T found guilty on all accounts

[HisArpy]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...y-witnesses-after-conviction/?sh=516f9b6b5ee4


Key FACTS:
Judge Juan Merchan imposed a gag order in March that bars Trump from speaking publicly about jurors, witnesses, prosecutors and others involved in the case, as well as their family members—which the ex-president has subsequently violated 10 times.

Merchan did not lift the order after the jury announced its verdict on Thursday, and Trump noted Friday in a press conferencehe’s still “under a gag order.”

Legal expert Norm Eisen said on a call with reporters Friday that “risk continues for the witnesses” and jurors in the case, given the threats or harassment they could face as a result of their verdict and testimony, predicting, “I don’t think the judge is going to be quick to remove that gag order.”

It’s unclear how long the gag order could stay in place: Eisen predicted it would not remain permanently, and retired New York state Judge Michael Obus told reporters he doesn’t believe the gag order will last past Trump’s sentencing on July 11, as at that point, “the case would be over.”
Trump suggested Friday he could try to fight the gag order if it stays in place for much longer, saying, “We’ll play that game a little bit longer.”
Even if the gag order is lifted, Obus told reporters Friday it’s likely Merchan would impose a new order that ensures jurors’ identities remain private.

After the verdict is announced, the trial court only has limited jurisdiction remaining. Jurisdiction which is limited to sentencing and any post-trial motions.

As to this specific argument regarding the order: in part Merchan imposed a gag order to prevent Trump from speaking about the jurors. Once the verdict was reached, the jury was dismissed. Accordingly there are NO JURORS any longer. To require that Trump adhere to a gag order for something nonexistent is silly.

Another example is that the gag order prohibits Trump from talking about court staff/other people while the trial is ongoing. Once the verdict was reached there is no ongoing trial any longer. Thus the premise of the order fails.

And of course there's that limit on jurisdiction thing. Once the verdict was reached jurisdiction became limited to only those things allows post trial. Gag orders aren't part of the things allowed.


Any order hiding the jurors names is illegal.

 

[Aglaopheme]

So you’re saying Derpy is WRONG???

Not even me, but the orange one himself.

 

[Aglaopheme]

After the verdict is announced, the trial court only has limited jurisdiction remaining. Jurisdiction which is limited to sentencing and any post-trial motions.

As to this specific argument regarding the order: in part Merchan imposed a gag order to prevent Trump from speaking about the jurors. Once the verdict was reached, the jury was dismissed. Accordingly there are NO JURORS any longer. To require that Trump adhere to a gag order for something nonexistent is silly.

Another example is that the gag order prohibits Trump from talking about court staff/other people while the trial is ongoing. Once the verdict was reached there is no ongoing trial any longer. Thus the premise of the order fails.

And of course there's that limit on jurisdiction thing. Once the verdict was reached jurisdiction became limited to only those things allows post trial. Gag orders aren't part of the things allowed.


Any order hiding the jurors names is illegal.

Say it is silly all you like, it is still in place.

So, you’re saying there is no such thing as an anonymous or innomimate jury?

 

[Lazaran]

After the verdict is announced, the trial court only has limited jurisdiction remaining. Jurisdiction which is limited to sentencing and any post-trial motions.

As to this specific argument regarding the order: in part Merchan imposed a gag order to prevent Trump from speaking about the jurors. Once the verdict was reached, the jury was dismissed. Accordingly there are NO JURORS any longer. To require that Trump adhere to a gag order for something nonexistent is silly.

Another example is that the gag order prohibits Trump from talking about court staff/other people while the trial is ongoing. Once the verdict was reached there is no ongoing trial any longer. Thus the premise of the order fails.

And of course there's that limit on jurisdiction thing. Once the verdict was reached jurisdiction became limited to only those things allows post trial. Gag orders aren't part of the things allowed.


Any order hiding the jurors names is illegal.

You. Were. WRONG.

Full stop.

 

[HisArpy]

Say it is silly all you like, it is still in place.

So, you’re saying there is no such thing as an anonymous or innomimate jury?

No. I'm saying that in this case Merchan lacks the jurisdiction to make such an order.

That is not to say he won't make it, but such an order is unenforceable. Merchan's court cannot nullify the Constitution and any attempt to do so is illegal.

 

[Aglaopheme]

You. Were. WRONG.

Full stop.

Here we go again. Somethings never change. I’m kinda digging it.

 

[Aglaopheme]

No. I'm saying that in this case Merchan lacks the jurisdiction to make such an order.

That is not to say he won't make it, but such an order is unenforceable. Merchan's court cannot nullify the Constitution and any attempt to do so is illegal.

He’s already made the order, harpy. The order that is still in place. The in place order Trump was vowing to fight just this morning.

 

[HisArpy]

He’s already made the order, harpy. The order that is still in place. The in place order Trump was vowing to fight just this morning.

^ Circular logic.

 

[Crownvic]

Trump needs the big house...not the White House...

 

[Aglaopheme]

^ Circular logic.

Facts, harpy.

 

[adrina]

But you're not voting for Hunter so what does it matter?

The money trail is there. You refuse to believe it, but it's there. In fact the committee investigating the Bidens just found even more concealed bank accounts. With direct payments from foreign interests this time.

Nor does that account for the classified documents found in Joe's garage and other places or homes/offices. Oops.

And of course it doesn't negate the Special Counsel's finding that Joe engaged in criminal acts. For which prosecution is declined because he's too old and feeble.

But you're going to vote for Joe because you think that the man who is too old and feeble to be held accountable for his crimes, and who is linked to his corrupt and criminal son by a money laundering scheme, is the best guy to be President while you denounce the other guy as too corrupt.

Partisan much?

You hit all the conservative right-wing propaganda talking points. So good job. However there's still that pesky little fact where many Republicans in the Senate and House came out and said directly that there was no money trail.

That's documented reality. That you don't want to acknowledge it it's just another example of you not being able to cope with the facts.

 

[MissMandy86]

It's a good day

 

[jomar]

So my understanding is that judges hate to be overturned. So if one is the judge in the highest profile case in a long time and the first ever of its kind and putting them in the history books too, wouldn’t the judge do everything possible in his/her power to run it squeaky clean so an appeal judge couldn’t get a fingernail under it? Wouldn’t the judge want to proceed with an eye to appeal and proceed in a manner that claims of putting a thumb on the scale could not be substantiated by an appeal judge? And wouldn’t that judge stay away from making a political statement by doing whatever because that would severely damage their reputation and possibly be career ending?

And if I’m a juror on that same case, wouldn’t I be extremely conscientious about my place in history and be supremely careful in following instructions and being very deliberate and sure about my conclusions?

So I dunno, guess we’ll see.

 

[dmallord]

I don't give a rat's ass for Trump, I stand for the law and what you saw in that trial is not the law. Nor was it justice.

You can say and believe all the skewed partisan hateful shit you want, but the truth is that I've been right more than I've been wrong when it comes to how legal events are going to turn out in the end. This trial was a travesty which will be reversed on appeal because THE LAW says that what happened was riddled with errors as well as a denial of rights and due process.

So, in the end, you need to STFU and sit down until the ride comes to a complete stop. This one ain't over. Not by a long shot.

The fun part is when it's reversed what will you say then? That the courts are favorable to Trump? That SCOTUS needs to be packed with more justices? Justices who will act like Merchan did? That's not justice or the law, it's bullshit and only someone with the mentality of a child cannot see it.

Trump is a symptom of moral decay in our political systems. He is incapable of governing within the concepts of our Constitution. Feeling above the law, he has made it known going forward that he will run roughshod over any and all political opponents to the point of weaponizing the justice system to persecute everyone not aligned with him if he returns to office.

There is no place in American governance for people of his ilk. Unfortunately, he is not alone. His hatred and divisiveness has grown among others in political power.

You cannot in good conscious say you don't give a rat's ass about Trump while declaring he did not recieve justice. While you may not agree with the application of the law on how Trump was tried, you have to acknowledge that he was tried by a legitimate recognized court system, judged my his peers and that they in good conscious arrived at a verdict. To espouse otherwise, you are no better than those who seek to weaponize the system for further political prosecutions.

There is no 'fun' part of this process. Trump will get the next level of due process. The appeals will determine if he was appropriately adjudicated. Meanwhile, Trump spues enough vitriol and has enough minions depending on his future favors, that he continues to erode the values we have built into the laws of the land over the existence of the USA. He mocks justice. He has demonstrated he believes he is above the law.

It is time, even for you, to honestly acknowledge Trump is wrong on all accounts - morally - and acknowledge you do not support him - beyond the statement of 'giving a rat's ass.'

CNN reports, "House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan’s subcommittee targeting the alleged weaponization of the federal government is demanding Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo appear for a hearing on June 13 following Donald Trump’s guilty verdict.

"In a social media post, the committee said the Republican from Ohio wants them to testify about the "unprecedented political prosecution" of Trump.

"This is the first sign of Trump’s key hill allies, like Jordan, using their positions in Congress to defend Trump after the verdict."

This is an escalation of hatred for our justice system. One Federal body, openingly challenging a State's right to prosecute a criminal under its jurisdictional purview.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Rapey meltdowns are some of the best.

 

[dmallord]

The Manhattan appeals court.
View attachment 2352335

That's absolutely 'humor in uniform!' Precious.

 

[Rightguide]

Good luck on your expectations

My name isn't Megyn Kelly, but the sentiment is out there and you are the ones who planted those dragon's teeth.

 

[Rightguide]

Trump is a symptom of moral decay in our political systems. He is incapable of governing within the concepts of our Constitution. Feeling above the law, he has made it known going forward that he will run roughshod over any and all political opponents to the point of weaponizing the justice system to persecute everyone not aligned with him if he returns to office.

There is no place in American governance for people of his ilk. Unfortunately, he is not alone. His hatred and divisiveness has grown among others in political power.

You cannot in good conscious say you don't give a rat's ass about Trump while declaring he did not recieve justice. While you may not agree with the application of the law on how Trump was tried, you have to acknowledge that he was tried by a legitimate recognized court system, judged my his peers and that they in good conscious arrived at a verdict. To espouse otherwise, you are no better than those who seek to weaponize the system for further political prosecutions.

There is no 'fun' part of this process. Trump will get the next level of due process. The appeals will determine if he was appropriately adjudicated. Meanwhile, Trump spues enough vitriol and has enough minions depending on his future favors, that he continues to erode the values we have built into the laws of the land over the existence of the USA. He mocks justice. He has demonstrated he believes he is above the law.

It is time, even for you, to honestly acknowledge Trump is wrong on all accounts - morally - and acknowledge you do not support him - beyond the statement of 'giving a rat's ass.'

CNN reports, "House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan’s subcommittee targeting the alleged weaponization of the federal government is demanding Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and prosecutor Matthew Colangelo appear for a hearing on June 13 following Donald Trump’s guilty verdict.

"In a social media post, the committee said the Republican from Ohio wants them to testify about the "unprecedented political prosecution" of Trump.

"This is the first sign of Trump’s key hill allies, like Jordan, using their positions in Congress to defend Trump after the verdict."

This is an escalation of hatred for our justice system. One Federal body, openingly challenging a State's right to prosecute a criminal under its jurisdictional purview.

Which of the crimes of choice the judge instructed did the Jury find him guilty of and was it on the indictment?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Which of the crimes of choice the judge instructed did the Jury find him guilty of and was it on the indictment?

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE

Yes, yes it was.

 

[ll74]

My name isn't Megyn Kelly, but the sentiment is out there and you are the ones who planted those dragon's teeth.

If you didn't agree with her post, then probably don't post it here.

You give me too much credit.

 

[icanhelp1]

Why do you keep forgetting to add victimless crime???

Letitia James is a disgrace.

 

[Bn2f]

Letitia James is a…

Black Queen is more accurate. Black Queen doing her job upholding the laws of the state of New York. That she’s holding the most privileged of white males accountable by his tiny hands and dick is broccoli on the side of a plate of porterhouse steak.

 

[dmallord]

No it didn’t. The trial process was severely flawed. Many reversible errors though-out the trial. Blaring due process violations. The judge steered the jury to the only conclusion the jury could understand. The judge was anything but a neutral arbiter of justice. Any judge worthwhile of the black robe would have supported and even encouraged the defense to provide witness testimony, especially a witness who could demonstrate the correct application of the law and rebuke flawed allegations by the prosecution concerning campaign finance abuses.

For all the hoopla over the severely flawed elements this wasn't that complicated for twelve men and women to wade through the legal matters. The jury is charged with judging facts presented in testimony. It is not the job of the jury to interpret the law. They had only to determine the outcome of the weather in their decisions.

Is your angst over the part where Merchan basically told them that if they woke up and saw the street wet they were okay with concluding that it rained over night? If so, this might help.

• A porn star said she had sex with Trump. Trump sent his fixer with an NDA and 130K to silence her. Trump didn't come out and deny sex at the time. The jury didn't see the sex, but saw the checks signed by Trump and concluded he had sex as a result, otherwise he wouldn't have paid. [Logical- it rained checks]
• 
  
• Cohen says he processed the NDA and gave her the money from his account and Trump reembursed him for that from his account. The jury didn't see the sex, or the exchange of 130K, or the 420k reimbursement, but saw the signed checks and concluded Trump authorized the payments. [Logical - Trump knew.]
• 
  
• Cohen and Pecker colluded to keep this quiet in speaking with Trump. Cohen and Pecker testified. Cohen said Trump new about the NDA and the reimbursements at a meeting at the Whitehouse. Trump's aid testified Cohen was at the White House at the time of the recording and the jury heard some audio of one conversation. The jury concluded Trump was aware and authorized the checks. [Logical - colusion.]
• 
  
• The DA evidenced the connections between Trump, Stormy, Cohen, Pecker, and the handwritten notes with the amounts of the checks by Weisselburg noting that the sum was more that the 130K inorder for Cohen to record taxes with the IRS – in effect giving him enough to offset the original money and still seem legitimate as a business expense by Trump. Merchan told the jury that it was a violation of a New York election law that makes it illegal for "...any two or more persons" to "conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means," The jury concluded that this 420k was a disguise by two or more persons to pay Cohen back for the work on the hush money matter met that definition and this money was not a real business transaction. [Logical - NY law was violated.]
• 
  
• The DA tied the above to the the idea that if this hush money was in the furtherance of a another level of crime, one of protecting Trump from political damage rather than a private family embarrassment it rose to another level. This was a little tentative. Given the conversations with Trump, Pecker and Cohen, and the recent 'grab'em by the pussy' tapes, the jury was able to determine that the payments were politically motivated rather than family motivated. That Trump wanted the matter hushed so that his political activities were not harmed. [Logical - falsified business for political purposes]
• 
  
• The jury then had to determine if this rose to the level of a tertiary criminal act that involved any one of three situations. What exactly were those "unlawful means" were in this case was up to the jury to decide. Prosecutors put forth three areas that they could consider: (1) a violation of federal campaign finance laws, (2) falsification of other business records or (3) a violation of tax laws. Jurors did not need to agree on what the underlying "unlawful means" were. But they did have to unanimously conclude that Trump caused the business records to be falsified, and that he "did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." [This was the reason the jury asked for the second reading of the judges instructions. They needed to hear the 'You can conclude that if the streets were wet when you woke up in the morning you can conclude it rained overnight.'] [Logical - All criteria were met to convict at the criminal level.]

The jury followed the instructions and the DA's well layed out methodical step-by-step scenario. They woke up on the second morning of the trial, looked out side, saw that it had indeed rained on Trump's parade, and determined he was a felon.

Now he can appeal. What's all the hoopla about a travesty of justice?

 

[dmallord]

Yes. And, Texas will become the new site for Israel to exist in peace.

West Texas is kinda like Israel. Maybe do a mass migration for them. I'm sure the Governor would agree to allocate a chunk of arrid land for them.

 

[dmallord]

In the end the SCOTUS will have no choice but to hear this case regardless of what the appellate court decides. And it will have to do so before November.

Why? Because this verdict sets up a Constitutional crisis whereby a former President may be sitting in a state jail when he is elected to the highest office in the nation. An office which would allow him to mobilize the National Guard to break him out of that jail while at the same time be subject to the 25th Amendment as being incapable of administering the duties of The Office of the President of the United States. The question becomes; at that point is he or is he not the President? If he is, then the conviction is treason. If he is not, then who is? Presidential succession cannot happen if there is no President to succeed because Trump would be the one elected, not his running mate.

It further implicates the concept of Federalism where the SCOTUS deemed that the States do not have the power to imperil the Federal Government by actions which directly affect the Federal government. Imprisoning Trump does that.

So go ahead and gloat over you moment in the sun, you got him. Enjoy the warmth of that pyrrhic victory, it will be short lived.

Open a window...there must be a gas leak and it's affecting you senses. You need to get outside and breathe some fresh air.

Break him out of prison? That's delusional.