aggiehawg said:
BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.
I'll be shocked if they're not done this afternoon.Marvin said:aggiehawg said:So we are back to the waiting game.Quote:
The 12-person jury is leaving the courtroom to continue deliberations in Donald Trump's hush money trial.
My guess is that it won't be for long.
If you tie their request of the Pecker testimony with the instructions about inferences, I can kind of see where they might be going. Using the bolded paragraph, they could infer that Trump approved of these "catch and kill" ideas even though the transaction was between Cohen and Pecker.aggiehawg said:Quote:
We're moving on to another request from the jury: for the court reporters to re-read former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.
The first part of that testimony being read back in court includes Pecker recalling the timing of the meeting, which he said was held in August, and that Donald Trump, Trump's fixer Michael Cohen and longtime aide Hope Hicks were present.
The reporters go on to read a portion of Pecker's testimony where he says that he expected there to be women coming forward to sell stories about Trump during his presidential campaign both because Trump was a well-known eligible bachelor and because it's common when people run for public office in general.
In the testimony, Pecker recalls saying he would notify Cohen if he was aware of any such stories on the market.
Jurors then hear the portion of Pecker's testimony where he says he believed it could be "mutually beneficial" for the National Enquirer and for Trump for the magazine to write positive stories about Trump and write negative stories about his opponent.
Pecker then responds to questions about helping Cohen potentially purchase stories with the intent of not running them for Trump, and about how that specifically would benefit Trump's campaign.
4stringAg said:If you tie their request of the Pecker testimony with the instructions about inferences, I can kind of see where they might be going. Using the bolded paragraph, they could infer that Trump approved of these "catch and kill" ideas even though the transaction was between Cohen and Pecker.aggiehawg said:Quote:
We're moving on to another request from the jury: for the court reporters to re-read former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.
The first part of that testimony being read back in court includes Pecker recalling the timing of the meeting, which he said was held in August, and that Donald Trump, Trump's fixer Michael Cohen and longtime aide Hope Hicks were present.
The reporters go on to read a portion of Pecker's testimony where he says that he expected there to be women coming forward to sell stories about Trump during his presidential campaign both because Trump was a well-known eligible bachelor and because it's common when people run for public office in general.
In the testimony, Pecker recalls saying he would notify Cohen if he was aware of any such stories on the market.
Jurors then hear the portion of Pecker's testimony where he says he believed it could be "mutually beneficial" for the National Enquirer and for Trump for the magazine to write positive stories about Trump and write negative stories about his opponent.
Pecker then responds to questions about helping Cohen potentially purchase stories with the intent of not running them for Trump, and about how that specifically would benefit Trump's campaign.
I don't think catch and kill is illegal and there was an established pattern testified by Pecker of promoting Trump positive stories before he even ran for office but not sure the jury will care about that. They'll use it as "proof" of a conspiracy to withhold info from the voting public.
Again, a clown show sham court trial.
Agree but by raising a jurisdictional issue that appeal can be expedited.MagnumLoad said:aggiehawg said:
BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.
True. However, the appeal won't be heard until after the election most likely. This is a lawless court, and SCOTUS is feckless, and the DOJ is a corrupt arm of the democrat party. We are basically down to defend your own wire.
4stringAg said:If you tie their request of the Pecker testimony with the instructions about inferences, I can kind of see where they might be going. Using the bolded paragraph, they could infer that Trump approved of these "catch and kill" ideas even though the transaction was between Cohen and Pecker.aggiehawg said:Quote:
We're moving on to another request from the jury: for the court reporters to re-read former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower in 2015.
The first part of that testimony being read back in court includes Pecker recalling the timing of the meeting, which he said was held in August, and that Donald Trump, Trump's fixer Michael Cohen and longtime aide Hope Hicks were present.
The reporters go on to read a portion of Pecker's testimony where he says that he expected there to be women coming forward to sell stories about Trump during his presidential campaign both because Trump was a well-known eligible bachelor and because it's common when people run for public office in general.
In the testimony, Pecker recalls saying he would notify Cohen if he was aware of any such stories on the market.
Jurors then hear the portion of Pecker's testimony where he says he believed it could be "mutually beneficial" for the National Enquirer and for Trump for the magazine to write positive stories about Trump and write negative stories about his opponent.
Pecker then responds to questions about helping Cohen potentially purchase stories with the intent of not running them for Trump, and about how that specifically would benefit Trump's campaign.
I don't think catch and kill is illegal and there was an established pattern testified by Pecker of promoting Trump positive stories before he even ran for office but not sure the jury will care about that. They'll use it as "proof" of a conspiracy to withhold info from the
Again, a clown show sham court trial.
aggiehawg said:Agree but by raising a jurisdictional issue that appeal can be expedited.MagnumLoad said:aggiehawg said:
BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.
True. However, the appeal won't be heard until after the election most likely. This is a lawless court, and SCOTUS is feckless, and the DOJ is a corrupt arm of the democrat party. We are basically down to defend your own wire.
Quote:
A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll is the latest to suggest that any verdict in Donald Trump's hush money trial is unlikely to have a major effect on voters' choices come November.Those figures are similar to other recent polling on the topic, including a May Quinnipiac poll which found that 65% of registered voters said that if Trump were convicted it would be unlikely to change their position on the presidential race.Quote:
Overall, 67% of registered voters say a guilty verdict in the trial would not make a difference to their vote, while 76% say the same about a not guilty verdict.
Most notably in the new polls, just a small share of people who support Trump say that a guilty verdict would dissuade them from supporting him.A CNN poll conducted in April as the trial's jury was being selected found that only 24% of registered voters who support Trump said they might even reconsider their support if Trump were convicted of a crime.Quote:
In the Marist poll, just 7% of those who say they would vote for Trump in the presidential race say a guilty verdict would make them less likely to back him, and in Quinnipiac's data, only 6% of current Trump supporters say they would be less likely to back Trump if he were convicted.
Questions like this do not always align with the reality of how voters behave and often overstate the potential for movement, as many poll respondents use them as opportunities to express opinions they already hold.
For example, 24% of people who already support Trump in both the Marist and Quinnipiac polls say a conviction would make them MORE likely to support Trump, meaning that while a conviction might strengthen their loyalty for Trump, it wouldn't change their vote.
Likewise, although almost 30% of Democrats in each poll say they would be less likely to back Trump if convicted, less than 10% currently do support Trump in the presidential race, meaning most of those who say they would be "less likely" to vote for Trump did not support him in the first place.
Another Juror Note: apparently they want to know how much a CNN Contributorship will pay if they ignore the facts and find Trump guilty.
— Jimmy Failla (@jimmyfailla) May 30, 2024
Exactly. The prosecution AND THE JUDGE have used the word salad approach that allows for any kind of interpretation. By not allowing expert testimony, that most certainly would have negated all their convoluted bull****, the jury is left with nonsensical bull***** The "judge" also restricted the defense from certain topics.Casual Cynic said:
The jury is probably confused about the campaign violation accusations by the government. Would have been nice to hear from an expert.
Agreed. We seeing the three branches of government merged into one.MagnumLoad said:True. However, the appeal won't be heard until after the election most likely. This is a lawless court, and SCOTUS is feckless, and the DOJ is a corrupt arm of the democrat party. We are basically down to defend your own wire.aggiehawg said:
BTW, the jury's focus on the FECA stuff presents an appellate issue that the appellate divion won't be able to sidestep as that is a jurisdictional issue.
aggiehawg said:
Appears to me this jury has glossed over the threshhold question and that is
Is a ledger entry regarding and invoice from a lawyer's office designated as "services rendered" with that entry being categorized as a "Legal Expense" a false business record?
LOL.MouthBQ98 said:
As loose as the prosecution and judge are interpreting these laws, a LOT of lawyers and politicians and political candidates in New York should be seriously concerned about selective prosecution.
Exactly. Further, when Cohen creates invoices that do not separate out fees and cost reimbursements, is issued 1099s on the basis of his submitted invoices having the net effect of overstating his income on his own tax returns, is the overinflation of his income a false tax filing? Meaning the 1099s?Quote:
And is it "intent to defraud" if that is written in private books and presented to absolutely nobody
Foreverconservative said:
FACT Trump hasn't made an entry in a Trump Org business ledger in decades perhaps ever.
Who did? DEBORAH TARASOFF who was the Trump Organization's accounts payable supervisor who testified about processing the payments to Cohen, including receiving checks that Trump had signed at the White House. And under cross, she acknowledged permission to cut Cohen's checks came NOT from Trump himself, but from Weisselberg and McConney.
NEITHER Weisselberg and McConney testified that Trump order them to classify payments to Cohen one way or another.
Cohen wrote his own invoices and submitted them to be paid to the accounts payables like every other vendor and received no special instructions or treatment according to Tarasoff
All the rest of this crap is noise
Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.Hungry Ojos said:
So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
It really is this simple. It's a travesty this was filed, let alone made it to the jury.fredfredunderscorefred said:aggiehawg said:
Appears to me this jury has glossed over the threshhold question and that is
Is a ledger entry regarding and invoice from a lawyer's office designated as "services rendered" with that entry being categorized as a "Legal Expense" a false business record?
And is it "intent to defraud" if that is written in private books and presented to absolutely nobody
CyclingAg82 said:Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.Hungry Ojos said:
So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.
Quote:
Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump.
Merchan issued instructions to the jury of seven men and five women Wednesday, pointing them to some of the key evidence in the case prior to the panel beginning its deliberations. Dershowitz admitted he was speculating during Wednesday's episode of "The Dershow" about Merchan's reason for keeping the alternates available, but said he had seen a judge in an unrelated case make a similar move.
Quote:
"I admit this is highly, highly speculative, but there… I know a case on this, so that I'm not making it up: The judge said he's not going to dismiss the alternate jurors until there's an absolute verdict," Dershowitz said. "One possible reason for that, again, I want to emphasize that I'm speculating, one possible reason for this might be following, it is quite cynical: Let's assume that the jurors come back and say, 'Sorry we're, uh, we're deadlocked. We have one juror who just won't give in. Well, there are eleven of us who think he's guilty.' By the way, the jurors don't say what they think, they just say there's a deadlock, but if they come back that way, the inference will be that the jury is, that is, is locked eleven to one in favor of conviction.'"
Quote:
"So the judge hears from the jurors and the judge hears that they're eleven to one and then the judge says, 'Well is that other juror, the twelfth juror, is he negotiating? Is he involved in the conversations?' And the foreman to the jury says 'No, he's refusing, he's sitting there with his arms folded, saying, 'Guy's innocent, sorry, guy's innocent, I'm not going to listen to you. The guy's innocent, there's no case here, the guy's innocent,'" Dershowitz continued. "If I were on the jury, that's what I'd be doing, and then the judge has the power, rarely, rarely, exercised, but he has the power, I've seen it done, to say 'Well, if this juror won't deliberate, then he's violating his oath, and I'm going to substitute one of the alternate jurors for that juror,' and then immediately, they come back with a twelve to nothing verdict of conviction."
LINKQuote:
"I'm not saying that that's going to happen, I'm not saying that's even in the judge's mind, but knowing this judge and seeing him in action, particularly having seen him in action on the day I was in the court when they cleared everybody but I was allowed to stay, why, I still don't know, and I saw the real Judge Merchan," Dershowitz said. "Um, that's not beyond the realm of possibility, so anything's possible. This judge wants Donald Trump convicted."
This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.CyclingAg82 said:Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.Hungry Ojos said:
So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.
Hell, let's not forget the use of FISA against political opponents and wiretapping campaign headquarters.jrdaustin said:This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.CyclingAg82 said:Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.Hungry Ojos said:
So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.
The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.
First, they've redefined impeachment down to excerpts from phone calls and public speeches in order to attack their target.
Now, they've redefined criminality to threaten decades of jail time against a political opponent for how their records are recorded in their private books.
Republicans will have no choice but to play by their rules. Otherwise, these strategies will continue unabated.
Quote:
Will Scharf, an attorney for former President Donald Trump, said that Trump's team is prepared to appeal a jury verdict if Trump is convicted.
"If there were to be a conviction here, which we believe would be a gravely unjust verdict, we would speedily appeal to the New York Appellate division, potentially to the New York Court of Appeals as well. And we'll take that step if we get there," Scharf told CNN's Jake Tapper.
"But so far, we think that appears to be a highly unlikely outcome here," Scharf added.
