Live thread [05/30/2024]: Trump show trial in New York, brought to you by Obama-Biden operative Matt Colangelo; post comments here

Andrew Giuliani ^ | Sidebar Mod

[janetjanet998]

......Pecker said that this was his plan going forward since it was “mutually beneficial” and only would “increase sales of the National Inquirer.” He said that it would obviously also benefit the campaign. Clearly this testimony cuts both ways. It shows that Pecker was going to follow that same pattern out of his own interest but also said it would benefit Trump

[mmichaels1970]

If the jury is hung...it can be tried again and that would start almost immediately...in fact I bet the paperwork is ready to go

My concern as well.

[Tennessee Nana]

Great movie

[mmichaels1970]

but there is likely zero chance of Bragg trying the case again as it would occur after the election.

Interesting. I feel that there is likely zero chance Bragg WON'T continue trying the case.

[MayflowerMadam]

“If the jury is hung...it can be tried again and that would start almost immediately.”

Yes. A hung jury could trigger that. And maybe that’s what the evil ones are hoping for. New trial, and drag this out for months and keep PDJT off the campaign trail through November.

If Trump comes out of this current thing unscathed, can the evil ones appeal, or is the appeal option only for a Defendant if he is found guilty?

[Sacajaweau]

Jeannine Pirro said it..

[nesnah]

If the jury is hung...

[Tennessee Nana]

Apparently they don’t in NY state

[CFW]

“But you don’t know if it rained all night or began 10 minutes ago.
So you don’t know if there were other meetings”

---

And you also don’t know if it has actually been raining or if the prosecution attorneys and judge have all been showering together in the judge’s chambers restroom. There is a lot you can infer if you don’t totally ignore all possibilities.

[cdnerds]

it would take time and lots of pre trial appeals would begin. It wouldnt happen before the election.

[teeman8r]

surely you are talking about 12 angry men, i would agree...

if you like airplane, check out unfrosted with jerry seinfeld.

and don’t call me shirley.

[janetjanet998]

The defense then pressed Pecker on the discussion about Bill and Hillary Clinton and the tabloid was already running those stories. The defense pressed Pecker on the nonprosecution agreement. This included the August meeting. He noted that Pecker did not originally refer to Hope Hicks being present.

[CatOwner]

So, are they teeing it up for Friday verdict announcements? Given the leftists, it would only make sense.

[CFW]

“Interesting. I feel that there is likely zero chance Bragg WON’T continue trying the case.”

---

I agree. If Trump is elected they will not only try to continue the lawfare, but ramp it up a bit to keep him in Court. They will ignore any legal precedent and SCOTUS rulings on the issue much the same way Biden has ignore the court on student loan “forgiveness”.

That’s why one of his first actions if elected must be to fire every DOJ attorney and staff member and appoint someone such as Mike Davis to vet their replacements.

[CatOwner]

So, are they teeing it up for Friday verdict announcements? Given the leftists, it would only make sense.

[janetjanet998]

They are now reading a different portion of Pecker’s cross examination. Pecker said it was “easy to say” that he would continue his practice on running interference on these stories. Pecker admitted that at the key meeting there was no discussion of a “catch and kill” effort. He also said that the Stormy Daniels story was not part of the August 15 meeting. (This was the line, I believe, that the prosecutors wanted to keep out on the rereading). Pecker confirmed again that there was no discussion of a catch and kill or payment for any stories

[brookwood]

"For critics, this means that Trump could be convicted in a divided 4-4-4 jury with only a few jurors agreeing on the underlying intent linked to a specific secondary crime"
This means that Trump can't be convicted of a crime in this trial. He can only be convicted of a hypothetical crime of violating a statue that doesn't exist. The crime is "a state election crime or a federal election crime or a tax crime". There is no statute that specifies these A or B or C crimes. If there were, he could be convicted of that statute. You can't be tried for "either assaulting someone or stealing from a store or filing a false tax return". Each of these crimes must be tried separately and there must be a unanimous verdict with respect to each separate crime. I haven't seen the word Kafkaesque used - but it fits like a glove.
" in his novel The Trial, published a year after his death, a young man finds himself caught up in the mindless bureaucracy of the law after being charged with a crime that is never named. So deft was Kafka’s prose at detailing nightmarish settings in which characters are crushed by nonsensical, blind authority, that writers began using his name as an adjective a mere 16 years after his death. "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Kafkaesque

[janetjanet998]

However, Pecker did say that he did not use “catch and kill” but did refer to using the company resources to suppress negative stories as he had done for Schwarzenegger.

[Nervous Tick]

>> I feel that there is likely zero chance Bragg WON’T continue trying the case.

I’m not going to speculate on whether Bragg would push to retry right away, or later, or never. However...

** They’d have to start completely over, right? Including select a new judge? Merchan couldn’t just roll into a new trial, right?

** There would be an even better argument now for a change of venue

** Most of the witnesses were called by the prosecution, and the defense has had the great advantage of ripping them a new a-hole. Who else but those same, damaged witnesses would be called in a new trial?

IANAL, just stirring the pot. :-)

[Avalon Memories]

Sadly, I know, which is why I framed it as metaphorically.