The Frankish Reich Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 59 minutes ago, Doc said: mostly What if the jury instruction, based on New York law, is "was concerned?" In other words, 55% concerned about Melania, 45% about the election. It seems that would do, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokebball Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 31 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: What if the jury instruction, based on New York law, is "was concerned?" In other words, 55% concerned about Melania, 45% about the election. It seems that would do, wouldn't it? Add it all up to achieve "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, Pokebball said: Add it all up to achieve "beyond a reasonable doubt"? No. As I'm sure you know, that's a different thing. What I'm talking about is this: sometimes people have mixed motivations. I take my girlfriend out to lunch. I charge it on my own Visa card that my wife doesn't have access to. I get 4X points on restaurant purchases. That's one motive for using that particular Visa. Oh, and my wife can't see the charge. That's another motive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Yeah everyone is lying except Trump. Everyone is corrupt except Trump. Same game every time. Attack the attacker (and judge). Works on those that have zero critical thinking. Critical thinking requires one to consider all appropriate information—venue, prosecution, jury tendencies, news reporting on a high profile case, celebrity status of lack thereof, likability of the defendant/prosecution, professionalism of the presiding judge, credibility of all parties and the impact of politics in a case like this one. I’m several steps removed from any real ability to decipher the relative fairness of this whole affair, but certainly feel comfortable believing that Micheal Cohen would lie, distort and manufacture information to bring down DJT. I am also comfortable factoring politics of Bragg et al into the mix. If you look at some of the cases not pursued against NY politicians, it’s hard not to assume some people are protected and others targeted. Whatever happens, happens. Either way it’s going to be interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Can anyone tell me what “the other crime” is yet? What specific law is Trump alleged to have broken as part of “the other crime”? https://reason.com/2024/05/24/prosecutors-are-still-hedging-on-exactly-what-crime-trump-tried-to-aid-or-conceal/ Donald Trump is charged with 34 felonies in New York because he allegedly falsified business records to conceal "another crime." In the run-up to Trump's trial, which began last month and is expected to conclude next week, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was cagey about exactly what that other crime was. His prosecutors suggested several possibilities without picking one in particular, and they are still hedging on this crucial point. It looks like the case will go to the jury with that central question unresolved. Chigoose says it’s crystal clear and everyone else out there is wrong on the matter. Can someone, ANYONE please clarify? I don’t want to have to rely on the guy that classified bussing of migrants to America’s great metropolises as “human trafficking”. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, JDHillFan said: Can anyone tell me what “the other crime” is yet? What specific law is Trump alleged to have broken as part of “the other crime”? https://reason.com/2024/05/24/prosecutors-are-still-hedging-on-exactly-what-crime-trump-tried-to-aid-or-conceal/ Donald Trump is charged with 34 felonies in New York because he allegedly falsified business records to conceal "another crime." In the run-up to Trump's trial, which began last month and is expected to conclude next week, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg was cagey about exactly what that other crime was. His prosecutors suggested several possibilities without picking one in particular, and they are still hedging on this crucial point. It looks like the case will go to the jury with that central question unresolved. Chigoose says it’s crystal clear and everyone else out there is wrong on the matter. Can someone, ANYONE please clarify? I don’t want to have to rely on the guy that classified bussing of migrants to America’s great metropolises as “human trafficking”. As I'm looking at summaries of the prosecution's closing, it is pretty clear now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: As I'm looking at summaries of the prosecution's closing, it is pretty clear now. Thank you for the detailed response. I am now satisfied. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Just now, JDHillFan said: Thank you for the detailed response. I am now satisfied. The transcript will be out tomorrow. Of course, you may decide to read a series of 280 character tweets instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biden is Mentally Fit Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: The transcript will be out tomorrow. Of course, you may decide to read a series of 280 character tweets instead. You just said “it’s pretty clear now”. How clear exactly if you won’t comment until the transcript comes out? Just tell us the damn crime. Please answer this simple question* - based on your expertise and what appears to be your close following of this riveting event, has the other crime ever been specified before now? Your answer will obviously be used as a cudgel against the other barrister of the board so please answer carefully. *The simple question is actually a rhetorical one so no need to think it over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 The orange dude decided to run for President. There's your crime. <40 characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 What crime could Trump have been allegedly trying to cover up? Prosecutors allege violations of NYS election law, Federal election law (FECA), and tax laws. The big secret that apparently absolutely nobody could possibly have been aware of until now is finally out. If only we could have somehow known! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 (edited) 51 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: What crime could Trump have been allegedly trying to cover up? Prosecutors allege violations of NYS election law, Federal election law (FECA), and tax laws. The big secret that apparently absolutely nobody could possibly have been aware of until now is finally out. If only we could have somehow known! I read quotes from the defense summation...questioned the existence of an "affair" with Daniels. Attacked her and of course, Cohen. Seemed weak, implausible and ineffective but just from snippets. Edited May 29 by Joe Ferguson forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: What if the jury instruction, based on New York law, is "was concerned?" In other words, 55% concerned about Melania, 45% about the election. It seems that would do, wouldn't it? "Was mostly concerned" (about Melania) would be far greater than 55%. Probably closer to 90%. So that's reasonable doubt right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 41 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: I read quotes from the defense summation...questioned the existence of an "affair" with Daniels. Attacked her and of course, Cohen. Seemed weak, implausible and ineffective but just from snippets. I’d be cautious about predicting how the jury reacts to these things. Interpreting credibility from reports and transcripts is a very different thing than being in the room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 29 Author Share Posted May 29 30 minutes ago, Doc said: "Was mostly concerned" (about Melania) would be far greater than 55%. Probably closer to 90%. So that's reasonable doubt right there. Hoax. Trump’s fling with Stormy happened in 2006. He could have paid her off then but he waited 10 years to address this AFTER the Access Hollywood tape came out days before the election. Melania had ZERO to do with this transaction. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 9 hours ago, BillStime said: Hoax. Trump’s fling with Stormy happened in 2006. He could have paid her off then but he waited 10 years to address this AFTER the Access Hollywood tape came out days before the election. Melania had ZERO to do with this transaction. That's not what Hope Hicks said. And again, she's the only witness for the prosecution that has any credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 11 hours ago, Doc said: "Was mostly concerned" (about Melania) would be far greater than 55%. Probably closer to 90%. So that's reasonable doubt right there. based on what? you're pulling numbers out of your a$$. you live in make believe land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: based on what? you're pulling numbers out of your a$$. you live in make believe land. Like "mostly concerned" equals "55%"? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 17 minutes ago, Doc said: Like "mostly concerned" equals "55%"? LOL! what are your estimates based on? law is not a subject taught in an anesthesiology residency. Maybe you, in reality, went to law school or perhaps you're a JD/MD. or maybe you're neither. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts