occasionally secondhand vs “gets all their news from truth social”

I didn’t and don’t follow the trial that intensively.

The comment that they didn’t put in the instructions that a misdemeanor offense was a possible conviction, and given that statute of limitations had ran out, that could not be found as a guilty plea sounds like an issue. Reading the instructions, I didn’t see that they removed the option of the lesser charge.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

>>>A juror in Donald Trump’s hush money trial who indicated he gets news from the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social is assumed a likely supporter of the former president by some trial watchers, but he never actually claimed to have a Truth Social account and instead clarified he primarily just sees Truth Social when Trump's posts there are re-posted on X.<<<<

https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...two/?sh=5d651bc842ea

The tally from the jurors questionnaire was released, it indicated that Juror #2 marked ONLY "Truth Social" from the available list of news sources they used.

The "lesser included offense" wasn't part of the jury instructions, as I understand it, because the Statute of Limitations for the falsifying records misdemeanors had run out, so Trump couldn't be prosecuted for them, but they were the predicate for the 34 Felony counts; if the Jury didn't unanimously find he falsified the records (or caused them to be falsified) they couldn't find him Guilty of anything.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
This is a bit different…

Sees truth social occasionally secondhand vs “gets all their news from truth social”

I didn’t and don’t follow the trial that intensively.

The comment that they didn’t put in the instructions that a misdemeanor offense was a possible conviction, and given that statute of limitations had ran out, that could not be found as a guilty plea sounds like an issue. Reading the instructions, I didn’t see that they removed the option of the lesser charge.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

>>>A juror in Donald Trump’s hush money trial who indicated he gets news from the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social is assumed a likely supporter of the former president by some trial watchers, but he never actually claimed to have a Truth Social account and instead clarified he primarily just sees Truth Social when Trump's posts there are re-posted on X.<<<<

https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...two/?sh=5d651bc842ea

The tally from the jurors questionnaire was released, it indicated that Juror #2 marked ONLY "Truth Social" from the available list of news sources they used.

The "lesser included offense" wasn't part of the jury instructions, as I understand it, because the Statute of Limitations for the falsifying records misdemeanors had run out, so Trump couldn't be prosecuted for them, but they were the predicate for the 34 Felony counts; if the Jury didn't unanimously find he falsified the records (or caused them to be falsified) they couldn't find him Guilty of anything.

My understanding is that defense counsel had the option of submitting the misdemeanor questions to the jury on the condition that they waive the SOL defense. I dunno, just what I read.

I'm not familiar with the term "tally" as it relates to a jury questionnaire. Based on the reporting I've seen, and cited above, he made additional statements regarding the issue during voir dire.

The Truth Social response on the questionnaire as evidence of a distrustful jury is not a reasonable inference.

There is no indication other than we do not like the outcome that the juror mislead.

Talk about grasping at the wind.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by theback40:
So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?[/QUOTE

I don't believe that there is a trial, just a judicial review by 1 or more judges. Mite just as well go for the en banc approach if that is possible.

Go look up a picture of the Manhattan Court of Appeals.

Think of the last 5 people Trump would want deciding his fate...

If this case is no different from other cases prosecuted under the same statute [except for the personality involved] can the NYSC decline to hear it?

Yes, a Court of Appeals can decline to hear a case if the one filing the appeal fails to raise substantive questions of law.

"I don't wanna be a convict" isn't enough, nor is "The jail commissary doesn't have my brand of makeup."

This is the Supreme Court of Appeals...

The court of appeals is going to hear his case.

Most states allow one appeal by right to the intermediate court of appellate review. The legal issues raised maybe wrong, but the appellate court will still hear and address them.

The Court of last resort in NY is not the Supreme Court.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by theback40:
So if Trump, wins an appeal ( is that the correct term?) where would the trial be held?[/QUOTE

I don't believe that there is a trial, just a judicial review by 1 or more judges. Mite just as well go for the en banc approach if that is possible.

Go look up a picture of the Manhattan Court of Appeals.

Think of the last 5 people Trump would want deciding his fate...

If this case is no different from other cases prosecuted under the same statute [except for the personality involved] can the NYSC decline to hear it?

Yes, a Court of Appeals can decline to hear a case if the one filing the appeal fails to raise substantive questions of law.

"I don't wanna be a convict" isn't enough, nor is "The jail commissary doesn't have my brand of makeup."

This is the Supreme Court of Appeals...

The court of appeals is going to hear his case.

Most states allow one appeal by right to the intermediate court of appellate review. The legal issues raised maybe wrong, but the appellate court will still hear and address them.

The Court of last resort in NY is not the Supreme Court.

Which is weird but correct. The Supreme Court in NY is really just an intermediate appellate court.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
This is a bit different…

Sees truth social occasionally secondhand vs “gets all their news from truth social”

I didn’t and don’t follow the trial that intensively.

The comment that they didn’t put in the instructions that a misdemeanor offense was a possible conviction, and given that statute of limitations had ran out, that could not be found as a guilty plea sounds like an issue. Reading the instructions, I didn’t see that they removed the option of the lesser charge.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Do you think in light of the vote to convict that the statement of getting “all the news” from truth social is, shall we say, not entirely truthful?

Especially when the prosecution didn’t object?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Let us not forget that Juror #2 said on her juror questionnaire that she got ALL her news from Truth Social.

She voted "Guilty" on all 34 counts.

>>>A juror in Donald Trump’s hush money trial who indicated he gets news from the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social is assumed a likely supporter of the former president by some trial watchers, but he never actually claimed to have a Truth Social account and instead clarified he primarily just sees Truth Social when Trump's posts there are re-posted on X.<<<<

https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...two/?sh=5d651bc842ea

The tally from the jurors questionnaire was released, it indicated that Juror #2 marked ONLY "Truth Social" from the available list of news sources they used.

The "lesser included offense" wasn't part of the jury instructions, as I understand it, because the Statute of Limitations for the falsifying records misdemeanors had run out, so Trump couldn't be prosecuted for them, but they were the predicate for the 34 Felony counts; if the Jury didn't unanimously find he falsified the records (or caused them to be falsified) they couldn't find him Guilty of anything.

My understanding is that defense counsel had the option of submitting the misdemeanor questions to the jury on the condition that they waive the SOL defense. I dunno, just what I read.

I'm not familiar with the term "tally" as it relates to a jury questionnaire. Based on the reporting I've seen, and cited above, he made additional statements regarding the issue during voir dire.

I don't know the legal term for it, it is reproduced here.

At least he finally won the popular vote.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
At least he finally won the popular vote.

Actually, he lost it again.