Verdict

[Mike Krailo]

Can you explain how this trial was rigged? Citizens were on the grand juryn, as well as the trial jury. How, exactly, did Biden stick it to trump, what was the process.

Are you serious? This is a blue state by 85%. So how is he supposed to get a fair trial in that sort of jury pool. It's not possible, but they went forward with it anyway and pretended like it was all on the up and up fair. The judge has openly shown his bias to the prosecutors and has done everything in his power to deny due process to the defendant. This is not me, it's many legal scholars looking at the case and the indictment and charges. It is clearly political. there is no victim in the alleged crime. There is no one who was defrauded like in every other case of falsifying business records.

This is very simple, if trump were not running for president, there would be no indictment. Since his is running, there is the need for dems to retain power by any means necessary and since they failed miserably for during the last four years, they are in panic mode and have no choice but to pull out DeNiro as a spokes person to support Bidum. It's pathetic, it's a travesty, and many can see right through it. Good luck in November.

 

[moke123]

Yes but the crime that elevates it to a felony was never defined in the indictment or anywhere.

They're in there.

The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act.

The People’s second theory of “unlawful means” which I will define for you is the falsification of other business records.

The People’s third theory of “unlawful means” which I will define for you is a Violation of Tax Laws.

Contrary to popular belief, there really aren't many surprises. The defense gets everything well in advance and if they don't it's excluded.
In some instances it's the defense who can pull off surprises as they don't have to disclose impeachment witnesses until they call them.

 

[Jon]

DJT is not running aginst Biden. He is running against the system of laws that is American. Just rember, the Emmies were rigged against him, the NFL was rigged against him, everytime he doesn't get his way, it was rigged.

Are these the same system of laws that Joe Biden broke when he held classified documents at home whilst being a vice-president? And the same system of laws hat Hillary Cliton broke when she had classified documents on her unsecured server at home? The same system that says you cannot delete subpoenad evidence?

When these democrats get off without charge and Trump doesn't, it is hardly surprising it appears rigged.

 

[Jon]

page 40

the law

He was never charged with a misdemeanor.

It seems to me that the expired misdemeanour was manipulated to a felony by saying it was done in furtherance to another crime, but they don't specify which crime. They give three. Have you ever heard of a case where a jury doesn't have to all agree on which crime was commited? A pick and mix case?

I've never seen a case where you don't need a consensus on which crime was commited.

 

[Jon]

The defense gets everything well in advance and if they don't it's excluded.

The defense got 200,000 pages of evidence dumped just weeks before the start of the trial. That is not well in advance and it wasn't excluded. So based on your excluded comment, it would suggest you consider this to be against protocol.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/donald-t...ay-sanctions-5e371dfeede7ac5bc7241475b680899c

 

[Jon]

Are you serious? This is a blue state by 85%. So how is he supposed to get a fair trial in that sort of jury pool. It's not possible, but they went forward with it anyway and pretended like it was all on the up and up fair. The judge has openly shown his bias to the prosecutors and has done everything in his power to deny due process to the defendant. This is not me, it's many legal scholars looking at the case and the indictment and charges. It is clearly political. there is no victim in the alleged crime. There is no one who was defrauded like in every other case of falsifying business records.

This is very simple, if trump were not running for president, there would be no indictment. Since his is running, there is the need for dems to retain power by any means necessary and since they failed miserably for during the last four years, they are in panic mode and have no choice but to pull out DeNiro as a spokes person to support Bidum. It's pathetic, it's a travesty, and many can see right through it. Good luck in November.

You don't even need to know any of the details to see what is going on. The timing of all these cases tells you everything you need to know.

 

[MarkK]

The judge has openly shown his bias

He's not the only one.

 

[moke123]

I've never seen a case where you don't need a consensus on which crime was commited.

Can't recall if I've ever seen one either but I do understand the legal theory behind it. It is a tough one to wrap your head around.

The defense got 200,000 pages of evidence dumped just weeks before the start of the trial. That is not well in advance and it wasn't excluded.

And the trial was delayed as a result. No prejudice.

I'm stuck having to testify this morning due to late discovery received a couple days ago.

 

[Jon]

Can't recall if I've ever seen one either but I do understand the legal theory behind it. It is a tough one to wrap your head around.

They are making it up as they go along. Do you believe that you need consensus to convict someone of a specific crime, or do you think it would be ok to say, "Here are 100 crimes. If you think the defendent broke any of them, then you are unanimous"? Would it be ok to take someone to court and say the defendent is guilty of a crime, but you can pick any crime you like and if you think the defendent has ever been guilty of a crime in his life, then it is unanimous? Do you consider that justice?

And the trial was delayed as a result. No prejudice.

Is a 20 day delay sufficient to go through 200,000 pages and prepare? That is 1,000 pages per day, 7 days per week. Or do you consider that "well in advance"?

 

[Mike Krailo]

I finally found the NY law they used to elevate to felony (NY 17-152). This is such a joke misapplication of the law. They are taking a bunch of misdemeanors and magically making them into a felony. Maybe that law has other context they left out, like what type of election??? The election in question was a national election and NY has no right to use such a law and interfere with a future election (they timed this nonsense on purpose). That's essentially what they are doing. This elevating law itself is as stated as misdemeanor!!! No one has been monetarily defrauded in any way as is typical in every other falsified business record case. So by their logic, they are saying that by claiming payments to his lawyer are not legal expenses the description wasn't revealing enough but instead should have been labeled hush money payments??? Would that have made it legal? What a crock. What should the payments have labeled the as? Is there a guide for labeling payments that all politicians/businesses use to divulge as much detail as possible so others can easily use against you. You got to be kidding me. Does anyone actually think this is a felony for real???

Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152

This means every NDA agreement ever made must have super detailed descriptions in description block on all payments or checks or it's a felony if the prosecutor in any legal case against you says it is so even if no one was actually defrauded of anything. That's what this is reduced down to. But clearly, the only reason the case was brought was because of the conspiracy for NY politicians swearing to take down the man as part of their political power to do so. This is political lawfare using flimsy accusations to create a wrong doing that is not at all wrong or illegal.

I don't think Hunter Bidum was descriptive enough when he wrote "10% for the big guy". Sounds like falsifying business records to me.

 

[Jon]

How does it even influence an election? They are private accounting records.

 

[Mike Krailo]

How does it even influence an election? They are private accounting records.

Apparently any political dirt you have on yourself must be revealed according to NY law otherwise you are defrauding them the right to know all possible dirt. That's a felony if your last name is Trump. If however, you are the big guy, it's perfectly OK.

Choosing the wrong lawyer is also a felony.

 

[Steve R.]

Are these the same system of laws that Joe Biden broke when he held classified documents at home whilst being a vice-president? And the same system of laws hat Hillary Cliton broke when she had classified documents on her unsecured server at home? The same system that says you cannot delete subpoenad evidence?

When these democrats get off without charge and Trump doesn't, it is hardly surprising it appears rigged.

H. Clinton, only received a very minor civil penalty for "falsely" labeling the Steele Dossier as a legal expense. The Steele Dossier (Russian Collusion Hoax) was an attempt by Hillary to interfere in a presidential election. This is simply another example of Democrats only getting a minor slap on the wrist while Republicans get crucified for the same type of offense.

 

[AccessBlaster]

This is simply another example of Democrats only getting a minor slap on the wrist while Republicans get crucified for the same type of offense.

The Republicans are asleep at the wheel, they assume "alls fair in love and war" it ain't. Republicans are probably to naive to play in this arena. Democrats play on a different level.

 

[Steve R.]

Democrats play on a different level.

The "ends justify the means". Democrats have no ethics they go for the jugular.

 

[Jon]

The Republicans are asleep at the wheel, they assume "alls fair in love and war" it ain't. Republicans are probably to naive to play in this arena. Democrats play on a different level.

It is difficult because you are damned if you do, or damned if you don't. If you also play unfair, you contribute to the demise of sanity and established legal protocol. If you don't, you can end up on the losing side while the democrats cheat the system. Ultimately, the democrats are bringing about the demise of society, and it is a difficult one for the republicans to know if they should play fair or dirty, because both options have their own problems.

 

[Jon]

The "ends justify the means". Democrats have no ethics they go for the jugular.

Ethics are there to ensure civilised society. Short term gains by unethical behaviour can boomerang.

Look at Merchan's unethical Biden donation, where he was cautioned. He could not contain his bias and so acted unethically. A leopard doesn't change his spots and this bias continued into the Trump trial.

 

[conception_native_0123]

so when does sentencing begin? and can he still run for president or not?

 

[Jon]

Trump has raised $34.8 million in the six hours after a guity verdict, shattering fundraising records.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Guilty All counts.

Too bad no one has mentioned guilty of what yet? THAT is YOUR democracy at work. Sure hope it works for you.