The Frankish Reich Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 8:44 PM, Doc said: mostly Expand 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?
Pokebball Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 9:44 PM, 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? Expand Add it all up to achieve "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
The Frankish Reich Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 10:16 PM, Pokebball said: Add it all up to achieve "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Expand 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.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 7:53 PM, 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. Expand 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
JDHillFan Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 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
The Frankish Reich Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 10:30 PM, 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”. Expand As I'm looking at summaries of the prosecution's closing, it is pretty clear now.
JDHillFan Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 10:31 PM, The Frankish Reich said: As I'm looking at summaries of the prosecution's closing, it is pretty clear now. Expand Thank you for the detailed response. I am now satisfied. 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 10:32 PM, JDHillFan said: Thank you for the detailed response. I am now satisfied. Expand The transcript will be out tomorrow. Of course, you may decide to read a series of 280 character tweets instead.
JDHillFan Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 10:33 PM, The Frankish Reich said: The transcript will be out tomorrow. Of course, you may decide to read a series of 280 character tweets instead. Expand 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
BillsFanNC Posted May 28, 2024 Posted May 28, 2024 The orange dude decided to run for President. There's your crime. <40 characters
ChiGoose Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 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!
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 (edited) On 5/29/2024 at 1:10 AM, 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! Expand 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, 2024 by Joe Ferguson forever
Doc Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 On 5/28/2024 at 9:44 PM, 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? Expand "Was mostly concerned" (about Melania) would be far greater than 55%. Probably closer to 90%. So that's reasonable doubt right there.
ChiGoose Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 On 5/29/2024 at 2:00 AM, 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. Expand 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.
BillStime Posted May 29, 2024 Author Posted May 29, 2024 On 5/29/2024 at 2:31 AM, Doc said: "Was mostly concerned" (about Melania) would be far greater than 55%. Probably closer to 90%. So that's reasonable doubt right there. Expand 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
Doc Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 On 5/29/2024 at 3:11 AM, 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. Expand That's not what Hope Hicks said. And again, she's the only witness for the prosecution that has any credibility.
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 On 5/29/2024 at 2:31 AM, Doc said: "Was mostly concerned" (about Melania) would be far greater than 55%. Probably closer to 90%. So that's reasonable doubt right there. Expand based on what? you're pulling numbers out of your a$$. you live in make believe land.
Doc Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 On 5/29/2024 at 1:42 PM, Joe Ferguson forever said: based on what? you're pulling numbers out of your a$$. you live in make believe land. Expand Like "mostly concerned" equals "55%"? LOL!
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29, 2024 Posted May 29, 2024 On 5/29/2024 at 1:46 PM, Doc said: Like "mostly concerned" equals "55%"? LOL! Expand 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
Recommended Posts