Trump's NY Election Interference Trial - Trump is found guilty on all 34 counts

[Hardcore troubadour 14,910]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Gun thrown — that was quick!

Yup. It’s all just a right wing witch hunt. Nothing about hunters business dealings and kicking up to Joe.  

[jerryskids 6,550]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

The jury selection is just how it works. You weed out the people who say they can’t be impartial or where it’s clear they can’t be impartial regardless of what they say. Changing venue makes no sense where the defendant is universally known — you’ll have the same problem in Buffalo or wherever the fock they wanted, and that venue doesn’t even have any relation to the case.

The rulings don’t seem that crazy to me but that’s what appeals are for.

Whether Trump did anything illegal is for the jury to decide. That’s why we do this process.

Well, I would argue that there is a difference between universally known and (nearly) universally despised, within the Manhattan population.  

Also, I imagine that if a person had TDS and wanted to put the OMB away, he/she could fake their way through a questionnaire.

Now, you might argue that the opposite is true (a MAGA person there to free their hero), but I would circle back to the political leanings of Manhattan.

[Mike Honcho 5,085]

Bradley Smith, the former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman who agreed to provide expert testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial, has criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's legal theory behind his case.

In a statement, Smith told Newsweek that he decided to become an expert witness in the case because he believes "the legal theory on which the prosecution rests regarding possible [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations is wrong and this is an issue I care deeply about."

Trump has been on trial in New York City on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Bragg's case has charged that the payment was meant to prevent her from going public with her allegation that she had a sexual encounter with Trump and hurting his election chances.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has denied having an affair with Daniels and pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges. He also accuses Bragg and other prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes, criticizing the trial as a form of election interference.

Trump's lawyers had planned to call Smith, who served as FEC chairman from 2000 to 2005, as an expert witness on campaign finance law in the trial.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a press conference on March 21 in New York City. Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith has criticized Bragg's "legal theory" in prosecuting Donald Trump in the... More MICHAEL M. SANTIAGO/GETTY IMAGES

However, on Monday Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith's testimony would fall "under the umbrella of legal opinion" and would require him to allow the DA's office to bring its own expert to testify about the same legal principles, according to Newsweek reporter Katherine Fung, who has been covering the trial from the courtroom.

The judge decided that Trump's attorneys could still call Smith as a witness but that he would be able to testify only about the "general definitions and terms" in campaign finance law.

Exclusively Available to SubscribersTry it now for $1

Smith told Newsweek he has turned down the "vast majority" of expert requests throughout his career, only agreeing to six engagements in 30 years.

He expressed disappointment in Merchan's ruling, noting that his testimony would have focused on FEC procedures and past actions, rather than the ultimate issue of the trial.

"I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen (not an expert) to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump's guilt—for 'context.' He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening," he said.

Newsweek reached out to Bragg's office for comment via email.

In a post to X (formerly Twitter), Smith wrote that Bragg's theory "hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.'

"To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence," Smith wrote.

"If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in," he said.

[squistion 1,944]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I was more talking about the 2/3 of people who didn't think he did anything illegal.

But to the fair outcome, keeping the trial in Manhattan which voted 86% for Biden last time (IIRC), the judge staying on the case even though his daughter has worked for the Biden campaign, are both a little iffy.  I'm not a lawyer, but things like not allowing the Federal Elections Committee chair testify seemed iffy.

No, not true that Merchan's daughter worked directly for the Biden campaign.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/06/politics/trump-judge-daughter-attacks-explainer/index.html

What’s the truth about Merchan’s daughter?

It’s true that Loren Merchan has served as president of Authentic Campaigns, a firm that does digital campaign work like online fundraising, mobile messaging and web design. They work with Democratic political candidates, including some of Trump’s most outspoken opponents.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

keeping the trial in Manhattan which voted 86% for Biden last time (IIRC), the judge staying on the case even though his daughter has worked for the Biden campaign, are both a little iffy. 

Loren Merchan did not work for the Biden campaign.

There is nothing in the law or constitution about having certain voters in the jury pool.

You're just repeating Trumps BS

[jerryskids 6,550]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Bradley Smith, the former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman who agreed to provide expert testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial, has criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's legal theory behind his case.

In a statement, Smith told Newsweek that he decided to become an expert witness in the case because he believes "the legal theory on which the prosecution rests regarding possible [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations is wrong and this is an issue I care deeply about."

Trump has been on trial in New York City on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Bragg's case has charged that the payment was meant to prevent her from going public with her allegation that she had a sexual encounter with Trump and hurting his election chances.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has denied having an affair with Daniels and pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges. He also accuses Bragg and other prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes, criticizing the trial as a form of election interference.

Trump's lawyers had planned to call Smith, who served as FEC chairman from 2000 to 2005, as an expert witness on campaign finance law in the trial.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks during a press conference on March 21 in New York City. Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith has criticized Bragg's "legal theory" in prosecuting Donald Trump in the... More MICHAEL M. SANTIAGO/GETTY IMAGES

However, on Monday Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith's testimony would fall "under the umbrella of legal opinion" and would require him to allow the DA's office to bring its own expert to testify about the same legal principles, according to Newsweek reporter Katherine Fung, who has been covering the trial from the courtroom.

The judge decided that Trump's attorneys could still call Smith as a witness but that he would be able to testify only about the "general definitions and terms" in campaign finance law.

Exclusively Available to SubscribersTry it now for $1

Smith told Newsweek he has turned down the "vast majority" of expert requests throughout his career, only agreeing to six engagements in 30 years.

He expressed disappointment in Merchan's ruling, noting that his testimony would have focused on FEC procedures and past actions, rather than the ultimate issue of the trial.

"I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen (not an expert) to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump's guilt—for 'context.' He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening," he said.

Newsweek reached out to Bragg's office for comment via email.

In a post to X (formerly Twitter), Smith wrote that Bragg's theory "hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through 'unlawful means.'

"To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence," Smith wrote.

"If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in," he said.

My bad, he could have testified, just not to anything particularly useful.   Also:

Quote

"I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen (not an expert) to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump's guilt—for 'context.' He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening," he said.

 

[Fumbleweed 516]

14 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Because the judge is a political hack, the prosecution are political hacks, and the jury comes from the same retarded uber-blue jury pool  that watches The View and decided the E. Jean Carroll case.

They're just going through the proper motions to give it all legal legitimacy.

Thank you for jumping in and providing common sense amongst all the partisans. 

[BeachGuy23 642]

15 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yup. It’s all just a right wing witch hunt. Nothing about hunters business dealings and kicking up to Joe.  

The cultist in the House have had the laptop for almost 2 years and have done nothing but prove that Biden's been truthful about not having anything to do with Hunter's business.

If anything the laptop would have persuaded more people to reject the orange lunatic. 

[jerryskids 6,550]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Loren Merchan did not work for the Biden campaign.

There is nothing in the law or constitution about having certain voters in the jury pool.

You're just repeating Trumps BS

I stand corrected on the daughter.  From Squissy:

Quote

They work with Democratic political candidates, including some of Trump’s most outspoken opponents.

Much better.

Also, I don't know if there is anything in the law about jury pools.  I doubt you do either.  This is an interesting read:

https://civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/i-the-law-regarding-the-fair-cross-section-guarantee/#:~:text=The Sixth Amendment to the,the community.” Taylor v.

A lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but I think an argument could be made that political affiliation is an applicable group for the Duren test, combined with the trial being a state (not city) trial and so jurors should have been chosen from throughout the state.

Basically, I would question if Manhattan is a representative "community" for the political distribution within the entire state.

I'm just spitballing here, thinking what might be attempted for an appeal.   

[squistion 1,944]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I stand corrected on the daughter.  From Squissy:

Much better.

Also, I don't know if there is anything in the law about jury pools.  I doubt you do either.  This is an interesting read:

https://civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/i-the-law-regarding-the-fair-cross-section-guarantee/#:~:text=The Sixth Amendment to the,the community.” Taylor v.

A lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but I think an argument could be made that political affiliation is an applicable group for the Duren test, combined with the trial being a state (not city) trial and so jurors should have been chosen from throughout the state.

Basically, I would question if Manhattan is a representative "community" for the political distribution within the entire state.

I'm just spitballing here, thinking what might be attempted for an appeal.   

I do know that I have never seen a change of venue due to the political party demographics of a potential jury. 

[BeachGuy23 642]

4 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I stand corrected on the daughter.  From Squissy:

Much better.

Also, I don't know if there is anything in the law about jury pools.  I doubt you do either.  This is an interesting read:

https://civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/i-the-law-regarding-the-fair-cross-section-guarantee/#:~:text=The Sixth Amendment to the,the community.” Taylor v.

A lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but I think an argument could be made that political affiliation is an applicable group for the Duren test, combined with the trial being a state (not city) trial and so jurors should have been chosen from throughout the state.

Basically, I would question if Manhattan is a representative "community" for the political distribution within the entire state.

I'm just spitballing here, thinking what might be attempted for an appeal.   

So this judge's daughter should disqualify him from this case but the SCOTUS wives and their political shenanigans should not disqualify their husbands.

I don't know that you have said that but many cultist here have said exactly that.  It's NBD what the SCOTUS wives are involved with.

I rule this judge is free and clear to preside over the trial. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Just now, jerryskids said:

I stand corrected on the daughter.  From Squissy:

Much better.

Also, I don't know if there is anything in the law about jury pools.  I doubt you do either.  This is an interesting read:

https://civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/i-the-law-regarding-the-fair-cross-section-guarantee/#:~:text=The Sixth Amendment to the,the community.” Taylor v.

A lot of legal mumbo jumbo, but I think an argument could be made that political affiliation is an applicable group for the Duren test, combined with the trial being a state (not city) trial and so jurors should have been chosen from throughout the state.

Basically, I would question if Manhattan is a representative "community" for the political distribution within the entire state.

I'm just spitballing here, thinking what might be attempted for an appeal.   

Glad to correct you.

Also Trump was born in and lives in Manhattan, he claims to have built Manhattan.

[Engorgeous George 2,121]

If trump is found guilty what next? Obviously he appeals.  How large will the appeal bond be, presuming the Judge allows an appeal bond and does not sentence trump to confinement pending the appeal.  What other conditions would there be? Would he be denied access to his plane as maybe that's a flight risk?  Would he be confined to the jurisdiction of the court?  would he have to turn over his passport? 

[jerryskids 6,550]

Just now, squistion said:

I do know that I have never seen a change of venue due to the political party demographics of a potential jury. 

Why do you say things like this?  It's meaningless. 

If you have a link to someone who actually analyzed it, it's useful.

[squistion 1,944]

Just now, jerryskids said:

Why do you say things like this?  It's meaningless. 

If you have a link to someone who actually analyzed it, it's useful.

I mentioned this before in another thread and none of the lawyers in the forum had ever heard of it either or could provide a link to an actual case where a change of venue was granted for that reason.

And if it has never been done, then obviously I can't provide a link to prove it didn't happen. 

[jerryskids 6,550]

3 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

So this judge's daughter should disqualify him from this case but the SCOTUS wives and their political shenanigans should not disqualify their husbands.

I don't know that you have said that but many cultist here have said exactly that.  It's NBD what the SCOTUS wives are involved with.

I rule this judge is free and clear to preside over the trial. 

Actually, I asked that same question from the opposite angle, within the thread calling for the removal of Alito and Thomas.

It's a fair question to ask IMO, in both cases.  

I would argue that it's relatively easy to replace a NY Superior Court judge (or whatever Merchan is), whereas a SCOTUS recusal leaves an unfilled void.

[Engorgeous George 2,121]

7 minutes ago, squistion said:

I do know that I have never seen a change of venue due to the political party demographics of a potential jury. 

As a practical matter would it come up?  Imagine an elected official charged with a crime.  Likely that criume would have occured in their home jurisdiction, where they were just supported by election.  Why would they move for a cahnge of venue from their base of support? 

[Engorgeous George 2,121]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

I mentioned this before in another thread and none of the lawyers in the forum had ever heard of it either or could provide a link to an actual case where a change of venue was granted for that reason.

And if it has never been done, then obviously I can't provide a link to prove it didn't happen. 

If I were to look I would look at the Dan Rastenkowski or Rod Blagojevich trials.  As for State matters it seems more likely but who is enough of an expert to look such matters up expeditiously, not I.  I suspect we are looking at a very small subset of cases and I suspect the motions for cahnge of venue would be very rare as most politicians would prefer to be tried in thier home districts.  Who knows though.  It might make an interesting notes article for a law review, a survey of change of venue motions based upon the political makeup of the jury pool.

[thegeneral 2,883]

33 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

If trump is found guilty what next? Obviously he appeals.  How large will the appeal bond be, presuming the Judge allows an appeal bond and does not sentence trump to confinement pending the appeal.  What other conditions would there be? Would he be denied access to his plane as maybe that's a flight risk?  Would he be confined to the jurisdiction of the court?  would he have to turn over his passport? 

My guess is he will be found guilty of various charges. Not sure all the different ways this can occur, how the different issues can be assigned guilt etc.

Nothing will end up happening to him however from a practical matter. No jail of course, no house arrest, appeals and various maneuverings that everyone has but especially rich people with access to the keys to the system will allow him to continue on as normal.

 

[Mike Honcho 5,085]

42 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

If trump is found guilty what next? 

See the "Fresh Fish" scene in the Shawshank Redemption. 

[Engorgeous George 2,121]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

See the "Fresh Fish" scene in the Shawshank Redemption. 

Maybe he would have Kevin Hart train him before he went in.

[Tree of Knowledge 1,691]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Cultist really are the dumbest phuks in this country.

They cry about everything being rigged against their guy, he's a good boy, dindunuffin.  While ignoring that even before becoming their master he was constantly in court fighting some suit or suing someone else.  Dude also stole using his fake college and he stole from his charity among other violations of the law.

They bemoan the elites and rich and yet they worship a former democrat, billionaire who has done nothing his whole life but flaunt his wealth.

They are only attracted to Trump because he's tapped into their racist views about non-whites and somehow fooled the uneducated into thinking they have a champion in him.

They're moron cucks. 

Cut back on your pre-Workout, boyo.  It’s making you angry and irrational.  

[Tree of Knowledge 1,691]

I am surprised they have deliberated this long.  

[The Real timschochet 6,391]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I was more talking about the 2/3 of people who didn't think he did anything illegal.

 

I don’t know where that 2/3 number comes from but I think it’s bogus: 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-trial-poll-most-believe-guilty-new-york/

56% of Americans think he’s guilty of a crime according to this poll and a few others I’ve seen. 

[Mike Honcho 5,085]

25 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

I am surprised they have deliberated this long.  

If it were me, I would deliberate until 9:01 Friday morning, get dismissed, and then have a 3 day weekend.

[jerryskids 6,550]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t know where that 2/3 number comes from but I think it’s bogus: 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-trial-poll-most-believe-guilty-new-york/

56% of Americans think he’s guilty of a crime according to this poll and a few others I’ve seen. 

Here is the link to the poll discussion in question:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money-poll-b3d9a555993faf22e6ebfaf798bfbd2b

I just got it from the earlier link that was posted.   

According to the article, the same polling company has found about 1/2 of people think Trump is guilty of the classified docs, and Georgia.  But not this NY traveshamockery.

[squistion 1,944]

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795894043890622732

JUST NOW: The jury rang the courtroom. It could be a note. But we don’t know yet. Standby.

Both sides have entered the courtroom. Donald Trump is also present.

Judge Merchan has entered the courtroom.

[squistion 1,944]

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795896302464643314

UPDATE: It’s a note. With 4 requests. They’re asking for Pecker’s testimony about 4 events.

[Mike Honcho 5,085]

And the note says.  Judge Mershon, do you like Trump.  Check Yes, No or Maybe. 

[squistion 1,944]

Just now, squistion said:

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795896302464643314

UPDATE: It’s a note. With 4 requests. They’re asking for Pecker’s testimony about 4 events.

THE FOUR REQUESTS:

1) David Pecker’s testimony regarding the phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting

2) David Pecker’s testimony re: life rights for McDougal.

3) Pecker testimony regarding TT meeting 

4)  Michael Cohen’s testimony regarding TT meeting

[squistion 1,944]

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795897393105248333

Merchan will bring the jurors out for the reading of the requested testimony and a court reporter will do the read backs, but only after there is a decision as to what portions will be read back.

[The Real timschochet 6,391]

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Here is the link to the poll discussion in question:

https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-indictment-hush-money-poll-b3d9a555993faf22e6ebfaf798bfbd2b

I just got it from the earlier link that was posted.   

According to the article, the same polling company has found about 1/2 of people think Trump is guilty of the classified docs, and Georgia.  But not this NY traveshamockery.

Well obviously then we  have two polls showing VERY different results. I predict the jury’s decision will ultimately shape public opinion. 

[thegeneral 2,883]

Who doesn’t like getting a call back about your Pecker? 

Still got it!

[squistion 1,944]

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795897982870491573

We are waiting for the jurors to enter the courtroom. Recall: the jury is working until 4:30 pm today so the timing of this procedural part of deliberations will be at issue.

[squistion 1,944]

9 minutes ago, squistion said:

THE FOUR REQUESTS:

1) David Pecker’s testimony regarding the phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting

2) David Pecker’s testimony re: life rights for McDougal.

3) Pecker testimony regarding TT meeting 

4)  Michael Cohen’s testimony regarding TT meeting

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795899431054717018

Katie’s Sidebar:

This is an interesting ask by the jury because David Pecker was a key witness for the prosecution and the focus on the Trump Tower meeting, which was the birthplace of the conspiracy between Pecker and Cohen and Trump to catch and kill negative stories about Trump to benefit the Trump Campaign.

 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,691]

Did Kyle Griffin run back to court when he heard Pecker will be there?

[squistion 1,944]

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1795907075865821387

UPDATE: We have a second note from the jury:

"We the jury request to rehear the judge's instructions."

[squistion 1,944]

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795907751786254810

The jury is asking for the judge's instructions again.

Judge Merchan wants them to clarify whether they want the entire instructions again or a particular portion thereof. He is going to bring them in, the alternates included.

[jerryskids 6,550]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1795907075865821387

UPDATE: We have a second note from the jury:

"We the jury request to rehear the judge's instructions."

Seems odd that they don't have those written down.   

[Strike 5,182]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Seems odd that they don't have those written down.   

Well, then they would have had to seat jurors who know how to read, and we know the prosecution objected to any jurors with such an ability.