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

[jonmx 2,425]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Pick any other candidate you want then- Christie, DeSantis...whomever....

Christie, no focking way.  He is so two-faced.  DeSantis I would hold my nose for as he has done some good stuff, but I don't trust him completely not to turn into an estsblsihment rube once he gets to Washington. 

[zsasz 368]

9 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

So is Biden a lock to win thr election now?

What say the geeks?  

 

If its Biden/Trump - Biden is winning.

It has always come down to the EC and the Democrats have an EC advantage. He'll take WI(10), MI(15) and PA(19). Thats 270. You could exchange AZ(10) for WI or add AZ to Biden's column because of that stupid abortion law the Arizona GOP pushed thru.  The Philadelphia and Pittsburgh machines will get people in line in PA and their governor(D) Josh Shapiro is one of the more popular governors in the country; getting positive approval from PA Indys and Republicans.  He'll carry alot of water for Biden this go around.  

 

 

 

 

[BeachGuy23 642]

3 minutes ago, jonmx said:

You really are not familiar with the riots the day Trump was inaugurated.  There was widespread violence across the country including in the Capitol.  Far more violent than Jan 6th. 

LMFAO

You really do live in bizzaro world...SMH

[Sean Mooney 1,970]

3 minutes ago, zsasz said:

 

If its Biden/Trump - Biden is winning.

It has always come down to the EC and the Democrats have an EC advantage. He'll take WI(10), MI(15) and PA(19). Thats 270. You could exchange AZ(10) for WI or add AZ to Biden's column because of that stupid abortion law the Arizona GOP pushed thru.  The Philadelphia and Pittsburgh machines will get people in line in PA and their governor(D) Josh Shapiro is one of the more popular governors in the country; getting positive approval from PA Indys and Republicans.  He'll carry alot of water for Biden this go around.  

 

 

 

 

I would imagine Josh Shapiro is maybe a Presidential candidate for Democrats as early as 2028 regardless of how this election plays out (although obviously if Biden wins it will give Kamala more of an in for 2028). Probably more likely 2032 for Shapiro but as you said- he is pretty well liked in PA. He does good bi partisan things and he would be liked nationally if they get him out in front of audiences. 

[zsasz 368]

5 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

I would imagine Josh Shapiro is maybe a Presidential candidate for Democrats as early as 2028 regardless of how this election plays out (although obviously if Biden wins it will give Kamala more of an in for 2028). Probably more likely 2032 for Shapiro but as you said- he is pretty well liked in PA. He does good bi partisan things and he would be liked nationally if they get him out in front of audiences. 

I agree. I think him or MDs Governor Wes Moore is the next Democratic nominee for POTUS.

[squistion 2,125]

18 minutes ago, jonmx said:

You really are not familiar with the riots the day Trump was inaugurated.  There was widespread violence across the country including in the Capitol.  Far more violent than Jan 6th. 

The Trump Inauguration Day Riots?

Yeah, I think most people are not familiar with that happening either. 

Wiki must in on the conspiracy to suppress information about it as they don't even have a page devoted to it. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

I keep hearing the line repeated by Trump and his minions, "If it can happen to me it can happen to anyone"

No Donald, I will never be tried for falsifying business records, because I've never done that.  I've never had an affair.  I've never paid anyone off, or conspired to rig an election.  I follow the law.  I have nothing to worry about.

[jonmx 2,425]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

The Trump Inauguration Day Riots?

Yeah, I think most people are not familiar with that happening either. 

Wiki must in on the conspiracy to suppress information about it as they don't even have a page devoted to it. 

Wiki....lol....right up there with your completely discredited Snopes. 

[jonmx 2,425]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

I keep hearing the line repeated by Trump and his minions, "If it can happen to me it can happen to anyone"

No Donald, I will never be tried for falsifying business records, because I've never done that.  I've never had an affair.  I've never paid anyone off, or conspired to rig an election.  I follow the law.  I have nothing to worry about.

 

Falsifying business records = categorizing something which someone disagrees with.  

Everyone thst runs a business could easily be charged with that as there are always bills which don't cleanly fit into a classification.  Paying a lawyer and calling them legal expenses is not a fraudulant record.  

[GutterBoy 2,899]

 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

 

[Engorgeous George 2,284]

11 hours ago, jonmx said:

Plenty of black men have been wrongly hung based the unanimous vote of a jury.  A corrupt judge and prosector can fix any case to influence the jury's verdict which absolutely happened here.   There were dozens of clear intentional errors in this case which will cause it to get throw out.  

Dozens, no. Maybe six to eight, but not dozens.

Clear intentional errors, no.  I would not even argue them as an abuse of discretion more less intentional errors.  i would however argue them as reversible error having deprived the defendant of due process.

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

57 minutes ago, listen2me 23 said:

So is Biden a lock to win thr election now?

What say the geeks?  

Nope.  I think this made more people want to vote for Trump.  People that were on the fence and thought the trial was a sham are voting for him now.

[jonmx 2,425]

12 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Dozens, no. Maybe six to eight, but not dozens.

Clear intentional errors, no.  I would not even argue them as an abuse of discretion more less intentional errors.  i would however argue them as reversible error having deprived the defendant of due process.

 

Using undefined references to federal crimes to establish the underlying crime of this business records law was very intentional and goes well beyond using discretion.  This judge bamboozled the jury into considering Trump's activities as somehow violating federal Election Interference laws. 

Let's forget that New York law can't legally use federal crimes to support this statue.  There are no election interference laws which covers hiding embarrassing facts.  None.  Election interference laws were enacted after the slaves were freed to make sure they could cast their vote.  Preventing people from casting legal ballots is election interference.  Trump did not do that. This judge intentionally mislead the jury with his instructions. 

Seriously, tell me where I am wrong. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Nope.  I think this made more people want to vote for Trump.  People that were on the fence and thought the trial was a sham are voting for him now.

If you thought the trial was a sham, then you were already voting for him.

I don't think this does much for the election either way, but again, that wasn't the intent.  I know all the Trump minions think it was, that's what they were told.

But it's pretty clear this isn't going to have much of an effect on the polls.  Maybe sway some independents off him that have a conscience.

[Mike Honcho 5,251]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

That Shapiro article is silly and you have to jump through, or outright ignore, a lot of things to get to his conclusion.

 

I wonder how many tears he shed writing it. 

 

 

Most of his Shapiro's arguments are silly, as they rely on specious reasoning.

Quote

 

The actual methodology by which he was found guilty is utterly uncertain. The reality is there were two crimes alleged: a misdemeanor falsification of business records — which would not have resulted in any possible jail time — but to become a felony that was reliant on other unspecified crimes.

And those crimes could have been a violation of federal finance law — except that Donald Trump clearly did not violate federal finance law. Not only that, the federal government never even bothered to charge him with violating federal finance law, federal election law in 2016. 

 

 

Right here he makes a false argument about what the case is and then argues this point...he's a clown.

 

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

If you thought the trial was a sham, then you were already voting for him.

I don't think this does much for the election either way, but again, that wasn't the intent.  I know all the Trump minions think it was, that's what they were told.

But it's pretty clear this isn't going to have much of an effect on the polls.  Maybe sway some independents off him that have a conscience.

I'm basing that opinion off of comments on social media.  Been seeing a lot of people who said they were not going to vote for Trump originally but they are now.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

LMFAO

You think anything the dems have done is equivalent to the MAGAtards attacking our capital.

You think Trump using the election was stolen as a tentpole for his 24 campaign is like anything the dems have done.

Who's not smart again boyo?  I give you facts you give me feelz.

BOF SIDEZ!!

JonDem. That’s good.  Real good.  Lol. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

Trump is guilty. Meanwhile Biden has allowed Ukraine to use US made weapons to strike within Russia. 

[jonmx 2,425]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

Right here he makes a false arguement about what the case is and then argues this point...he's a clown.

What is this case about?  He was basically correct, except the judge gave them three very general federal crimes to consider....tax violations, campaign finance, or election interference.  None of those hold water to any real scrutiny. 

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

https://twitter.com/acnewsitics/status/1796308698538594329

I can't figure out how to get these to show up on here.

[Engorgeous George 2,284]

17 minutes ago, jonmx said:

 

Using undefined references to federal crimes to establish the underlying crime of this business records law was very intentional and goes well beyond using discretion.  This judge bamboozled the jury into considering Trump's activities as somehow violating federal Election Interference laws. 

Let's forget that New York law can't legally use federal crimes to support this statue.  There are no election interference laws which covers hiding embarrassing facts.  None.  Election interference laws were enacted after the slaves were freed to make sure they could cast their vote.  Preventing people from casting legal ballots is election interference.  Trump did not do that. This judge intentionally mislead the jury with his instructions. 

Seriously, tell me where I am wrong. 

You want to argue the facts.  I am arguing the process.  Good luck to anybody taking a matter up on apeal saying the trial judge intentionally rigged the outcome.  The appeal occurs on the record, by reviewing the trial exhibits and the transcripts.  There is no way to discern the trial judge's intent from that.  Maybe he was simply incompetent or confused.  Appelate judges historically are quite hostile to attacks on the trial judge.  They are welcoming of pleas involving the due process rights of defendants.  You are worked up right now and maybe don't see the process argument as you are stuck on the facts.  I understand.  I just happen to believe, based on my experience, that your argument would fail and mine would be well recieved.  Now in full discosure i generally did not work on appeallate matters, though I did on some, including capital cases.  Mostly my career was as a trial attorney forcing others, my betteers, to justify the crap i pulled in trials so you may be right.  I am merely statting the commonly accepted legal belief that one does not attack the trial judge on an appeal.

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

Is anyone flying their American flags upside down after yesterday?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

You really are not familiar with the riots the day Trump was inaugurated.  There was widespread violence across the country including in the Capitol.  Far more violent than Jan 6th. 

They were setting things on fire. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Is anyone flying their American flags upside down after yesterday?

Do you even have one? Doubt it. 

[Engorgeous George 2,284]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Is anyone flying their American flags upside down after yesterday?

I'd have to go outside, pull my flag from its holder, unclip two clips, turn it over, reattach it and stick it back in its holder.  Seems a bit of a bother.  

[GutterBoy 2,899]

29 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I'm basing that opinion off of comments on social media.  Been seeing a lot of people who said they were not going to vote for Trump originally but they are now.

Curious is these are real people or bots.  Many "people" on social media are bots.

I'm sure we'lll get some polls soon.

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Do you even have one? Doubt it. 

I don't have a flag pole at my home.  I have one in front of my business though.

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Curious is these are real people or bots.  Many "people" on social media are bots.

I'm sure we'lll get some polls soon.

Lots of pics and videos of people doing it in this post.  https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/1796349034954928590

You're right though, lots of fake accounts on social media.

[The Real timschochet 6,638]

5 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Is anyone flying their American flags upside down after yesterday?

Marjorie Taylor Greene 

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Marjorie Taylor Greene 

That's no surprise.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,266]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

I don't have a flag pole at my home.  I have one in front of my business though.

Yeah. You gotta fly that rainbow flag.  Your business? When did that happen? Congrats. 

[jonmx 2,425]

16 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

You want to argue the facts.  I am arguing the process.  

Nothing I said was was even remotely arguing facts.  I was arguing law and process.  

1.  When a New York law makes a general reference to other crimes, can it rely on federal crimes?   

That has nothing to do with the facts in this case, and there numerous ironclad arguments against allowing it.  First and foremost, New York law defines 'crime' as a violation of state or local law.   So how can he legally instruct the jury using general references to federal laws?  He must rely on state crimes. 

I could get into New York Constitutional law and how the specific statue violates it by not specially referencing what the other crimes it could be.   I could get into the specific federal statues and show how they do not apply to this case.  But it is not required.   This court has no jurisdiction or statutory authority to bring in federal law as the underlying crime.  

Did you even read my post?  I am lost at why you think I was arguing facts. 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Lots of pics and videos of people doing it in this post.  https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/1796349034954928590

You're right though, lots of fake accounts on social media.

If you're flying an upside down flag, then you're already Maga.

I'm talking about truly undecideds that flipped to Trump after the guilty verdict.  I can't imagine that's a significant number, but who knows.

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah. You gotta fly that rainbow flag.  Your business? When did that happen? Congrats. 

I'm not a rainbow flag flyer, not that's there's anything wrong with that.  Yes, I am a business owner.  I'm 4th generation.  You already knew this though.

[Hawkeye21 2,393]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

If you're flying an upside down flag, then you're already Maga.

I'm talking about truly undecideds that flipped to Trump after the guilty verdict.  I can't imagine that's a significant number, but who knows.

Oh.  Yeah, those could be fake accounts.

[Fnord 2,189]

I'm pretty skeptical of the crowd claiming they weren't going to vote for Trump before the verdict but are now.

IMO, it's just cover for people that always intended to but are ashamed of it. Now they at least have a feeble justification for their poor choice.

[Engorgeous George 2,284]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

Nothing I said was was even remotely arguing facts.  I was arguing law and process.  

1.  When a New York law makes a general reference to other crimes, can it rely on federal crimes?   

That has nothing to do with the fact in this case, and there numerous ironclad arguments against allowing it.  First and foremost, New York law defines 'crime' as a violation of state or local law.   So how can he legally instruct the jury using federal laws?  He must rely on state crimes. 

I could get into New York Constitutional law and how the specific statue violates it by not specially referencing what the other crimes could be.   I could get into the specific federal statues and show how they do not apply to this case.  But it is not required.   This court has no jurisdiction or statutory authority to bring in federal law as the underlying crime.  

And on appeal you argue that and you argue that in having done so the trial court did not provide the defendant with substantive and procedural due process.  What you do not do is argue taht the tgrial judge made these errors intentionally.  You do not ask the appeallat court to find that someone in their fraternity intentionally subverted justice.  You would be guaranteeing yourself a hostile reception to your arguments.

 

I am going to leave this portion of this discussion at this point.  You do not seem amenable to my point which is fine. A back and forth between us will resolve nothing so no sense in me going further with you.

[Engorgeous George 2,284]

6 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

If you're flying an upside down flag, then you're already Maga.

I'm talking about truly undecideds that flipped to Trump after the guilty verdict.  I can't imagine that's a significant number, but who knows.

The entire process deeply offended my sense of fundamental due process.  As a person who devoted his career to trial law the abuses I saw in this matter fundamentally offended and effected me.  One way to register my consternation would be to vote in support of the defendant who was so abused.  For pretty much any other defendant I would do so gladly.  As Trump offends me I have not yet decided to give him the same courtesy and support I would others, and that too bothers me as due process should be worthy of protection no matter the merits of the accused.

[jonmx 2,425]

10 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

And on appeal you argue that and you argue that in having done so the trial court did not provide the defendant with substantive and procedural due process.  What you do not do is argue taht the tgrial judge made these errors intentionally.  You do not ask the appeallat court to find that someone in their fraternity intentionally subverted justice.  You would be guaranteeing yourself a hostile reception to your arguments.

 

I am going to leave this portion of this discussion at this point.  You do not seem amenable to my point which is fine. A back and forth between us will resolve nothing so no sense in me going further with you.

 

My arguement is not based on the judges intent.  It is wholly based upon clear legal error.   I just happen to believe the way he minupulated his instructions it was very intentional to give the jury an easy path to a guilty verdict.  But that has zero to do with the legal point I made and which you continue not to address.   While I understand your due process arguement, I was making a much more specific arguement.   There were numerous errors in due process including not articulating the underlying charge in the charging documents and even gagging Trump was a failure of due process.