I thought the Carol trials did not have a jury?

What percentage of the courtroom will be hungover on the Tuesday after Memorial day?

jt2hunt said:

---

I thought the Carol trials did not have a jury?

---

It had a jury. The civil fraud trial was the bench trial - in front of a judge who valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 million.

VegasAg86 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

I thought the Carol trials did not have a jury?

---

It had a jury. The civil fraud trial was the bench trial - in front of a judge who valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 million.

---

And found Cohen trustworthy and credible

jt2hunt said:

---

I thought the Carol trials did not have a jury?

---

You are confusing evidence with juries. All three trials did not have any evidence of crimes. But the Carroll case did & this case does have a jury.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It was a conspiracy to...GET ELECTED!!! <Insert ominous dramatic music here>

---

Let us assume arguendo that the Daniels payment was a campaign expenditure. That payment was made in late October 2016, right before the election. Under FECA, it would not have been required to even be reported unti December 2016, well after the election. Which is what the defense expert, Brad Smith, was going to tell the jury, but Merchan would not allow that testimony.

So how does the jury square that gaping round hole in the evidence?

---

Without any lube, I'm afraid.

Hungry Ojos 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 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.

---

Two attorneys sitting on a panel seems very rare. I believe this was a set up that started a long time ago.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

I thought the Carol trials did not have a jury?

---

It had a jury. The civil fraud trial was the bench trial - in front of a judge who valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 million.

---

And found Cohen trustworthy and credible

---

Wildest part of all this is Trump's personal attorney having his office raided by the FBI, testifying under crime-fraud, and admitting on the stand stealing $60,000 from Trump.

John Grisham the real victim here. No way he can compete with this!

WHAT A TIME BE ALIVE!

TheRatt87 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

I thought the Carol trials did not have a jury?

---

You are confusing evidence with juries. All three trials did not have any evidence of crimes. But the Carroll case did & this case does have a jury.

---

What exactly was the evidence?

Science Denier said:

---

Hungry Ojos 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 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.

---

Two attorneys sitting on a panel seems very rare. I believe this was a set up that started a long time ago.

---

One of the two will be the foreman and the rest will be under overwhelming pressure to simply do whatever the lawyers decide to do. Any dissenter on the jury is outgunned and outmanned.

Ultimately Trump's fate is in the hands of two NY lawyers who by stroke of luck got a golden ticket here. They'll never go hungry again with a Trump conviction.

However, these two acquit trump and they might never work in Manhattan again. That's probably the reality of the situation.

A team of the very best writers could never have conceived of what we've seen play out over the past few years.

Would be incredulous. Some sort of TDS fan-fiction.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

A team of the very best writers could never have conceived of what we've seen play out over the past few years.

Would be incredulous. Some sort of TDS fan-fiction.

---

And the left is silent. People posting on this thread think this is all routine.

aggiehawg said:

---

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It was a conspiracy to...GET ELECTED!!! <Insert ominous dramatic music here>

---

Let us assume arguendo that the Daniels payment was a campaign expenditure. That payment was made in late October 2016, right before the election. Under FECA, it would not have been required to even be reported unti December 2016, well after the election. Which is what the defense expert, Brad Smith, was going to tell the jury, but Merchan would not allow that testimony.

So how does the jury square that gaping round hole in the evidence?

---

Without any lube, I'm afraid.

---

Further, Cohen apparently did not bill nor submit any invoices related to the Daniels payment until February 2017, after Trump was in office. Cohen's legal relationship to Trump had changed into being the personal lawyer for the POTUS.

So again, how is that election interference?

---

Is their theory that that timing to be after the election was done as part of the "conspiracy" to hide it?...To which we've seen no evidence of such. Not even Cohen said anything about he was told to not invoice until after the election.

Quote:

---

One of the two will be the foreman and the rest will be under overwhelming pressure to simply do whatever the lawyers decide to do. Any dissenter on the jury is outgunned and outmanned.

---

I am not sure how that works in NY state court. I have seen references indicating that the first juror selected from the panel to be seated on the jury automatically is designated foreman?

How does the defense prepare their closing without being able to decipher what the prosecution is actually going to argue in their closing?

Quote:

---

I have seen references indicating that the first juror selected from the panel to be seated on the jury automatically is designated foreman?

---

I just googled this, and looks like that is correct!

BIZARRE!

How empowered does Stormy Daniels feel now though?

Maybe the most powerful succubus of all time!

Powerful enough that the public knowledge of her screwing Trump could influence a presidential election, and criminally defraud the government and voting public.

And further, that her sworn testimony regarding same may well have the leading presidential candidate removed from the ballot!

WOW!

What a time to be alive!

2024 DELIVERS!

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have seen references indicating that the first juror selected from the panel to be seated on the jury automatically is designated foreman?

---

I just googled this, and looks like that is correct!

BIZARRE!

---

designated Foreman and acting as Foreman are different.

Strongest personality in the room will could win out. (*edited - probably not always if there are multiple headstrong people)

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have seen references indicating that the first juror selected from the panel to be seated on the jury automatically is designated foreman?

---

I just googled this, and looks like that is correct!

BIZARRE!

---

What are the odds that the first juror selected is one of the two lawyers?

True!

Quote:

---

What are the odds that the first juror selected is one of the two lawyers?

---

Zero.

Its a a sales professional and is originally from Ireland.

2/18=11.1%

Dummy just can't help herself and says the quiet part out loud

AOC says the quiet part out loud:

They stopped Trump from campaigning by putting him in a "legal version of an ankle bracelet" pic.twitter.com/qiNjbypQlC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 22, 2024

Quote:

---

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

---

I don't get this at all. Having an NDA to prevent unfavorable news on a candidate from reaching the public is not unlawful, is it? If its not illegal then how could there be a conspiracy?

I mean, if that's the standard, why hasn't Hillary been hauled in on charges for her buying bogus info about Russian Trump golden shower tapes?

The Last Cobra Commander said:

---

2/18=11.1%

---

This checks out.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Dummy just can't help herself and says the quiet part out loud

AOC says the quiet part out loud:

They stopped Trump from campaigning by putting him in a "legal version of an ankle bracelet" pic.twitter.com/qiNjbypQlC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 22, 2024

---

AOC warns Trump, 'don't you dare come into the south-Bronx' ...

I get it but the legal theory is that the hush payment was election interference/fraud and the crime they're charging is that Trump mislabeled/filed the documents to obscure/hide that crime. It's thin gruel at best but they don't need much. A fig leaf would be embarrassed.

agAngeldad said:

---

TheRatt87 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

I thought the Carol trials did not have a jury?

---

You are confusing evidence with juries. All three trials did not have any evidence of crimes. But the Carroll case did & this case does have a jury.

---

What exactly was the evidence?

---

No evidence (at least no credible evidence) of wrongdoing by Trump in any of the three trials.

TexAg1987 said:

---

How does the defense prepare their closing without being able to decipher what the prosecution is actually going to argue in their closing?

---

Either "everything they that guy just said is bs" or go through how the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Then point out the only criminality in evidence is cohen stealing $60k from Trump and the two "star" witnesses are two people who are incentivized to lie both due to their hatred of the defendant and due to them both benefiting financially from this prosecution and if they get a conviction. Last is easy, the prosecution relies almost entirely on the word of a man who has lied to every other court he's ever been in, he lied to the defendant, he lied to most every other witness he talked to in 2016 so why should anybody believe he won't lie now?

aezmvp said:

---

I get it but the legal theory is that the hush payment was election interference/fraud and the crime they're charging is that Trump mislabeled/filed the documents to obscure/hide that crime. It's thin gruel at best but they don't need much. A fig leaf would be embarrassed.

---

Who had access to those documents? None of that info is/was public info, right?

TexAg1987 said:

---

How does the defense prepare their closing without being able to decipher what the prosecution is actually going to argue in their closing?

---

Prepare for everything, every theory they think the prosecution will use. As they listen to the state's closing (they go first and last) the defense counsel then edits their summations accordingly.

That is how it usually works but with this judge were I defense counsel, I would be concerned that the state would then add the non-discussed theories in rebuttal. By rights they should not be allowed to do that but Merchan would probably allow it.

Theres so much legal error baked into this trial that it will take months to brief if you've got one bite at the apple.

Even if it's immediately appealed the verdict will stand until after the election.