*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***

617,460 Views | 6875 Replies | Last: 6 days ago by Ellis Wyatt
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 6:07p, 5/21/24
AG
Quote:
What Smith would have said, had he been allowed, was that the FEC and the Department of Justice refused to bring charges because the acts weren't illegal.
Smith would not have been able to say this even if he were to testify. He was not with the FEC or the Department of Justice when these decisions were made.

Further, if he did testify that the FEC said there was no illegality, the State would rebut that with the FEC's actual explanation for not pursuing action, which was NOT that they did not believe there was illegality.

It was a split 2-2 vote and the 2 "no votes" did NOT say there was no illegality. See their Statement of Reasons: https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf
Reply Quote
3
aggiejayrod
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:04p, 5/21/24
AG
Our founding fathers would have tarred and feathered this judge. Admonishing the defense counsel for raising a defense repeatedly after he's also admonished them in the same trial for not objecting enough. He knows he's going to side with the prosecution on every single closeish call and he's trying to prevent a criminal defendant from raising legal issues so the appeals court has less to work with.

Allowing stormy to testify about an alleged sexual encounter on a case about falsified records is beyond the pale. Then letting her go into details to bolster her credibility? Should be a mistrial in a just world. She doesn't need her credibility bolstered because she's not a material witness. Then the only witness to tie Trump to any of this is a serial perjurer. F that. Every time col Angelo talks about things being outrageous he should be reminded that his star witness is a convicted liar and he should blow it out his ass
Reply Quote
20
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 7:15p, 5/21/24
AG
Quote:
Smith would not have been able to say this even if he were to testify. He was not with the FEC or the Department of Justice when these decisions were made.

Further, if he did testify that the FEC said there was no illegality, the State would rebut that with the FEC's actual explanation for not pursuing action, which was NOT that they did not believe there was illegality.
My heavens that is a bad take on what I posted. And the prosecution DID have their own witness, as you have posted here, to counter that.

YOU tell me why they didn't have their named expert testify???

Hmm?
Reply Quote
12
RogerFurlong
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 7:19p, 5/21/24
TXAggie2011 said:
Quote:
What Smith would have said, had he been allowed, was that the FEC and the Department of Justice refused to bring charges because the acts weren't illegal.
Smith would not have been able to say this even if he were to testify. He was not with the FEC or the Department of Justice when these decisions were made.

Further, if he did testify that the FEC said there was no illegality, the State would rebut that with the FEC's actual explanation for not pursuing action, which was NOT that they did not believe there was illegality.

It was a split 2-2 vote and the 2 "no votes" did NOT say there was no illegality. See their Statement of Reasons: https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/murs/7313/7313_27.pdf
But we'll never know because the judge is on the take from the democrats in congress.
Reply Quote
11
TXAggie2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:25p, 5/21/24
AG
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Smith would not have been able to say this even if he were to testify. He was not with the FEC or the Department of Justice when these decisions were made.

Further, if he did testify that the FEC said there was no illegality, the State would rebut that with the FEC's actual explanation for not pursuing action, which was NOT that they did not believe there was illegality.
My heavens that is a bad take on what I posted. And the prosecution DID have their own witness, as you have posted here, to counter that.

YOU tell me why they didn't have their named expert testify???

Hmm?


He was a rebuttal witness to Bradley Smith. Smith did not testify, so no rebuttal.

As the DA wrote on March 1, 2024 in a letter to Trump's legal team, "To the extent the Court permits any testimony from Mr. Smith, the People may call Adav Noti as a response witness."

Page 140: https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Just-Security-NY-2016-Election-Interference-Trump-Clearinghouse-%E2%80%94-Todd-Blanche-and-exhibits-supporting-Trump-motion-to-dismiss-and-for-an-adjournment-based-on-discovery-violations-March-8-2024.pdf#page=140
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Verne Lundquist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:10p, 5/21/24
AG
The CNN guy who has been doing most of the analysis said tonight that what he saw today with the instructions debate was that the prosecution doesn't care about losing the appeal they just want the conviction when they didn't want to explain what the "other crime" was
Reply Quote
13
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Verne Lundquist • 10:32p, 5/21/24
Absolutely. This is about being able to call Trump a felon. Such a sham. People should be outraged.
Reply Quote
7
txags92
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Verne Lundquist • 12:02a, 5/22/24
AG
Verne Lundquist said:
The CNN guy who has been doing most of the analysis said tonight that what he saw today with the instructions debate was that the prosecution doesn't care about losing the appeal they just want the conviction when they didn't want to explain what the "other crime" was
I just can't understand how the law they are using is in any way constitutional? If you are using the supposed fact that the actions taken were done so in attempting to conceal a crime, how in the world can it meet due process for you to not have to prove out the claim that there actually was a crime they were trying to conceal? The presumption of innocence would require you to prove there was a crime they were trying to conceal or the jury should assume there wasn't.

Just like changing the statute of limitations for the other trial specifically to allow trump to be charged, this just seems like a completely targeted and politicized prosecution, and it pisses me off that none of the judicial bodies higher up the chain are willing to put a stop to it before it goes any farther. With so many reversible errors and the obvious intent to cause harm in the midst of an election cycle with a sham conviction, this just seems ripe for an emergency injunction (which I know would be almost unheard of) to stop the court from continuing with this farce.
Reply Quote
10
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:32a, 5/22/24
What are the odds they'll figure out a way to keep this jury charge from being released to the public until after the verdict is read?
Reply Quote
1
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Stat Monitor Repairman • 5:15a, 5/22/24
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
What are the odds they'll figure out a way to keep this jury charge from being released to the public until after the verdict is read?


About the same as your last question:

Quote:
What are the odds that we re-do this case and keep Trump off the campaign trail for a few more weeks?


The jury instructions become part of the docket when read and given to jury. Unless it's a very quick verdict, they'll be "released" in normal time
Reply Quote
1 edit
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:20a, 5/22/24
it's hard to believe a Manhattan jury will see through this and acquit, but if they do it will be one of the biggest political FUs in history.

An acquittal here would be a springboard to an enormous Trump win in November.


Conversely, I don't think a guilty verdict has much effect on the election. Some votes sure, but not enough to matter. That damage was done already.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BMX Bandit • 6:42a, 5/22/24
AG
I mostly agree with you but again would note a conviction might galvanize some black voters into Trump's camp. The perception of 'inequal justice' might resonate more strongly in some quarters.

Trump might parlay it even with some sort of stump/ad campaign reminiscent of Cochran's "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." Line.
Reply Quote
3
Maroon Dawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:16a, 5/22/24
AG
We live in a 3rd world banana Republik and every last Leftist and CM on this board silently condoning this Stalinist show trial are to blame
Reply Quote
21
Gyles Marrett
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Verne Lundquist • 8:13a, 5/22/24
Verne Lundquist said:
The CNN guy who has been doing most of the analysis said tonight that what he saw today with the instructions debate was that the prosecution doesn't care about losing the appeal they just want the conviction when they didn't want to explain what the "other crime" was
If I'm on a jury and they want me to convict for a conspiracy to cover up "another crime" but the prosecution can't tell me what other crime he was covering, I'd laugh audibly as they read my not guilty decision....
Reply Quote
17
jt2hunt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXAggie2011 • 8:46a, 5/22/24
AG
You meant to say the judge wouldn't allow Brad Smith to testify.
Reply Quote
5
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:27a, 5/22/24
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
Reply Quote
5
GenericAggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 10:30a, 5/22/24
AG
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.

I think the challenge is the charging instructions. The bias will be how they are written and the Jury won't know what's happened during that process or all of the objections and what's included in the transcript vs. what's not.

Reply Quote
5
Mr Mojo Risin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 10:32a, 5/22/24
AG
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
This is both a reasonable take and has a decent chance of being the outcome, possibly as good of a chance as a conviction. I think the lowest probability is a not guilty verdict.

The hung jury takes the target off the jury's back, mostly.
America was built on speed, hot, nasty, badass speed.
Reply Quote
6
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 10:32a, 5/22/24
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury.
I think you are underplaying the fact that the judge did not allow Costello to give full testimony, nor would he allow Brad Smith to do so. Both of those would have undercut the State's bull**** case. The jury knows nothing about the truth.
Reply Quote
6
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 10:37a, 5/22/24
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
Biden got 84% in Manhattan according to this!

https://www.gothamgazette.com/city/9961-breaking-down-2020-vote-new-york-city-biden-trump#:~:text=The%20margin%20was%20still%20wide,and%20Queens%2069%25%2D30%25.

Trump supporters would be more likely to be honest on voir dire and get disqualified.

I hope you are right, but don't hold out much hope!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Hungry Ojos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 10:37a, 5/22/24
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.


This is not a random sampling of 12 New Yorkers. After voir dire, it became 12 hand picked liberals that the state absolutely knows they can count on.
Reply Quote
8
Gyles Marrett
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mr Mojo Risin • 10:39a, 5/22/24
Mr Mojo Risin said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
This is both a reasonable take and has a decent chance of being the outcome, possibly as good of a chance as a conviction. I think the lowest probability is a not guilty verdict.

The hung jury takes the target off the jury's back, mostly.
I think the prosecution would be just as fine with a hung jury as they would a guilty verdict. With a hung jury they get to redo this charade and no doubt will restart quickly to keep Trump off the trail even longer. Or start it in busy time of campaigning late summer into September.
Reply Quote
2
aggieforester05
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 10:39a, 5/22/24
AG
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
Don't underestimate the social pressure they will endure to convict. These folks live in Manhattan and will endure harassment, threats, and possibly even violence from radical left wing lunatics when they are inevitably doxxed. There's a good chance they could lose their employment and be ostracized in their local community. It won't only be themselves at risk, but their families as well. It would take some really thick skin and fortitude to vote not guilty. Furthermore, they'll likely be facing a radical leftwing majority on the jury that they've likely developed some level of camaraderie with during the trial that will be pressuring them to give a unanimous verdict of guilty.
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggieforester05 • 10:40a, 5/22/24
aggieforester05 said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
Don't underestimate the social pressure they will endure to convict. These folks live in Manhattan and will endure harassment, threats, and possibly even violence from radical left wing lunatics when they are inevitably doxxed.
And they have 8 days to be pressured.
Reply Quote
1
agAngeldad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 10:40a, 5/22/24
Ellis Wyatt said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury.
I think you are underplaying the fact that the judge did not allow Costello to give full testimony, nor would he allow Brad Smith to do so. Both of those would have undercut the State's bull**** case. The jury knows nothing about the truth.


I find it hard to believe that some of the jury members havent been listening to the news or talking to family/close frienda. Its a normal to want to know.
Reply Quote
2
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggieforester05 • 10:42a, 5/22/24
AG
Exactly. I have no doubt there are a few jurors that will at least consider the facts in a somewhat unbiased manner; however, with all of the vitriol directed at Trump and his supporters, is this group going to be principled enough and tough enough to go back to their NYC neighborhoods and social circles after voting not guilty? I doubt it
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Hungry Ojos
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agAngeldad • 10:42a, 5/22/24
agAngeldad said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury.
I think you are underplaying the fact that the judge did not allow Costello to give full testimony, nor would he allow Brad Smith to do so. Both of those would have undercut the State's bull**** case. The jury knows nothing about the truth.


I find it hard to believe that some of the jury members havent been listening to the news or talking to family/close frienda. Its a normal to want to know.


If so, what "news" do you think they were listening to? Because if it was cnn, it seemed as if they were covering a completely different trial. In other words, they wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Merchan's conduct.
Reply Quote
3
Mr Mojo Risin
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gyles Marrett • 10:43a, 5/22/24
AG
Gyles Marrett said:
Mr Mojo Risin said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
This is both a reasonable take and has a decent chance of being the outcome, possibly as good of a chance as a conviction. I think the lowest probability is a not guilty verdict.

The hung jury takes the target off the jury's back, mostly.
I think the prosecution would be just as fine with a hung jury as they would a guilty verdict. With a hung jury they get to redo this charade and no doubt will restart quickly to keep Trump off the trail even longer. Or start it in busy time of campaigning late summer into September.
There is no way they get it started back up this year.

They would have to take a new angle of "Still under investigation/indictment" on the campaign trail.

One thing I'm fairly sure of is that this will never go to trial again. Acquittal very unlikely. Conviction will be overturned upon appeal. Hung jury means that they couldn't get the job done in a very blue district and they'll have no where else to go.
America was built on speed, hot, nasty, badass speed.
Reply Quote
6
agAngeldad
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hungry Ojos • 10:44a, 5/22/24
Hungry Ojos said:
agAngeldad said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury.
I think you are underplaying the fact that the judge did not allow Costello to give full testimony, nor would he allow Brad Smith to do so. Both of those would have undercut the State's bull**** case. The jury knows nothing about the truth.


I find it hard to believe that some of the jury members havent been listening to the news or talking to family/close frienda. Its a normal to want to know.


If so, what "news" do you think they were listening to? Because if it was cnn, it seemed as if they were covering a completely different trial. In other words, they wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Merchan's conduct.


Good point. I suspect most people dont really listen to traditional news anymore. Streaming provides lots of platforms both good/bad. Good news is CNN's numbers have dropped alot over the past two years.
Reply Quote
1
whatthehey78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AustinAg2K • 10:48a, 5/22/24
AG
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
Whatever the result...it will say ALOT about where we are as a nation and mankind in general.
Reply Quote
6
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agAngeldad • 10:48a, 5/22/24
agAngeldad said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury.
I think you are underplaying the fact that the judge did not allow Costello to give full testimony, nor would he allow Brad Smith to do so. Both of those would have undercut the State's bull**** case. The jury knows nothing about the truth.


I find it hard to believe that some of the jury members havent been listening to the news or talking to family/close frienda. Its a normal to want to know.


If they are reading the news, they will have likely read stories about Costello or Smith not being allowed to testify. They also would have seen stories questioning what the charges are. NYT and CNN have both questioned the trial, even though it's like 80% pro conviction, they have had other stories just to pretend to be balanced. If a juror is reading/watching the news, they likely will have run into something that might open their mind.
Reply Quote
2
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:49a, 5/22/24
AG
Going back to the first dozen or so pages of this thread the potential jurors were asked where they got their news. Most of them said CNN, or Yahoo, Google alerts, a smattering of Fox responses but CNN by far was the most common response along with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal for newspapers.
Reply Quote
3
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to agAngeldad • 10:50a, 5/22/24
agAngeldad said:
Hungry Ojos said:


If so, what "news" do you think they were listening to? Because if it was cnn, it seemed as if they were covering a completely different trial. In other words, they wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Merchan's conduct.


Good point. I suspect most people dont really listen to traditional news anymore. Streaming provides lots of platforms both good/bad. Good news is CNN's numbers have dropped alot over the past two years.
We know exactly what news these jurors watch, and for many its "Traditional" news.

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
2
DannyDuberstein
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whatthehey78 • 10:50a, 5/22/24
AG
whatthehey78 said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury. Biden got 75% of the vote in Manhattan back in 2020. With 12 jurors, that would mean 3 are possibly Trump voters. Beyond that, of the other 9, I do believe you'll have 3 or 4 who are willing to listen to the testimony and give it a fair chance. There will probably be 3 or 4 who thought guilty as soon as they saw it was Trump, but I think there will be enough who are willing to give it a chance that we end up with a hung jury.
Whatever the result...it will say ALOT about where we are as a nation and mankind in general.


I'm expecting it to say "watch your back, because your neighbors are willing to imprison you over your politics"
Reply Quote
4
AustinAg2K
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Hungry Ojos • 10:53a, 5/22/24
Hungry Ojos said:
agAngeldad said:
Ellis Wyatt said:
AustinAg2K said:
I think people are overplaying the bias of the jury.
I think you are underplaying the fact that the judge did not allow Costello to give full testimony, nor would he allow Brad Smith to do so. Both of those would have undercut the State's bull**** case. The jury knows nothing about the truth.


I find it hard to believe that some of the jury members havent been listening to the news or talking to family/close frienda. Its a normal to want to know.


If so, what "news" do you think they were listening to? Because if it was cnn, it seemed as if they were covering a completely different trial. In other words, they wouldn't have seen anything wrong with Merchan's conduct.


I've ended up watching a lot CNN during the trial because they seem to have the best up to the minute coverage. During the day, when the trial is actually going on, they seem to be pretty fair. They have questioned a lot of the evidence, they said the Cohen testimony went very bad for the prosecution, etc... but then if you watch the nightly report, it is completely different. They basically act like everything has gone perfect for the prosecution and the defense is tripping all over themselves.
Reply Quote
6
First Page Last Page
Page 122 of 197 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.