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

[The Real timschochet 6,391]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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

This whole affair seems antiquated to me. Whats with all of these handwritten notes and reading stuff out loud? Why not text? 

[squistion 1,942]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

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

Apparently they don't and none of the legal commentators I follow have brought that point up.

Meanwhile:

https://x.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1795907692474888598

NEW NOTE: The jury wants to re-hear the jury instructions. They don't have a physical copy. If they want to hear them all, that could take another 1.5 hours. Judge may ask if there are specific instructions they want to hear.

[squistion 1,942]

https://x.com/KatiePhang/status/1795910962047819922

Judge Merchan has dismissed the jury for the day. They return tomorrow at 9:30 am. The lawyers and the judge will remain to iron out what portions of the testimony will be read back to the jurors tomorrow.

[Mike Honcho 5,083]

Hey lawyers? Why can't they just get a transcript from the judge---why do they need to have it read and have to rely on their memory?  

[Engorgeous George 2,119]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

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.

I prefer my read backs to be done by Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones.

 

With deNiro nearbye maybe they can get he and Pesci to do a dramatic read back.

[Engorgeous George 2,119]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Hey lawyers? Why can't they just get a transcript from the judge---why do they need to have it read and have to rely on their memory?  

Court reporter transcripts are often a mess.  By having this done in open court Council can object if they believe the transcript to be less than fully accurate.  It preserves issues for appeal to have it done in open court with lawyers present.

[Mike Honcho 5,083]

5 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Court reporter transcripts are often a mess.  By having this done in open court Council can object if they believe the transcript to be less than fully accurate.  It preserves issues for appeal to have it done in open court with lawyers present.

Court reporter transcripts are so old school. I can grab a piece of audio, run it through an AI transcription and it's 99.9% accurate. That aside though, I guess I don't know why we rely on the memory of people who have been sitting there for 6 weeks.

IMO, it seems there are ways to make this a better and more accurate process for these people who have to decide these big decisions.  

[IGotWorms 4,057]

39 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

IMO, it seems there are ways to make this a better and more accurate process for these people who have to decide these big decisions.  

It’s a mess. They don’t remember details, daydream, doze off, can’t hear certain witnesses, miss the magnitude of certain evidence… it’s really all a mess. It does need to be made better but courts have no money and are stuck way in the past 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,828]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s a mess. They don’t remember details, daydream, doze off, can’t hear certain witnesses, miss the magnitude of certain evidence… it’s really all a mess. It does need to be made better but courts have no money and are stuck way in the past 

Already preparing the excuses? 

[jonmx 2,424]

4 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It’s a mess. They don’t remember details, daydream, doze off, can’t hear certain witnesses, miss the magnitude of certain evidence… it’s really all a mess. It does need to be made better but courts have no money and are stuck way in the past 

It is a mess because there was no case.  The only way to get a conviction is the jury gets confused by the insane jury instructions.  This case has zero chance of surviving an appeal.  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

17 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Already preparing the excuses? 

Who's gonna tell him?

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,828]

11 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Who's gonna tell him?

Who's gonna' tell YOU. 

[jonmx 2,424]

I can't believe how many dumfuks post here.  Most Americans know what s fraud this case is.   The entire justice system is being destroyed by this completely corrupt political prosecution.   Our institutions are total trash.  

[thegeneral 2,880]

25 minutes ago, jonmx said:

I can't believe how many dumfuks post here.  Most Americans know what s fraud this case is.   The entire justice system is being destroyed by this completely corrupt political prosecution.   Our institutions are total trash.  

Seriously this place is the worst!

[Engorgeous George 2,119]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Court reporter transcripts are so old school. I can grab a piece of audio, run it through an AI transcription and it's 99.9% accurate. That aside though, I guess I don't know why we rely on the memory of people who have been sitting there for 6 weeks.

IMO, it seems there are ways to make this a better and more accurate process for these people who have to decide these big decisions.  

Many courts, perhapsmmost even have gone to audio transcription services which are, in my experience, better than court reporters.  Court reporters use to hate me.  It use to be that to be certified they had to be able to transcribe at 225 to 250 words per minute.   Turns out I speak much faster than that.  They were always asking me to slow down.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

It is a mess because there was no case.  The only way to get a conviction is the jury gets confused by the insane jury instructions.  This case has zero chance of surviving an appeal.  

I was talking about jury trials generally, ya fockin loon

[Engorgeous George 2,119]

The down side of audio transcription services is that they do not have great legs.

[thegeneral 2,880]

9 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

The down side of audio transcription services is that they do not have great legs.

Check out the gams on this broad

[Engorgeous George 2,119]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Check out the gams on this broad

I'd prefer Jane or Judy Jetson, but to each their own.

[thegeneral 2,880]

9 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I'd prefer Jane or Judy Jetson, but to each their own.

But can they transcribe at 250 wpm. Uhh no way.

[jonmx 2,424]

26 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I was talking about jury trials generally, ya fockin loon

I know, and you are a bootlicking buffoon.  The jury system is far better than having some elitist judge up there with some superiority complex and agenda making all the decisions.  Ideally you would have impartial people judging the facts of the case and applying the law without prejudice. 

Unfortunately in this case we have a prosecutor who shopped the most favorable district for getting a conviction who with the help of the judge gagged the defendant and filtered the facts shown to the jury to favor the prosecution.  The fact that there was no specific crime identified which would require all the legal elements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is disgusting.  Instead they were givien a Chinese menu of options that each juror is allowed to come to completely different conclusions and yet they would be falsely considered to be in unanimous agreement.   It is a total focking sham and makes a mockery of America.  

[thegeneral 2,880]

14 minutes ago, jonmx said:

I know, and you are a bootlicking buffoon.  The jury system is far better than having some elitist judge up there with some superiority complex and agenda making all the decisions.  Ideally you would have impartial people judging the facts of the case and applying the law without prejudice. 

Unfortunately in this case we have a prosecutor who shopped the most favorable district for getting a conviction who with the help of the judge gagged the defendant and filtered the facts shown to the jury to favor the prosecution.  The fact that there was no specific crime identified which would require all the legal elements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is disgusting.  Instead they were givien a Chinese menu of options that each juror is allowed to come to completely different conclusions and yet they would be falsely considered to be in unanimous agreement.   It is a total focking sham and makes a mockery of America.  

I’ll take an order of the Orange Chicken with a side of Peking He’s Fuking Gulitee.

[jerryskids 6,547]

29 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I'd prefer Jane or Judy Jetson, but to each their own.

Judy was a teenager ya fockin perv$#@!   

alsoacartoon

[jonmx 2,424]

2 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I’ll take an order of the Orange Chicken with a side of Peking He’s Fuking Gulitee.

And you are focking retarded.  

[thegeneral 2,880]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

And you are focking retarded.  

How’s the manifesto coming along? 

Working titles:

Are you there God? It’s Me, Jonmx

Seven Habits of Highly Effective Bootlickers

Zen and the Art of Bootlicking

A Bootlicker in the Rye

How to Win Friends and Influence Bootlickers 

[jonmx 2,424]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

How’s the manifesto coming along? 

Working titles:

Are you there God? It’s Me, Jonmx

Seven Habits of Highly Effective Bootlickers

Zen and the Art of Bootlicking

A Bootlicker in the Rye

How to Win Friends and Influence Bootlickers 

I am for equality and individual freedom which is protected from abuse by a tyrannical executive branch.   You are a lowlife bootlicking idiot who votes for more tyranny. 

[thegeneral 2,880]

5 minutes ago, jonmx said:

I am for equality and individual freedom which is protected from abuse by a tyrannical executive branch.   You are a lowlife bootlicking idiot who votes for more tyranny. 

Save your rants for if Donald wins you delusional crank

[mattman7168 39]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

 

 

9 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

so to be clear, the jury doesn't need to agree on any specific crime at all.  Since again he still wasn't charged on that whole this is a misdemeanor if it led to another crime.

 

8 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7jvHEBsBNl/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

 

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

I know, and you are a bootlicking buffoon.  The jury system is far better than having some elitist judge up there with some superiority complex and agenda making all the decisions.  Ideally you would have impartial people judging the facts of the case and applying the law without prejudice. 

Unfortunately in this case we have a prosecutor who shopped the most favorable district for getting a conviction who with the help of the judge gagged the defendant and filtered the facts shown to the jury to favor the prosecution.  The fact that there was no specific crime identified which would require all the legal elements to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is disgusting.  Instead they were givien a Chinese menu of options that each juror is allowed to come to completely different conclusions and yet they would be falsely considered to be in unanimous agreement.   It is a total focking sham and makes a mockery of America.  

Curious where you got this info (Instagram, really???) because it's wrong. Facts matter, and not alternative ones. Your credibility has sunk even lower, as if that's possible.

This was really easy enough to find the truth though..https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unanimously-agree-trump-jury/

[jonmx 2,424]

10 minutes ago, mattman7168 said:

 

 

 

Curious where you got this info (Instagram, really???) because it's wrong. Facts matter, and not alternative ones. Your credibility has sunk even lower, as if that's possible.

This was really easy enough to find the truth though..https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unanimously-agree-trump-jury/

You are a focking buffoon too.   Did you read the last line of the Snopes???..."The jury does not need to agree on the predicate crime for a conviction."

So Snopes tells you focking morons that the claim was false, but then in the last sentence they admit it is true.  Good lord you are a dumb focker.   The crime which makes this a felony does not need to be agreed too by the jury.  You have your head so far up your TDS asshat it has to hurt.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,828]

27 minutes ago, mattman7168 said:

 

 

 

Curious where you got this info (Instagram, really???) because it's wrong. Facts matter, and not alternative ones. Your credibility has sunk even lower, as if that's possible.

This was really easy enough to find the truth though..https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unanimously-agree-trump-jury/

Snopes?!?!?   

You mean we still have idiots that use that as a "source"?   

GTFO

[squistion 1,942]

Just now, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Snopes?!?!?   

You mean we still have idiots that use that as a "source"?   

GTFO

When has Snopes been wrong when it has been pointed out to them and that they have not then subsequently made a correction?

[jonmx 2,424]

1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Snopes?!?!?   

You mean we still have idiots that use that as a "source"?   

GTFO

Did you read it.  They say it is false and then show it is true.   Who's ever alias thst is needs to burn it.   What a focking embarrassment.  

[jonmx 2,424]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

When has Snopes been wrong....

It is wrong here as they completely contradict themselves.    They are lying bastards who know their readers are dumbfockers like you who can't comprehend anything. 

[squistion 1,942]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

It is wrong here as they completely contradict themselves.    They are lying bastards who know their readers are dumbfockers like you who can't comprehend anything. 

No, They don't contradict themselves. lol.

They have to unanimously agree that the crime was committed but they don't have to unanimously agree as to the reason why it was committed. 

 

[mattman7168 39]

29 minutes ago, jonmx said:

You are a focking buffoon too.   Did you read the last line of the Snopes???..."The jury does not need to agree on the predicate crime for a conviction."

So Snopes tells you focking morons that the claim was false, but then in the last sentence they admit it is true.  Good lord you are a dumb focker.   The crime which makes this a felony does not need to be agreed too by the jury.  You have your head so far up your TDS asshat it has to hurt.  

Did you? The very last word states the instruction is "FALSE".. As I said before, learn more about reading comprehension. And again you are not credible with anything you post. Try harder. 

[jerryskids 6,547]

40 minutes ago, mattman7168 said:

 

 

 

Curious where you got this info (Instagram, really???) because it's wrong. Facts matter, and not alternative ones. Your credibility has sunk even lower, as if that's possible.

This was really easy enough to find the truth though..https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unanimously-agree-trump-jury/

I don't know who you are, but seriously, this is your big win?

Snopes once again shows it's a Leftist shill.

Quote

Context
The jury must unanimously agree on Trump's guilt of falsifying business records in the first degree (he faces 34 counts of this crime). A first-degree charge of falsification of business records requires a "predicate crime" for which the falsification was plausibly intended to cover up. The jury does not need to agree on the predicate crime for a conviction.

The "predicate crime" is the entire point.  HTH

[jonmx 2,424]

3 minutes ago, mattman7168 said:

Did you? The very last word states the instruction is "FALSE".. As I said before, learn more about reading comprehension. And again you are not credible with anything you post. Try harder. 

JfC....this is their 'explaination':

"As explained in his jury instructions, the jury does not have to unanimously agree on the predicate crime, just that one existed."

Get the fock out of here you dumbfuk.  

 

[jonmx 2,424]

13 minutes ago, squistion said:

No, They don't contradict themselves. lol.

They have to unanimously agree that the crime was committed but they don't have to unanimously agree as to the reason why it was committed. 

 

We already know you are a dumbfock, you don't need to prove it over and over again.   It has nothing to do with the reason you idiot.

[squistion 1,942]

Just now, jonmx said:

We already know you are a dumbfock, you don't need to prove it over and over again.   It has nothing to do with the reason you idiot.

Thank you! 

[mattman7168 39]

Respond like a 15 year old, stomp your feet, call names, insult, and ignore facts written in plain English. Yeah, now I know what I'm dealing with.