This time next year, President Trump moves back into the Whitehouse...

[ZRX61]

If you’re correct and the judge didn’t allow it, what legal basis did he have for not allowing it?*

*I’m assuming there would have been a pre trial motion to dismiss the charges based on SoL - I haven’t checked though. His defence team did seem spectacularly inept.

Edit - that may be what his appeal will be based on - ineffective assistance of counsel

Legal basis & precedent weren't part of this trial. His defense team weren't allowed to defend him.

[DefTrap]

The judge is there to ensure the letter of the law is followed and that the trial doesn't descend into farcical showboating, character assassination, namecalling and fibbing. I understand that for a politician who only has that in his armoury this must seem like having your arms and legs cut off.

[Saga Lout]

The judge is there to ensure the letter of the law is followed...

Well, that's the theory. But as somebody* once said: In Theory There Is No Difference Between Theory and Practice, While In Practice There Is

*The quote has been attributed to Yogi Berra, Albert Einstein and, Richard Feynman. Also Benjamin Brewster, Charles F. Kettering, Walter J. Savitch, Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, Dave Jeske and Chuck Reid. Whoever they are/were.

[JackyJoll]

The judge is there to ensure the letter of the law is followed...

Well, that's the theory. But as somebody* once said: In Theory There Is No Difference Between Theory and Practice, While In Practice There Is

*The quote has been attributed to Yogi Berra, Albert Einstein and, Richard Feynman. Also Benjamin Brewster, Charles F. Kettering, Walter J. Savitch, Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, Dave Jeske and Chuck Reid. Whoever they are/were.

Kettering is credited with inventing most of cars’ electrical systems.

[Horse]

Kettering is credited with inventing most of cars’ electrical systems.

And Joe Lucas with most of their problems.

[wheelnut]

If you’re correct and the judge didn’t allow it, what legal basis did he have for not allowing it?*

*I’m assuming there would have been a pre trial motion to dismiss the charges based on SoL - I haven’t checked though. His defence team did seem spectacularly inept.

Edit - that may be what his appeal will be based on - ineffective assistance of counsel

Legal basis & precedent weren't part of this trial. His defense team weren't allowed to defend him.

Mmmmm…ok.

I’m assuming you’re not going to give any more detail.

I’m sure that you’re just as annoyed about the judge in Florida indefinitely delaying the classified documents trial thus ensuring it doesn’t go ahead before the election.

[ZRX61]

Mmmmm…ok.

I’m assuming you’re not going to give any more detail.

I’m sure that you’re just as annoyed about the judge in Florida indefinitely delaying the classified documents trial thus ensuring it doesn’t go ahead before the election.

I think that's something to do with the evidence tampering that just came to light by either the FBI, the DA's office or the local SD.

[Taipan]

As i understand it, they've tried to bring this case against trump many times before but no one would take it on as there wasn't a case to answer? Suddenly in election year there is...

[Cousin Jack]

Meanwhile, just to prove that the Democrats have stacked the deck in legal terms, Hunter Biden is on trial on firearms charges.

[ZRX61]

The judge is there to ensure the letter of the law is followed....

LMFAO!!!

Merchan ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation (which Bragg cannot enforce), and a third believing there was a tax violation, respectively. Nonetheless, Merchan will treat that as a unanimous verdict.
In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different shapes, but still send Trump to prison on their interpretations."
This is against the constitution. For a misdemeanor that they turned into a felony that has past the statute of limitations, the jury needs to see an actual crime, not a bunch of maybes.

[ZRX61]

As i understand it, they've tried to bring this case against trump many times before but no one would take it on as there wasn't a case to answer? Suddenly in election year there is...

Yup, Feds & Biden's Justice Dept wouldn't touch it. Bragg was elected after promising to go after Trump, He sure as fuck didn't have any other platform, which is odd given what a festering pit of crime NY is.

[DefTrap]

Merchan ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation (which Bragg cannot enforce), and a third believing there was a tax violation, respectively. Nonetheless, Merchan will treat that as a unanimous verdict.
In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different shapes, but still send Trump to prison on their interpretations."
This is against the constitution. For a misdemeanor that they turned into a felony that has past the statute of limitations, the jury needs to see an actual crime, not a bunch of maybes.

Where are you getting this interpretation of events from?

[ZRX61]

Where are you getting this interpretation of events from?

Merchan's instructions to the jury at the end of the trial when he finally told them what the actual underlying crimes might be.

[Horse]

Here’s what Merchan told the jury:

• They must not make a decision based on biases or stereotypes;
• They must set aside personal differences;
• They must not speculate about how long a potential sentence may be or what the punishment might be – that’s up to the judge;
• They can’t hold it against Trump for not testifying;
• The “people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime.” He reminds the jury it must not rest its verdict on speculation;
• They can consider whether a witness hopes to receive a benefit related to the trial, or if they have an interest in how the case ends;
• They cannot convict Trump on Michael Cohen’s testimony alone because he’s an accomplice, but they can use his evidence if corroborated with other evidence;
• The jury must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count – on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both;
• They must determine if Trump conspired to promote someone or prevent them from public office by unlawful means;
• They should deliberate with a view toward reaching an agreement, without surrendering individual judgment;
• Jurors’ notes cannot be used in place of evidence;
• The foreperson will deliver the verdict for each count after deliberations are over;
• Jurors must surrender their phones and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together.

Merchan explained some key laws in the case:

On the law applicable to falsifying business records, Merchan told the jury:

“You must find beyond a reasonable doubt first that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct, and second, that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense.”

He also explained what makes a person guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree – explaining that they must have the intent to defraud – including the intent to commit another crime or conceal the commission of one.

On what constitutes a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act: It is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate running for office, including the presidency, exceeding certain limits which in the relevant years was $2,700, Merchan tells the jury.

He also walked the jury through what they must find in the different counts levelled against Trump. Merchan explained what tax law violations were and said it was unlawful for a person to willfully produce a tax statement or document that’s false.

From:
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/29/poli ... index.html

Full instructions:
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre ... -23-24.pdf

[gremlin]

I read on a biker's interweb thingy that he also wore a 'Vote Biden' t-shirt and kept calling Trump 'Cunty-chops' during the trial.

Must be true.

[ZRX61]

Here’s what Merchan told the jury:

• They must not make a decision based on biases or stereotypes;
• They must set aside personal differences;
• They must not speculate about how long a potential sentence may be or what the punishment might be – that’s up to the judge;
• They can’t hold it against Trump for not testifying;
• The “people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime.” He reminds the jury it must not rest its verdict on speculation;
• They can consider whether a witness hopes to receive a benefit related to the trial, or if they have an interest in how the case ends;
• They cannot convict Trump on Michael Cohen’s testimony alone because he’s an accomplice, but they can use his evidence if corroborated with other evidence;
• The jury must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count – on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both;
• They must determine if Trump conspired to promote someone or prevent them from public office by unlawful means;
• They should deliberate with a view toward reaching an agreement, without surrendering individual judgment;
• Jurors’ notes cannot be used in place of evidence;
• The foreperson will deliver the verdict for each count after deliberations are over;
• Jurors must surrender their phones and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together.

Merchan explained some key laws in the case:

On the law applicable to falsifying business records, Merchan told the jury:

“You must find beyond a reasonable doubt first that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct, and second, that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense.”

He also explained what makes a person guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree – explaining that they must have the intent to defraud – including the intent to commit another crime or conceal the commission of one.

On what constitutes a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act: It is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate running for office, including the presidency, exceeding certain limits which in the relevant years was $2,700, Merchan tells the jury.

He also walked the jury through what they must find in the different counts levelled against Trump. Merchan explained what tax law violations were and said it was unlawful for a person to willfully produce a tax statement or document that’s false.

From:
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/29/poli ... index.html

Full instructions:
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre ... -23-24.pdf

You're missing the part about he could only be found guilty of the 34 counts IF he was guilty of the underlying crime... which were the three options I posted.

[Screwdriver]

If you’re correct and the judge didn’t allow it, what legal basis did he have for not allowing it?*

I follow some of the blasé "yeah all looks good to me" unthinking nonsense with a mixture of incredulity and horror. ZRX61 appears to be one of the few people actually following the facts of this case - a blatantly obvious travesty of justice. The entire trial is a sham run by the Biden administration to literally "get Trump".

So to answer your question as to why the jury were not told the entire case hinges upon the need for an actual crime to have been committed (when there is in fact no crime):

The judge said that the relevant laws and statutes were too complicated for the jury to understand so he made a determination that a crime had been committed and the rest of the case can follow from his ruling. Trumps specialist expert lawyer was forbidden from discussing that aspect of (election) law since it would subvert the judges authority.

In other words, the judge decided that Trump was guilty of "a crime" without having to go through the tedious process of actually having to prove it. Everything beyond that "determination" is moot since without that prejudicial ruling, the entire case, which in itself is insignificantly trivial, is expired from the statute of limitations.

If you ever wondered what the true meaning of "due process" is, this is the perfect example of what it is not.

It makes no difference really, the Biden administration (a cabal of corporate global elites) are pretty much at the stage where they feel they can do anything and get away with it. I still expect a massive Trump landslide victory despite an extraordinary bumper ballot harvest from the Biden admin popping up right at the last minute in just the right swing states. Bit like they did last time except with Trump being even more popular now, they risk over-inflating voter turnout beyond the literal size of the entire population of the USA. Including the massive haul of blank ballots they have been hoarding for all the illegal immigrants they have been shipping in - just for this very circumstance.

Personally, I fear for his life. The blob or the swamp or whatever you want to call the evil creatures running the US really have nothing to lose. It can't possibly get any worse for them than Trump getting into office. Sadly, it is entirely possible, quite likely imho, that Trump will end up dead before the election.

He'll still win.

[Nordboy]

Immigrants into the USA can't vote in federal elections, you have to be a US citizen. The federal election form advises you that to cast a vote, you have to be a US citizen or you commit a federal offence. How many legal immigrants do you think will do that? Let alone illegal? One of the many mistruths spread by trump and maga to scare people to vote for him

In fact, since Trump made all the allegations in 2020, quite a few states (9 in total) have implemented further checks to absolutely ensure it doesn't happen.

Only a very small amount of local elections in the US allow immigrant voting.

But then maga supporters seem to believe everything he says, regardless of how obvious a lie it is??? As much as I dislike the word, the only way to describe it sometimes is a cult.

[Screwdriver]

Immigrants into the USA can't vote in federal elections, you have to be a US citizen.

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/31/nx-s1-49 ... rump-biden

Remembering also that ballot harvesting (scooping up "legitimate" ballot papers) is incredibly, not illegal. The voting system and in particular the counting process is riddled with holes which allowed nefarious groups to game the system last time. Details are only now beginning to emerge but of course, now it is too late.

Difficult to see the Dems getting away with it again but I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

[Horse]

Here’s what Merchan told the jury:



From:
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/29/poli ... index.html

Full instructions:
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre ... -23-24.pdf

You're missing the part about he could only be found guilty of the 34 counts IF he was guilty of the underlying crime... which were the three options I posted.

No, I'm not.

I quoted the article in full.

I also provided a link to the full instructions. So you can find the missing section.