Interesting problem for the defense lawyers and the judge. The prosecution has no interest in a fair trial or unbiased jury. Anyone who is not a complete moron realizes that this is a purely political prosecution and is a complete waste of the taxpayers' money and the courts' and the jurors' time. So they will all be disqualified. Now we are left with morons.

First batch of morons, just hates Trump and would convict him of anything. They should be disqualified, but we'll see.

So we are left with the next batch of morons who don't know anything about this case. That means they don't care enough about the state of the country to read a newspaper or watch the news.

Now what about the part of being entitled to a jury of your peers?

If all that is left for the panel is morons, Trump does have a jury of his peers.

News Flash! I have said this half a dozen times. Neither side wants a “fair and impartial” jury. It is the second biggest lie in our discourse. The biggest is, “ We just want everyone to come out and vote.” Nope, you want your side to come out and vote while the opposition voters stay home. You is the universal you.

The whole point Voir Dire is to shape the petite jury to your predisposition.

You are a trial lawyer. You know this.

Nothing brought President Trump here but his own actions.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
If all that is left for the panel is morons, Trump does have a jury of his peers.

Touche! LMAO!

What the Trump legal team wants is just one juror who is a Trump follower in hiding. Someone willing to lie about their biases.

One such juror would hang the verdict. Which Trump would portray as a victory, even if the vote is 11-1.

I worry more about one rotten juror than I do about a panel of morons.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
News Flash! I have said this half a dozen times. Neither side wants a “fair and impartial” jury. It is the second biggest lie in our discourse. The biggest is, “ We just want everyone to come out and vote.” Nope, you want your side to come out and vote while the opposition voters stay home. You is the universal you.

The whole point Voir Dire is to shape the petite jury to your predisposition.

You are a trial lawyer. You know this.

Nothing brought President Strunk here but his own actions.

Is he really a trial lawyer? Did he graduate from the Trump University School of Law Stuff?

All the MAGAts need is to own one juror, and I’m willing to bet they’ll slip one in there somehow…a surreptitious Proud Boy, or an Oath Keeper or even just a regular zombie MAGAt.

My money is on a hung jury.

There undoubtedly will be some who will lie to get Trump as well.

Given they only need one to acquit him, the defense has the easier time due to our system being predisposed towards finding of innocence.

Yeah, false equivalence, but if they had been running other high profile politicians through this mill all along, maybe we wouldn’t be in the sorry state we are now…

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
What the Trump legal team wants is just one juror who is a Trump follower in hiding. Someone willing to lie about their biases.

One such juror would hang the verdict. Which Trump would portray as a victory, even if the vote is 11-1.

I worry more about one rotten juror than I do about a panel of morons.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
There undoubtedly will be some who will lie to get Trump as well.

Given they only need one to acquit him, the defense has the easier time due to our system being predisposed towards finding of innocence.

Yeah, false equivalence, but if they had been running other high profile politicians through this mill all along, maybe we wouldn’t be in the sorry state we are now…

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
What the Trump legal team wants is just one juror who is a Trump follower in hiding. Someone willing to lie about their biases.

One such juror would hang the verdict. Which Trump would portray as a victory, even if the vote is 11-1.

I worry more about one rotten juror than I do about a panel of morons.

One hangs. It does not acquit.

I think in a case like this, getting a jury that has no thoughts going in either way is a bit far fetched. Way out of my wheelhouse but feels like gamesmanship by the attorneys in the selection may mean more. See OJ.

It is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution. The case is not very strong and getting a jury of 12 people to agree that Trump is guilty is going to be hard. Like everyone says all it takes is one to hang everything up. All I can say is it will be interesting, especially watching and listening to people who are pro Trump and anti-Trump all crying how the trial is not going their way! It's the best entertainment we have had in a long time.

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
It is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution. The case is not very strong and getting a jury of 12 people to agree that Trump is guilty is going to be hard. Like everyone says all it takes is one to hang everything up. All I can say is it will be interesting, especially watching and listening to people who are pro Trump and anti-Trump all crying how the trial is not going their way! It's the best entertainment we have had in a long time.

When you record payments as "Legal Retainer" and cannot produce a retainer agreement because there never was one and the lawyer you were supposedly "retaining" testifies the money was for buying a porn star's silence at a critical point in a campaign, that's a pretty strong case. Every element of the crimes charged can be definitively proven by both documents and testimony.

Trump's only hope is a ringer on the jury to hang it so the retrial gets pushed past November.

If it hangs, I do not see it getting retried.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Interesting problem for the defense lawyers and the judge. The prosecution has no interest in a fair trial or unbiased jury. Anyone who is not a complete moron realizes that this is a purely political prosecution and is a complete waste of the taxpayers' money and the courts' and the jurors' time. So they will all be disqualified. Now we are left with morons.

First batch of morons, just hates Trump and would convict him of anything. They should be disqualified, but we'll see.

So we are left with the next batch of morons who don't know anything about this case. That means they don't care enough about the state of the country to read a newspaper or watch the news.

Now what about the part of being entitled to a jury of your peers?

Newsflash: the defense lawyers don't have any interest in a fair trial or an unbiased jury either. Even less than the prosecution. Their entire strategy is going to be to try to seat that one trumptard that will lie about his/her bias and sympathy for your idiot cult leader to get on the jury. And, there will be several trumptards on the venire willing and able to do exactly that.

I understand Stormy is going to testify. That should be interesting to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
If all that is left for the panel is morons, Trump does have a jury of his peers.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I understand Stormy is going to testify. That should be interesting to watch.

I will if she does topless.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
It is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution. The case is not very strong and getting a jury of 12 people to agree that Trump is guilty is going to be hard. Like everyone says all it takes is one to hang everything up. All I can say is it will be interesting, especially watching and listening to people who are pro Trump and anti-Trump all crying how the trial is not going their way! It's the best entertainment we have had in a long time.

When you record payments as "Legal Retainer" and cannot produce a retainer agreement because there never was one and the lawyer you were supposedly "retaining" testifies the money was for buying a porn star's silence at a critical point in a campaign, that's a pretty strong case. Every element of the crimes charged can be definitively proven by both documents and testimony.

Trump's only hope is a ringer on the jury to hang it so the retrial gets pushed past November.

Just look at the people testifying. How trustworthy are they, all the defense has to do is put a little doubt in the mind of one juror and hang the jury up. Like LH said if it hangs probably a pretty good bet it will not get retried. Witnesses are a double-edged sword.

Just making him sit there day after day and listen to the judge tell him what he can and cannot do is gratifying to me. Sort of like the brat child sent to the principal’s office and forced to just sit there and behave despite all his natural instincts to be an asshole.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Just making him sit there day after day and listen to the judge tell him what he can and cannot do is gratifying to me. Sort of like the brat child sent to the principal’s office and forced to just sit there and behave despite all his natural instincts to be an asshole.

Since we can't get a live video feed I think we should at least get a real-time blood pressure monitor on Trump.

Of course, it wouldn't have done much today with him falling asleep in court.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
It is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution. The case is not very strong and getting a jury of 12 people to agree that Trump is guilty is going to be hard. Like everyone says all it takes is one to hang everything up. All I can say is it will be interesting, especially watching and listening to people who are pro Trump and anti-Trump all crying how the trial is not going their way! It's the best entertainment we have had in a long time.

When you record payments as "Legal Retainer" and cannot produce a retainer agreement because there never was one and the lawyer you were supposedly "retaining" testifies the money was for buying a porn star's silence at a critical point in a campaign, that's a pretty strong case. Every element of the crimes charged can be definitively proven by both documents and testimony.

Trump's only hope is a ringer on the jury to hang it so the retrial gets pushed past November.

If Cohen was a house attorney on the company payroll would there even be a retainer agreement?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
It is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution. The case is not very strong and getting a jury of 12 people to agree that Trump is guilty is going to be hard. Like everyone says all it takes is one to hang everything up. All I can say is it will be interesting, especially watching and listening to people who are pro Trump and anti-Trump all crying how the trial is not going their way! It's the best entertainment we have had in a long time.

When you record payments as "Legal Retainer" and cannot produce a retainer agreement because there never was one and the lawyer you were supposedly "retaining" testifies the money was for buying a porn star's silence at a critical point in a campaign, that's a pretty strong case. Every element of the crimes charged can be definitively proven by both documents and testimony.

Trump's only hope is a ringer on the jury to hang it so the retrial gets pushed past November.

If Cohen was a house attorney on the company payroll would there even be a retainer agreement?

Cohen was a Vice President in the Trump Organization and Trump's personal lawyer and "fixer"

That's why listing the payments to him as "retainers" is so easily proven fraudulent, BUT, that would only be a misdemeanor under New York Law...

Unless it's done in the furtherance of another crime, in this case violating New York election law and exceeding the contribution limits, which makes for 34 felonies.

Remember the timing, the "Access Hollywood" tape was released in October of 2016, just before the election, and this deal was finally struck between then and the election. The Stormy story on the heels of the "grab them by the pussy" tape would have sunk him. A couple of months earlier the publisher of the National Enquirer, Trump buddy David Pecker, was buying all rights to Karen McDougal's story to keep it secret; she's the former Playboy model Trump was also boning.

There does not always have to be a retainer, but there should always be a retainer.

His role as VP and earnings from that would not be legal fees. His role as attorney and what is earned in the role as attorney would be legal fees.

That may be gone an important distinction. Any one can be VO and get a check as VP. Only a lawyer can be paid legal fees.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
There does not always have to be a retainer, but there should always be a retainer.

His role as VP and earnings from that would not be legal fees. His role as attorney and what is earned in the role as attorney would be legal fees.

That may be gone an important distinction. Any one can be VO and get a check as VP. Only a lawyer can be paid legal fees.

If you're going to expense them specifically as a "retainer" there needs to be an agreement.

Should be, but the rules in every state do allow for non-retainers. This would not qualify in KY.

The retainer is very powerful. It codifies the attorney-client relationship and all that entails.

Being VP is separate and does not require or need a retainer. Anyone can be a company’S VP. Legal counsel, in house or not, is different. That requires an attorney and a right to collect legal fees.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Should be, but the rules in every state do allow for non-retainers. This would not qualify in KY.

The retainer is very powerful. It codifies the attorney-client relationship and all that entails.

Being VP is separate and does not require or need a retainer. Anyone can be a company’S VP. Legal counsel, in house or not, is different. That requires an attorney and a right to collect legal fees.

You're missing the point: these payments were expressly registered as "retainers" on the Trump Organization books when they simply weren't. That violates the NY law. The fact that the fraud was in furtherance of the violation of election law makes them felonies.

If they had simply faked up a retainer agreement while they were making fake financial statements and fake property valuations they would likely have gotten by with it.

I follow as it relates to those specific payments. The reasonable inference is those payments designated as retainer payments “legal fees” were used for something else given no retainer in place.

The fact that a retainer is not in place depends on the PR of the state jurisdiction.
All allow for no retainer under certain circumstances.

VP income does not matter for purposes of a retainer. He can get paid a salary plus stock as VP for being vO and no retainer is necessary.

Would it make you happy if he had booked it as a blackmail payment? I still don't see any crime except on the other side.

Things the Trumplicans have taught us . . .

. . . lying on certified financial statements to get loans is okie dokie

. . . lying in how you report expenditures of campaign contributions is peachy

Basically, so long as the culprit is the Orange Jesus, it’s all good.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Things the Trumplicans have taught us . . .

. . . lying on certified financial statements to get loans is okie dokie

. . . lying in how you report expenditures of campaign contributions is peachy

Basically, so long as the culprit is the Orange Jesus, it’s all good.

I dont think we have enough jails for everyone that has lied on a financial statement. Would be most first time home buyers that got the downpayment from mom and dad.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Would it make you happy if he had booked it as a blackmail payment? I still don't see any crime except on the other side.

Stormy did not coerce him into payments. He initiated payments to conceal her.


What would have made me happy is the Christian Nationalist candidate had not had an extra marital affair w a porn star making l unreported and excessive payments to her for the Ben of the campaign.

That would have made me very happy.

. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Would it make you happy if he had booked it as a blackmail payment? I still don't see any crime except on the other side.

It would make me happy if he spent the remaining few years of his life in prison.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

Christianity is a very flexible religion. A follower can accept and rationalize bad behavior without batting an eye.

7 jurors were selected today. 2 are jurors are lawyers and 5 have college educations.

We are all sinners to one degree or another and having an affair is probably one of the most common slip ups, if it in fact happened. You all are taking a porn star's word for it.

the notion that Trump just voluntarily offered her money with no at least implied threat is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If anyone is guilty of a crime here, it's her.

While I have doubts that Trump can get a fair trial in NY, I'm glad at least that there are lawyers on the jury and educated people because surely, they will be intelligent enough to realize the idiocy of this politically motivated prosecution.

Think about it. What if we prosecuted every person who had an affair and was forced/coerced to pay off their paramour and didn't report it as a blackmail payment? Kind of would defeat the purpose of making a blackmail payment.

So we prosecute the guy who is being blackmailed and not the blackmailer? This country is truly upside down and liberals need to get some help.

. . . what a perverse perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
We are all sinners to one degree or another and having an affair is probably one of the most common slip ups, if it in fact happened. You all are taking a porn star's word for it.

the notion that Trump just voluntarily offered her money with no at least implied threat is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If anyone is guilty of a crime here, it's her.

While I have doubts that Trump can get a fair trial in NY, I'm glad at least that there are lawyers on the jury and educated people because surely, they will be intelligent enough to realize the idiocy of this politically motivated prosecution.

Think about it. What if we prosecuted every person who had an affair and was forced/coerced to pay off their paramour and didn't report it as a blackmail payment? Kind of would defeat the purpose of making a blackmail payment.

So we prosecute the guy who is being blackmailed and not the blackmailer? This country is truly upside down and liberals need to get some help.

Actually we are taking one of the participants to the affair and the Vice President of the Trump Organization in charge of setting up shell companies to conceal the payments word for it.

You know who's vulnerable to blackmail?

People doing shit they don't want public, like banging Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal while your wife is carrying and having your child.

You know, like Christ would do.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
We are all sinners to one degree or another and having an affair is probably one of the most common slip ups, if it in fact happened. You all are taking a porn star's word for it.

the notion that Trump just voluntarily offered her money with no at least implied threat is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If anyone is guilty of a crime here, it's her.

While I have doubts that Trump can get a fair trial in NY, I'm glad at least that there are lawyers on the jury and educated people because surely, they will be intelligent enough to realize the idiocy of this politically motivated prosecution.

Think about it. What if we prosecuted every person who had an affair and was forced/coerced to pay off their paramour and didn't report it as a blackmail payment? Kind of would defeat the purpose of making a blackmail payment.

So we prosecute the guy who is being blackmailed and not the blackmailer? This country is truly upside down and liberals need to get some help.

Bring me some reporting that President Trump did not initiate payments. There is not any. The Feds are really good at uprooting that ask Rick Pitino. If there are facts and the jury accepts them that he was blackmailed, that will go in his favor. A trial absent obvious conclusion will tell us.

It is not that he is a sinner. It is that he is a continuous sinner who wraps
himself in a distortion of Christianity that gags a a gag at gnats Industrial while swallow swallowing camels. This distortion at the organizational level does not care, but used the distortion for political power.

Oh, I have been married longer to one person than President Trump has been to one of his spouses.

President Trump did not just have affairs. He cultivated an image of womanizing for the public. He is also been found in the court of law to have sexually assaulted a woman. I know you want to ignore that fact.

Look, I hope President Trump’s soul is Heaven bound. It is not for me to say otherwise.

What I can say is that President Trump’s political union with Christian Nationalists is about political power. The union of a state sponsored religion. That President Trump is not a man of quality to be the spokesperson for the Christian right not hold the Office of President.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
7 jurors were selected today. 2 are jurors are lawyers and 5 have college educations.

Im amazed the US goes through this 3 ring circus. The suitability of the jurors should be determined by the court when they are first selected. Anyone who has a criminal record or knows or is related to the accused gets booted off then you just get a randomly selected panel of 12 and that's it.

This presupposes that jurors will have integrity and put any political bias to one side.

I think here a juror can be challenged if its thought their selection isn't random or they know the accused. But you can't challenge someone based on their colour, if the don't have a degree, are a window cleaner or have a beard.