Posted on 05/29/2024 8:23:32 AM PDT by janetjanet998
Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous
So a dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records was zapped back into life by alleging that under NY election law 17-152 it was done to influence the election by the unlawful means of falsification of business records. It is so circular as to produce vertigo. So the jury finds some documents were falsified to use the unlawful means of falsifying other documents. That is only one of three possible crimes and the jury does not have to agree on which was the basis for their conviction.
Can the rats drag their feet?
My guess is that he graduated from the same lawyer factory as Fony Witless. Worthless degree.
The fact that Biden will be giving a press conference after
the verdict is announced tells me you’re correct.
Or is he giving a press conference today?
Either way...the fix is in.
Exactly. Everyone seems to be missing the “talking” point in all of this. Biden and the rest of the Democrats will be able to call Trump a felon 24/7 at every rally, in every speech, TV commercial, and of course they will have their willing accomplices to hit the point home to tens of millions of Americans who are nowhere as politically astute and aware of things as we are. Symbolism “trumps” substance with the Democrats every single time and they use it to their great advantage to the nation’s detriment!
Willing accomplices in the media.
The twist is that the jurors must all agree on #2 or else #1 goes away due to statute of limitations.
In order to get to #2 they also need #3, but the judge said they don't have to agree on #3 to get to #2. But #2 is required to keep #1 alive.
Confused? You won't be after this episode of Trump!
-PJ
Look at Ramos v. Louisiana. USSC says must be unanimous.
This turns our whole legal system on its head. If the prosecution cannot name specifically what that predicate crime is, then Trump must have the presumption of innocence in whatever vague crime the judge is allowing the jurors to concoct.
Presumption of innocence is the key factor here.
-PJ
Trump and the Republican Party made a critical error.
Both should have demanded a 100% fully televised trial.
Trump should have flatly stated that he and his defense team would not show up for ANY procedure that was NOT televised.
That is more convoluted than a earthworm on a hot sidewalk...................
Turley has implied that, and Andrew McCarthy is vehement in his belief that the jury absolutely believes that is the case by the testimony allowed.
There are about 28 judges assigned to that court and these cases are supposed to be assigned randomly what are the odds that all of these cases would end up with this judge? Makes you say hmmmm….
Why wait until after the trial? Do it now before he can sentence Trump to jail.
Think about what you are saying. Let’s say there are 12 charges. Each juror thinks that one and only one of the twelve charges is valid against the defendant. But each juror chooses a different charge. So, even though each of the charges fails on a 11 to 1 vote, according to you, the defendant is guilty of derivative crime.
Sorry that it's Pollutico, but you might as well hear it direct from America's enemies what they're up to.
Honestly I am shocked that the jury is not already back with guilty verdict. A quick verdict usually is a conviction in criminal processes from what I understand but “not guilty” in a civil trial. The longer it goes the more likely traditionally that it is hung.
So… who knows. There is nothing normal about this blatantly illegal trial. I fear that whatever happens the first hot shot of a deeper division in our country will occur.
Logically the best way out of this for the jury is to hang (the verdict not the individual jurors)
CCE - Continuing Criminal Enterprise
That standard may not apply in the Trump New York state trial.
(1) - the judicial opinion applies to Federal Law.
(2) - the violations must be undertaken together with five or more other individuals.
(3) - the defendant must have committed multiple criminal acts over an extended period, all connected to the same criminal enterprise.
(4) - the defendant must obtain substantial income or resources from the enterprise.
That’s what I’ve been thinking all along….hung jury.
Being New Yorkers, maybe they just wanted one more lunch on the city's dime.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.