Printable View
Conspiracy is when people agree to violate the law. Not sure everyone does that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bjf123
They may have a good chance for acquittal as the charge seems to relate to paying hush money to squash negative stories.
Maybe the jury will decide that's OK.
The falsifying business records seems straightforward.
Tell Lou that statutes can be tolled.
I’ll be shocked if the jury finds him not guilty. This will be another case of jury nullification. Will they want to be known as the people in NYC who didn’t convict Trump? They won’t follow the law. This case should have never been brought, just like the civil trial about real estate values.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
More stretching of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
And you're worried about an authoritarian taking over?
Our government kinda sucks.
And, I think I know why! It's because WE kinda suck!
A bit melodramatic?Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Anyone following the p star's testimony? She went on the stand and said the deed was done despite Trump saying otherwise (not under oath though).
I am a big proponent of getting your day in court. I would love to see Trump take the stand and answer whether it happened or not. It won't happen, but still I would love to see that. I know there are instances where the court/juries just gets it wrong, but for the most part they get it right.
Maybe the reason it’s confusing is because you’re stating “as fact” the other crime is 17-152? That is not the case for now. Again, we won’t probably know the other crime until the jury instructions. This is why the defense has their hands cuffed until then.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Quote:
Originally Posted by noteggs
It's convoluted though, I'll grant, as this article tries to explain.Quote:
“The primary crime that we have alleged is New York state election law section 17-152,” Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass told New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan during Trump’s trial on April 23
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article...eople-v.-trump
You are referencing a site called Lawfaremedia to explain how this isn’t Lawfare? A site which works with the Brookings Institute. Ok. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Sounds like the porn star’s testimony and the judge’s allowing it gave Trump’s team a great basis for appeal. Testimony about the alleged affair is certainly reasonable. It seems the prosecution took it even further, allowing her to get into graphic details of the alleged encounter.
I think the only reason for that testimony was to embarrass Trump and prejudice the jury even more towards him. Then again, the prosecution couldn’t care less about losing anything on appeal. By then, the election will be over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk