Quote:

---

Go back and read the jury selection portion of this thread. I do not specifically remember what happened with the lawyers.

---

Gosh, even I can't remember how many pages in before there were any meaningful posts about voir dire. Maybe 12 or 13 pages in? But it was the CNN feed and other than the Ag in NY who was on the panel and promptly tossed, things were pretty chaotic.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He wasn't randomly selected. He got the case because of the other cases in Trump's orbit that he'd presided over.

---

I would say that is even worse. Stalinist.

A Biden donor judge. A DOJ prosecutor. In Manhattan. Two lawyers "randomly" on the jury.

---

I agree but didn't the defense have the opportunity to take them off the jury?

---

The defense was only allowed so many strikes. In Manhattan, that voted 85% for Biden. The odds were heavily against them. By design.

So, not exactly.

---

Wouldn't they have at least tried to remove 1 of the 2? I understand your point and think this process was a complete sham, inexcusable, and embarrassing beyond pale.

---

Go back and read the jury selection portion of this thread. I do not specifically remember what happened with the lawyers.

---

My memory was that there wasn't mention of them during voir dire, but I could have missed it.

Hawg - do you happen to remember?

Are there betting odds on Trump actually going to jail? I thought I couldn't fathom that happening but not so sure anymore. This is just surreal.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Are there betting odds on Trump actually going to jail? I thought I couldn't fathom that happening but not so sure anymore. This is just surreal.

---

Liberals double-down on everything. Everything.

I fully expect this "judge" to give Trump the maximum sentence possible.

shiftyandquick said:

---

why isn't Trump attacking the jurors? He attacks the DA, attacks the judge. He must think it is a losing argument. Because his lack of attacking them is not because he thinks it is morally wrong, or incorrect, the man has no morals or honesty after all, we can agree to that.

---

I know of a guy. Thinks he's shifty and quick. Is represented by the emboldened.

And Trump is threatened with jail if jurors are verbally ridiculed by Trump.

Lucky that you have free rein.

Tex117 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

So Trump is a convicted felon right now and until the appeal (probably until it reaches the Supreme Court and is out of New York). We all know this commie judge is gonna incarcerate him for some length of time. I'm finding it hard to see how Trump can run for the presidency. Can he do it from a jail cell?

---

That dude is not going to Rikers.

---

Whoopi peed herself when Trump was found guilty.

That crazy B will lose her bowels when Trump is transported from Rikers to the White House.

Heck yeah LAW AND ORDER

GenericAggie said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

He wasn't randomly selected. He got the case because of the other cases in Trump's orbit that he'd presided over.

---

I would say that is even worse. Stalinist.

A Biden donor judge. A DOJ prosecutor. In Manhattan. Two lawyers "randomly" on the jury.

---

I agree but didn't the defense have the opportunity to take them off the jury?

---

The defense was only allowed so many strikes. In Manhattan, that voted 85% for Biden. The odds were heavily against them. By design.

So, not exactly.

---

Wouldn't they have at least tried to remove 1 of the 2? I understand your point and think this process was a complete sham, inexcusable, and embarrassing beyond pale.

---

Go back and read the jury selection portion of this thread. I do not specifically remember what happened with the lawyers.

---

My memory was that there wasn't mention of them during voir dire, but I could have missed it.

---

Best I can tell from transcript…

Both lawyers are "big law" attorneys. One is a civil litigator at firm called Andrews Kurth and one is does venture capital and start-up corporate law at a firm named Gunderson Dettmer.

The corporate lawyer was Juror B381. Takes a seat on page 22 of the Day 2 transcript. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24594682-2024-04-16-transcript) Trump's lawyer asked them one question on page 103 about whether they follow the news around the trial. The juror said not really. That's all that happened with that juror.

The civil litigator was Juror B269, first comes up at page 181 of the transcript. The State questioned them starting bottom of page 195. Trump's team questioned them on page 206. Blanche asked the juror about his opinion of Trump and how being a lawyer would affect their ability to be impartial. That's all that happened.


There were at least two other lawyers who came up on day 1, both were struck on day 2. One was a antitrust litigator (B193) and one was a prosecutor at the Bronx DA (the transcript is a bit confusing as to their juror number). Another lawyer that didn't make the jury came up on Day 3, another on Day 4 who was married to another lawyer.

pic.twitter.com/JLNON57hw3

— Sherry Stambaugh (@sherstam) June 1, 2024

drcrinum said:

---

pic.twitter.com/JLNON57hw3

— Sherry Stambaugh (@sherstam) June 1, 2024

---

Where is Vlad Putin?

CNN senior legal analyst got honest.
Explains the joke trial
https://anncoulter.substack.com/p/cnn-senior-legal-analyst-da-bragg

Quote:

---

Most importantly, the DA's charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. …
The district attorney's press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are "commonplace" … That's true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. …
But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor two years likely has long expired on Trump's conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

---

nortex97 said:

---

Just so everyone understands:

The theory that Bragg's Office ultimately pushed the most aggressively in the latter stages of the case and at closing was that the false business records were intented to cover up a NY state law crime of "conspiracy to promote the election of any…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) May 31, 2024

The utter absurdities here are mind bottling.

---

Rest of Tweet

Quote:

---

Just so everyone understands:

The theory that Bragg's Office ultimately pushed the most aggressively in the latter stages of the case and at closing was that the false business records were intented to cover up a NY state law crime of "conspiracy to promote the election of any person to public office by unlawful means."

The unlawful means was the filing of the false records to hide the NDA payments.

The "filing of false records" charge -- standing alone -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

The "conspiracy to promote the election" -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

It is only by COMBINING two misdemeanors -- neither of which could be prosecuted -- that the Democrat machine could create a felony charge that was within the longer statute of limitations.

That's the extremes to which the Dems are willing to go in order to keep Trump from returning to the White House.

This case was the first case filed of the 4 now pending. It was filed before Trump announced that he was running again. It was intended to be a "warning shot across his bow" to prevent him from running.

There is now the very real possibility that exactly the opposite of the intended outcome is now going to happen.

By the way -- this week Joe Biden went from DC to Philly to Wilmington to DC to Rehoboth Beach.

---

Quote:

---

The unlawful means was the filing of the false records to hide the NDA payments.

The "filing of false records" charge -- standing alone -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

The "conspiracy to promote the election" -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

It is only by COMBINING two misdemeanors -- neither of which could be prosecuted -- that the Democrat machine could create a felony charge that was within the longer statute of limitations.

---

And illegally extended an extra year due to NY state's inability to function during covid. Or so they said.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The unlawful means was the filing of the false records to hide the NDA payments.

The "filing of false records" charge -- standing alone -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

The "conspiracy to promote the election" -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

It is only by COMBINING two misdemeanors -- neither of which could be prosecuted -- that the Democrat machine could create a felony charge that was within the longer statute of limitations.

---

And illegally extended an extra year due to NY state's inability to function during covid. Or so they said.

---

That is something I've been wondering about. Is a backlog of cases in a region a valid reason to toll? Have there been other cases across the state of New York that were tolled for the same reason or was this another novel application?

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The unlawful means was the filing of the false records to hide the NDA payments.

The "filing of false records" charge -- standing alone -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

The "conspiracy to promote the election" -- is a misdemeanor, barred by the statute of limitations.

It is only by COMBINING two misdemeanors -- neither of which could be prosecuted -- that the Democrat machine could create a felony charge that was within the longer statute of limitations.

---

And illegally extended an extra year due to NY state's inability to function during covid. Or so they said.

---

That is something I've been wondering about. Is a backlog of cases in a region a valid reason to toll? Have there been other cases across the state of New York that were tolled for the same reason or was this another novel application?

---

I was curious about that too...

What about STOGNER v. CALIFORNIA? Does that not apply here?

Quote:

---

That is something I've been wondering about. Is a backlog of cases in a region a valid reason to toll? Have there been other cases across the state of New York that were tolled for the same reason or was this another novel application?

---

I have not seen where any other state extended criminal SOLs due to covid. Maybe they have as to civil SOLs but criminal? If I missed some other state doing so, I'd be happy to be corrected.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That is something I've been wondering about. Is a backlog of cases in a region a valid reason to toll? Have there been other cases across the state of New York that were tolled for the same reason or was this another novel application?

---

I have not seen where any other state extended criminal SOLs due to covid. Maybe they have as to civil SOLs but criminal? If I missed some other state doing so, I'd be happy to be corrected.

---

Sorry for the confusion, but my question was more about if any other criminal case in NY had been tolled for those reasons? Or if Trump's trial was the only 1.

Quote:

---

Sorry for the confusion, but my question was more about if any other criminal case in NY had been tolled for those reasons? Or if Trump's trial was the only 1.

---

My understanding was it was statewide. Then again they changed the SOL in civil case just for E. Jean Carroll so have no idea if this tolling was pushed by Bragg or Colangelo, perhaps?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Sorry for the confusion, but my question was more about if any other criminal case in NY had been tolled for those reasons? Or if Trump's trial was the only 1.

---

My understanding was it was statewide. Then again they changed the SOL in civil case just for E. Jean Carroll so have no idea if this tolling was pushed by Bragg or Colangelo, perhaps?

---

Since I live in upstate NY, I can provide a little more info on the change to SOL for civil cases. It wasn't just Carroll that was affected. Several Catholic diocese are in bankruptcy after victims and their lawyers refused to reach settlement. The Albany diocese is the most recent to file bankruptcy.

JD Vance is quite impressive. Wolf is a D bag

Quote:

---

Since I live in upstate NY, I can provide a little more info on the change to SOL for civil cases. It wasn't just Carroll that was affected. Several Catholic diocese are in bankruptcy after victims and their lawyers refused to reach settlement. The Albany diocese is the most recent to file bankruptcy.

---

I understand that the Adult Survivors Act applied to more people other than Carroll. But the one year sunset provision within that law still sucked.

aggiehawg said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

This is an absolutely hilarious. These ****ing idiots cried for YEARS about how the FBI investigation into Hillary for "muh emails" hurt her election chances and was an attack by Republicans to damage a political opponent. These ****ing hypocrites do this over and over and over again, and it ALWAYS comes back to bite them. Harry Reid changes the rules re: appointing federal judges, MCConnell tells him he'll regret it, just 3 years later McConnell refuses to take up Garland's ***** ass for a vote, and then puts in Gorsitch, Kavanaugh and Barrett (in an election year).

Can't wait for this to play out.

---

Although DOJ has a policy about not indicting a sitting President, Texas does not. So what is Paxton going to pull out of his bags of tricks? (half joking.)

---

Biden should be prosecuted as an accomplice to the human, drugs and sex trafficking occurring on the Texas Border

Lawfare Against Caesar Started a Civil War That Ended the Roman Republic https://t.co/8ZzTEdHQ4t pic.twitter.com/fY9umUa40g

— Grace Chong 🇺🇸 (@gc22gc) June 1, 2024

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1796553762032820497.html


The Rubicon has been crossed. History says the outlook is not good.
"Political prosecutions are what brought down the Roman Republic."

Short interesting threadreader.

The judge who presided over Donald Trump’s fraud case closed off many avenues of appeal, leaving him few ways to escape his felony conviction. https://t.co/jXY7FLz0iT

— The New York Times (@nytimes) June 1, 2024

Trial transcripts.

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/

Turley:

Quote:

---

The Manhattan case, in my view, was a raw political use of the criminal justice system. It is only the latest example of the use of the justice system for political purposes and harkens back to the Adams Administration at the start of our Republic. I discuss that period in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (which is available this month).

---

Quote:

---

After years of trying in the words of the judge "to get the damned rascal in this court," it was a conviction that many welcomed.

But those words were not from Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, and the conviction was not that of former President Donald Trump.

Rather they were from US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, at the end of the 18th century, when America embraced political prosecutions to target critics and opponents.

The man on trial then was James T. Callender, a muckraking writer critical of President John Adams.

For accusing politicians of corruption, Callender was charged with sedition, fined $200 and put in prison.
It was one of the many political prosecutions carried out by the Adams administration.

---

Quote:

---

But the Trump prosecution has forced many to confront the undeniable reality of the politicization of our legal system.

In many respects, President Biden and Democrats have re-created the Adams era.
Biden has led calls for censorship of political critics and his administration has coordinated the silencing and the blacklisting of those with opposing views.

Democratic politicians have pressured social-media companies to serve as surrogates for the government in banning, throttling and defunding individuals and groups.

Indeed, I have previously written that Biden is now the most anti-free-speech president since Adams.

---

Quote:

---

The Adams era also reflected the same blind loyalty of many media outlets.

Federalist publications supported the crackdowns while echoing charges against political opponents as seditionists and insurrectionists.

Jeffersonian publications, like Callender's, attacked Adams for his "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice."

The nation was divided down the middle as both sides accused each other of being traitors and insurrectionists. Sound familiar?

---

Quote:

---

The trial itself was a travesty.

Even after sitting in the courtroom watching the trial and the verdict, I still have no idea what Trump was convicted of in the case.

The charges were built on a dead misdemeanor barred with the passage of the statute of limitations.
It was zapped back into life by alleging that the falsification of business records occurred to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.

Merchan told the jury members that they did not have to agree on what those unlawful means may have been.

Specifically, he allowed them to base their verdict on any one of three vaguely defined crimes of a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations.

Thus, the jury could have divided 4-4-4 on what actually occurred but the verdict was still treated as unanimous by Merchan to convict Trump.

---

Quote:

---

There is, however, one silver lining. We went through political prosecutions under Adams and, to a lesser extent, Thomas Jefferson.

Yet, we survived. Our system corrected such abuses over time.

The Alien and Sedition Acts used to prosecute Callender expired.

Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for his partisanship (though not convicted).

With this case, you feel the weight of history in the conviction of a former president, but also a historical awakening.

Sometimes it takes a great abuse to shock the public into recognizing the need to act.

---

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Trial transcripts.

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/

---

yeah, uh, ms hawg, we might need you to go ahead and read all that for us and post the highlights.