- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Liberal debates Trumps conviction and is asked what crime he committed
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:33 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:33 am to SlowFlowPro
SlowFlowPro:
quote:
I'm not [supporting the prosecution]
I'm giving objective legal analysis.
My personal opinions aren't present.
0
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:34 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
You know full well that the Judge did not allow in testimony that he felt would "confuse" or support the defendant.
That was opinion testimony, not factual testimony.
And I think once unanimity is required, that becomes moot.
However, given the judge didn't require unanimity, I think the expert opinion testimony should have been let in (although, as stated above, it will likely be rendered moot).
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 10:35 am
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The crime he was convicted of was Falsifying business records in the first degree
I'm guessing those laws didn't apply with Bill Clinton's payouts.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And even if the case is remanded
When it is not, you will be here arguing that it was a just verdict.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:46 am to Nosevens
quote:
Cohen would not have been involved in journal entries. His flat charge could be considered additional over billing considering doing so afterwards and being caught. That determination of jury as you mentioned would be done but for defense purposes unless jury was kept from hearing and understanding which is what happened.
This was a showboat of DEI , Soros and DOJ henchmen
Nailed.
Short and sweet spot-on observations of a non-Kangaroo courtroom determining actual justice in allowing the routine plausible benefit of doubt by the defense.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:51 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Liberal debates Trumps conviction and is asked what crime he committed
quote:
We don't know what the jury relied on, specifically, but there are multiple potential options.
This sounds like a jury was given the names of all the people murdered in a city on a given day and told we believe the defendent killed one of them, since he was in the city that day, so just pick one and convict.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:55 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I dont trust the courts.
Judges have way too much power.
I’ve said that for years. Now you’ve got rogue ones publicly flaunting and abusing said powers.
This post was edited on 6/4/24 at 10:56 am
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:56 am to JellyRoll
quote:
dig it when someone is actually required to back up their drivel, and called out
There is lots of opportunity here to do just that. Have fun!
Posted on 6/4/24 at 10:57 am to Tasseo
quote:
This sounds like a jury was given the names of all the people murdered in a city on a given day and told we believe the defendent killed one of them, since he was in the city that day, so just pick one and convict.
Oh, and BTW, he’s orange. You can nail him on that, too.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 11:00 am to Lsupimp
quote:
If I had a dollar for every Democrat I hear who believes with a fierce religiosity in the infallibility of something they are completely ignorant of, I’d be in St Barts on my yacht right now.
That’s like if I could buy SFP for what he’s worth and then turn around and sell him for what he THINKS he’s worth, I’d be in St Barts right next to you on my own yacht on the difference.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 11:02 am to therick711
quote:
It was legal error to advance the case to the jury on the showing made.
Truth.
It's almost as though "legal errors" and "constitutional" are suddenly purely partisan confections (thanks to a feckless GOP playing deaf, dumb & blind, hanging Trump out to dry since 2017).
Posted on 6/4/24 at 11:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We don't know, and will likely never know.
You don't think that's going to cause an issue with the public? We'll never know what underlying crime a former President was convicted of? That's not going to do much in the way of convincing everyone this was on the up and up.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 11:12 am to jchamil
quote:
You don't think that's going to cause an issue with the public?
Did you not keep reading that post?
quote:
We'll never know what underlying crime a former President was convicted of? That's not going to do much in the way of convincing everyone this was on the up and up.
Again, did you not keep reading?
That will likely lead to the conviction being overturned and the case being remanded back to the trial court for re-trial.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 11:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did you not keep reading that post?
Yes.
quote:
Again, did you not keep reading?
That will likely lead to the conviction being overturned and the case being remanded back to the trial court for re-trial.
That's not going to fix any of the mistrust a lot of the public has with the judicial system. It shouldn't even have to be going to the appellate court.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 11:28 am to Godfather1
quote:
Judges have way too much power.
Didnt totally catch what it was he found, but apparently Hugh Hewitt found some kind of "talking to" Merchan received that was sealed. Not sure the specifics but something enough for him to start to agree with people that he should of step away from the case.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
CNN’s Chief Legal Analyst says these charges are a historical first in the US. It’s never happened. It’s almost like the charges were curated for Trump only? Lol.
quote:
Honig declared the charges against Trump are "obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented."
quote:
"In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever," Honig wrote.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
You idiot he personally did not falsify business records. An out of date charge way past the statute of limitations. He was convicted of running against the guy whose depends your adore smelling and whose balls you love to wash.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That was opinion testimony, not factual testimony.
And I think once unanimity is required, that becomes moot.
However, given the judge didn't require unanimity, I think the expert opinion testimony should have been let in (although, as stated above, it will likely be rendered moot).
So you never took the time to read the transcripts of the trial. Go FuQ yourself. Hey I hear kicking the crap out of Biden supporters is getting to be a thing. People have had enough of lying low life leftist POS. You should stay in your Gramma's basement.
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:10 pm to RedHog260
quote:
Hey I hear kicking the crap out of Biden supporters is getting to be a thing.
Nothing to worry about here, then
Posted on 6/4/24 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Costello was opinion testimony?
That was opinion testimony, not factual testimony.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News