DenverAg91 said:

---

Here is “Michael Anderson” who seems to be the account Judge Merchan references commenting that he is a Trump juror’s cousin. Seems a bit trolly since he self-describes as a professional shit poster but judge for yourselves: https://t.co/FVICvcYqtJ pic.twitter.com/vtFRW0r6p7

— Jacqueline Sweet (@JSweetLI) June 7, 2024

---

Is that Johnny Depp?

the media would know this guy's first dog's name by the evening news if the poster was in favor of trump. Instead, it probably won't even make most of the mainstream news.

My guess is rando **** poster and not a cousin (or any type of acquaintance/relation) of a juror. Would be VERY happy to be wrong. That would almost certainly result in a mistrial and if not, a huge issue upon appeal. Not to mention a LOT of trouble for the juror in question. If they lost the conviction because Joe Public couldn't keep her mouth shut? Ooooof. There will be no mercy, no IRS to severe, no code enforcement too small, no dog walker route that wouldn't try to f 'em.

GenericAggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

What's the downside of trying to go the 1983 route?

---

Merchan goes full prison time? Consecutive and not concurrent? Merchan knows he will be reversed, so the time for his impact on the election is time limited as well. Federal court shuts him down but then doesn't shut him down with no TRO?

Merchan is that dumb that he would order Trump sent to Rikers for three or six months?

---

I actually think he's going to issue a 6 month house arrest to keep him from campaigning.

---

Trump doesn't need to campaign. And house arrest does it mean they can't send videos out and even have him speak on camera. Unless he puts a specific hold on that and that would be very obvious.

People that were never going to vote for him will care, those that will or those on the fence couldn't care less what they call him, we all know this is a sham bull**** trial and conviction.

Wow !! This is BIG TROUBLE pic.twitter.com/dAzXpmoZDf

— Greta Van Susteren (@greta) June 7, 2024

Hawg, if we had a fair and impartial justice system, what would happen if that is true?

I did some investigative work and found that it is indeed NOT Hunters laptop.

Anyone who thinks this is going somewhere is a bit naive.

Logos Stick said:

---

Hawg, if we had a fair and impartial justice system, what would happen if that is true?

---

Juror misconduct such as this can easily result in a mistrial, if true.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

What's the downside of trying to go the 1983 route?

---

The state bar could disbar or suspend them? Im half kidding but I'm willing to bet that Trumps attorneys have probably had many (frivolous) bar complaints filed against them for the crime of representing literally Hitler

---

Is it a serious concern that Trump's lawyers could face disbarment?

---

One of the attorneys in the election lawsuits, John Eastman, was recommended for disbarment by a California bar judge which automatically disbars him until he can appeal that decision to the California Supreme Court. He was also indicted in Georgia and Arizona for his part of the "conspiracy to overturn the election."

So…in a real world I'd say no, 0 chance. Trump's attorneys did their job and did it well. Unfortunately, I'm also fairly certain they've probably got 1,000 bar complaints filed against them already by the unamerican "65 project" who is bound and determined to make sure Trump can never hire another attorney again.

If people recall, it was late in the afternoon. Merchan has said the jury could stay until 6PM but at around 4:30 the normal quitting time it seemed to were going to release early. Merchan subsequently told counsel he had received word they had reached a verdict.

So if that FB post is true, that was the night before a full day of deliberation.

How apropos would it be if TDS killed the conviction?


Still a big if

aggiehawg said:

---

If people recall, it was late in the afternoon. Merchan has said the jury could stay until 6PM but at around 4:30 the normal quitting time it seemed to were going to release early. Merchan subsequently told counsel he had received word they had reached a verdict.

So if that FB post is true, that was the night before a full day of deliberation.

---

merchan's letter says May 29th; but the post appears to be from May 20th?? Were they deliberating on May 20th?

clarification: Merchan's letter says May 29th and quotes a different (but similar) facebook post by Michael Anderson than the one we see from May 20th

I'm still going with probably just a random **** poster on Facebook.

Quote:

---

merchan's letter says May 29th; but the post appears to be from May 20th?? Were they deliberating on May 20th?

clarification: Merchan's letter says May 29th and quotes a different (but similar) facebook post by Michael Anderson than the one we see from May 20th

---

I am confused but I also think Merchan is confused as well.

Vinny's cousin's FBI badge number is an homage to Jenny: 867-5309.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

merchan's letter says May 29th; but the post appears to be from May 20th?? Were they deliberating on May 20th?

clarification: Merchan's letter says May 29th and quotes a different (but similar) facebook post by Michael Anderson than the one we see from May 20th

---

I am confused but I also think Merchan is confused as well.

---

yeah - few options

May 29th post has been deleted

or May 20th post is the one being referenced by Merchan, and Merchan paraphrased and used incorrect date in his letter

The notice by the judge is ONLY a notice. Is that normal or would a judge typically provide other instructions?

JFABNRGR said:

---

The notice by the judge is ONLY a notice. Is that normal or would a judge typically provide other instructions?

---

Notice is normal.

I don't see anything yet that would cause a new trial. But if they get the name of the poster he could be subpoenaed to a hearing on a motion for new trial and forced to answer questions about this under oath like: "Who was the juror and what was you conversation with him/her in detail? " Then the juror could be called to testify. Off course Merchan will not permit things like this that should be allowed. Just one more of many errors by the judge in this case.

annie88 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

What's the downside of trying to go the 1983 route?

---

Merchan goes full prison time? Consecutive and not concurrent? Merchan knows he will be reversed, so the time for his impact on the election is time limited as well. Federal court shuts him down but then doesn't shut him down with no TRO?

Merchan is that dumb that he would order Trump sent to Rikers for three or six months?

---

I actually think he's going to issue a 6 month house arrest to keep him from campaigning.

---

Trump doesn't need to campaign. And house arrest does it mean they can't send videos out and even have him speak on camera. Unless he puts a specific hold on that and that would be very obvious.

---

Campaigning from house arrest would be epic.

He could put out a bunch of videos each day with the house arrest daily counter up in the corner and a title stating "Political Prisoner #1". <= Emphasize he's just the first...

The media can't control the release information like they used to...

Quote:

---

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has agreed to testify before a Republican-controlled congressional subcommittee, but likely not until after former President Donald Trump is sentenced in July
Manhattan district attorney agrees to testify in Congress, but likely not until Trump is sentencedThe Associated PressNEW YORK

NEW YORK (AP) Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed Friday to testify before what's likely to be a hostile, Republican-controlled congressional subcommittee, but likely not until after former President Donald Trump is sentenced in July.

---

Quote:

---

The House Judiciary Committee chairman, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, wrote Bragg in late May after Trump's conviction in his hush money trial, accusing him of having conducted a "political prosecution" and requesting his testimony at a hearing June 13.

---

Quote:

---

In a reply letter, the Manhattan district attorney's general counsel, Leslie Dubeck, said the prosecutor's office was "committed to voluntary cooperation."

---

Quote:

---

That cooperation, it added, including making Bragg, a Democrat, available to testify "at an agreed-upon date." But the letter said the date picked by Jordan presented "presents various scheduling conflicts."
It noted that the Trump prosecution is not yet finished. Trump, who was convicted of falsifying records to cover up hush money paid to a porn actor during the 2016 presidential campaign, is scheduled to be sentenced July 11. Before then, prosecutors will be making recommendations to a judge about what kind of punishment Trump deserves.

---

Quote:

---

"The trial court and reviewing appellate courts have issued numerous orders for the purpose of protecting the fair administration of justice in People v. Trump, and to participate in a public hearing at this time would be potentially detrimental to those efforts," the letter said.

Bragg's office asked for an opportunity to discuss an alternative date with the subcommittee and get more information about "the scope and purpose of the proposed hearing."

Jordan has also asked for testimony from Matthew Colangelo, one of the lead prosecutors in the Trump case. Bragg's office didn't rule that out, but said in the letter that it would "evaluate the propriety" of allowing an assistant district attorney to testify publicly about an active prosecution.

---

LINK

Has anyone seen anything about the Trump team planning to seek relief in the federal courts?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Has anyone seen anything about the Trump team planning to seek relief in the federal courts?

---

It would be surprising if he didn't if the state court appeal(s) go awry. He was just in front of the Supreme Court asking for absolute immunity. This doesn't seem nearly as big of an ask.

I would be surprised if he tries to seek relief in federal courts outside of the normal appellate process.

Harvey Weinstein conviction just got thrown out because improper testimony was allowed. How can that not be the case in this trial as well? Stormy didn't know anything about Trump's accounting.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Harvey Weinstein conviction just got thrown out because improper testimony was allowed. How can that not be the case in this trial as well? Stormy didn't know anything about Trump's accounting.

---

was Stormy not the expert witness on how accounting clerks book journal entries when they receive invoices from lawyers?

Because it hasn't gone up for appeal yet. The conviction hasn't even been entered by the judge, last time I checked at least, and that process is going to take a while.

aezmvp said:

---

Because it hasn't gone up for appeal yet. The conviction hasn't even been entered by the judge, last time I checked at least, and that process is going to take a while.

---

The conviction won't be entered until around the time of sentencing, which is scheduled for July 11th.

Trump has a Zoom meeting with the probation officer today.

WHOOP!'91 said:

---

Harvey Weinstein conviction just got thrown out because improper testimony was allowed. How can that not be the case in this trial as well? Stormy didn't know anything about Trump's accounting.

---

The improper testimony in the Weinstein trial was from women who said they were sexually assaulted by Weinstein, but were not the women and sexual assaults Weinstein was charged with. They had no relation to the charges and case except as "prior bad acts" witnesses. There's a specific evidentiary rule and specific caselaw about this issue.


Daniels' testimony, at least ostensibly, went to Trump's motive and intent for making the payments for which he was charged with in the case. For example, the State asked her over and over if Trump ever expressed a desire to keep the story secret in the years before he was running for President. (In other words, the State was trying to say his motivation was the election, not protecting his family.)

I'm not saying there's no potential problem for the State of New York when it comes to how far some of Daniels' testimony went. I think the judge and State both acknowledged she said some stuff she shouldn't have said. But its a very different legal situation as the argument wouldn't be that Daniels had no actual relationship to the actual charges or had nothing relevant to say.

Assuming arguendo that Stormy's testimony was borderline allowable, how about the Karen McDougal stuff? The David Pecker stuff that didn't relate to the Cohen transaction with Stormy? WTH did that have to do with the actual indictment?

aezmvp said:

---

Because it hasn't gone up for appeal yet. The conviction hasn't even been entered by the judge, last time I checked at least, and that process is going to take a while.

---

I am guessing the judge won't enter the conviction until there is a day on which the democrats/Biden need to counter a big story that is bad for them. That is how election interference works.

aggiehawg said:

---

Assuming arguendo that Stormy's testimony was borderline allowable, how about the Karen McDougal stuff? The David Pecker stuff that didn't relate to the Cohen transaction with Stormy? WTH did that have to do with the actual indictment?

---

I think the defense spent more time on McDougal than the prosecution. The defense spent a long time crossing Pecker about McDougal. (transcript: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24655761-2024-04-26-transcript-people-vs-donald-trump-f814a39d-full)

Both sides were trying to use McDougal to back up their theory of why Trump was entering into NDAs and who was involved.

As I'm sure you know, prior acts are admissible to show intent, common scheme or plan, etc. The standard is is that prior act more prejudicial than probative. In the Weinstein case, the testimony was found to be more prejudicial than probative.


Is there something particular the defense objected to that you're talking about?

Edit- Did the defense object to anything at all about Karen McDougal?

Quote:

---

Is there something particular the defense objected to that you're talking about?

Edit- Did the defense object to anything at all about Karen McDougal?

---

Team Trump objected to her testifying at all and moved in limine to exclude any testimony from or regarding McDougal.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Is there something particular the defense objected to that you're talking about?

Edit- Did the defense object to anything at all about Karen McDougal?

---

Team Trump objected to her testifying at all and moved in limine to exclude any testimony from or regarding McDougal.

---

Yes, they moved for no testimony to be allowed at all from or regarding McDougal or Sajudin. The judge allowed testimony referencing McDougal and Sajudian with limiting instructions to the parties about what they could get into.

She obviously didn't testify.

At trial, did the defense object to anything in particular to suggest they thought the actual testimony about her that came in crossed lines?

Their treatment of it after the motion in limine seems like it was more "might as well put it in our list of 20 issues" than an actual serious concern unless I missed something that came up at trial.