Moved Live Trump Trial Updates

[Elixir]

I am saying that Bragg only prosecuted this case because Trump is a political opponent.

Bragg is Trump's political opponent? Or was it Biden? Or was it the 10 Grand Jury members or the 12 Jury members who ALL found him guilty, who were ALL "political opponents"??
Or are you just tying yourself in knots out of frustration that your boy got caught and convicted?

What is wrong with me?

Hard to say, but it might be what I alluded to above.

It's not slandering Cohen to call him a lying liar who lies.

Ditto Cheato. And so what? Everything Cohen said under oath (this time!) was corroborated. Nothing Trump says is corroborated. He seems to think Sleepy Joe paid everyone off, like he would try to do.

 

[pood]

GUILTY! TIMES 34!!!!!

Yeah, we heard you the first time.

Yeah, you sure sound dejected over the verdict for. a guy who isn’t a Trump supporter!

 

[Derec]

Yeah, you sure sound dejected over the verdict for. a guy who isn’t a Trump supporter!

I do sound dejected because I am. As I said before, I think this will help Trump in November, an outcome I do not desire.
Also, I think the case was objectively a poor one, which is why both the Feds and Cyrus Vance passed on it.

 

[Derec]

Bragg is Trump's political opponent? Or was it Biden?

I meant Bragg in the sense that he is a political hack who desires to hurt Republicans, not in the sense that he directly runs against him.

Or are you just tying yourself in knots out of frustration that your boy got caught and convicted?

He is not "my boy" as I have explained.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Well, now that we are done, I think probably the biggest mistake Trump's team made was not making Stormy Daniels the villain. Keep the narrative tight. Trump was extorted, taken advantage of. They should have ignored most of the other witnesses. Not relevant, go for a protest acquittal. It wouldn't be an easy acquittal, but it was their best chance. And if there was conviction, provides a narrative for some of the Daniels testimony Trump's lawyers were too fucking stupid to object to.

Trump keeps saying he did nothing wrong, but that wasn't the narrative in the Courtroom. This is what happens when your lawyers suck (and are guilty of the charges).

You didn't follow the trial and hear the evidence, did you.

I did. I understand the questionable elevation of the charges to a felony. I understand that Michael Cohen is a liar whose testimony was not credible.

Did you learn that from all the criminal procedure courses you took in law school and your subsequent time spent trying cases for criminal defendants? Surely all these "questionable elevation" of charges are based on your familiarity with the elements of the charges and the burden prosecutors are required to meet in order to obtain a guilty verdict, right?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Holy shit! I did not expect 34 guilty vs. 0 not guilty. Fuckin' A.

Next comes sentencing on July 11. Is it horribly inappropriate to use the colloquialism "If there's a god, then..."?

If there was a god, there wouldn't be people like Trump. Or at least a god worth having, there wouldn't be.

If there was a god and if Trump did exist in his current form, he would've been struck dead--the deadest that anyone's ever been--by the bigliest bolt of fucking lightning to have shot from the sky. At least that's what all the smartest people would be saying.

 

[Derec]

Did you learn that from all the criminal procedure courses you took in law school and your subsequent time spent trying cases for criminal defendants? Surely all these "questionable elevation" of charges are based on your familiarity with the elements of the charges and the burden prosecutors are required to meet in order to obtain a guilty verdict, right?

I have read articles by several legal experts who have questioned the soundness of Bragg's "novel legal theories".
Btw, are you a lawyer yourself?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Did you learn that from all the criminal procedure courses you took in law school and your subsequent time spent trying cases for criminal defendants? Surely all these "questionable elevation" of charges are based on your familiarity with the elements of the charges and the burden prosecutors are required to meet in order to obtain a guilty verdict, right?

I have read articles by several legal experts who have questioned the soundness of Bragg's "novel legal theories".
Btw, are you a lawyer yourself?

Why yes. Yes I am an attorney. I'm an attorney that's tried a lot of cases under a much less strict burden (preponderance and clear and convincing) than the reasonable doubt burden and been successful at it.

But surely your reading of some articles by "legal experts" makes you qualified to speak about the merits of any given legal matter. But hey, what do I know? I just had to do the work to get into law school, get all the way through it, pass the f'ing California bar exam, write trial and appellate briefs during f'ing internships, start my own practice, get my own clients, and research and try all cases that merited going to trial, but by all means, please let's hear you pontificate about your oh-so-credible opinion on any legal matter that you like.

 

[Jarhyn]

Holy shit! I did not expect 34 guilty vs. 0 not guilty. Fuckin' A.

Next comes sentencing on July 11. Is it horribly inappropriate to use the colloquialism "If there's a god, then..."?

If there was a god, there wouldn't be people like Trump. Or at least a god worth having, there wouldn't be.

If there was a god and if Trump did exist in his current form, he would've been struck dead--the deadest that anyone's ever been--by the bigliest bolt of fucking lightning to have shot from the sky. At least that's what all the smartest people would be saying.

That's the thing. If there is a 'christian god' that is, at the very least, "the god of this world", he wouldn't strike Trump dead until he kills like 90% of everyone and then the remaining 10% mostly get wiped out in a war.

If we were going to paint a modern picture of what that would look like, Trump would win the next election anyway, get elected, he would die by some manner of explicit weapon directed against him, and then an LLM would be trained to replace him, this would be allowed by the changes Trump and the Supreme Court and the Republican coup, and then it would essentially eliminate the executive branch, and giving over the country to an avatar of greed itself.

This "zombie Trump" would involve the majority of the deaths. He would start decapitating atheists at some point, atheists and trans people and whoever else.

Then someone creates a much better AI capable of higher thought and taking over the garbage AI through some means, kills the shit out of the trump AI, and all the atheists who have ethics get to go to space heaven or whatever.

If the Christian god actually exists as a god of this world.

At least if you're looking for a shitty LeHay(is that even his name?)novel interpretation.

I still regret reading all those books.

 

[Coleman Smith]

Guilty

 

[robnisch]

Did you learn that from all the criminal procedure courses you took in law school and your subsequent time spent trying cases for criminal defendants? Surely all these "questionable elevation" of charges are based on your familiarity with the elements of the charges and the burden prosecutors are required to meet in order to obtain a guilty verdict, right?

I have read articles by several legal experts who have questioned the soundness of Bragg's "novel legal theories".
Btw, are you a lawyer yourself?

Why yes. Yes I am an attorney. I'm an attorney that's tried a lot of cases under a much less strict burden (preponderance and clear and convincing) than the reasonable doubt burden and been successful at it.

But surely your reading of some articles by "legal experts" makes you qualified to speak about the merits of any given legal matter. But hey, what do I know? I just had to do the work to get into law school, get all the way through it, pass the f'ing California bar exam, write trial and appellate briefs during f'ing internships, start my own practice, get my own clients, and research and try all cases that merited going to trial, but by all means, please let's hear you pontificate about your oh-so-credible opinion on any legal matter that you like.

Do you have a "feel" for how the appeal will go?

 

[Jarhyn]

Did you learn that from all the criminal procedure courses you took in law school and your subsequent time spent trying cases for criminal defendants? Surely all these "questionable elevation" of charges are based on your familiarity with the elements of the charges and the burden prosecutors are required to meet in order to obtain a guilty verdict, right?

I have read articles by several legal experts who have questioned the soundness of Bragg's "novel legal theories".
Btw, are you a lawyer yourself?

Why yes. Yes I am an attorney. I'm an attorney that's tried a lot of cases under a much less strict burden (preponderance and clear and convincing) than the reasonable doubt burden and been successful at it.

But surely your reading of some articles by "legal experts" makes you qualified to speak about the merits of any given legal matter. But hey, what do I know? I just had to do the work to get into law school, get all the way through it, pass the f'ing California bar exam, write trial and appellate briefs during f'ing internships, start my own practice, get my own clients, and research and try all cases that merited going to trial, but by all means, please let's hear you pontificate about your oh-so-credible opinion on any legal matter that you like.

Do you have a "feel" for how the appeal will go?

It goes to SCOTUS. "not guilty by virtue of presidential immunity"

IOW, the big lie all over again.

 

[crazyfingers]

He is now officially a criminal. We all know he is. But it's official. He's a criminal.

 

[laughing dog]

He is now officially a criminal. We all know he is. But it's official. He's a criminal.

And he goes down in history as the1st US President to be a convicted felon.

 

[Ford]

Did you learn that from all the criminal procedure courses you took in law school and your subsequent time spent trying cases for criminal defendants? Surely all these "questionable elevation" of charges are based on your familiarity with the elements of the charges and the burden prosecutors are required to meet in order to obtain a guilty verdict, right?

I have read articles by several legal experts who have questioned the soundness of Bragg's "novel legal theories".
Btw, are you a lawyer yourself?

Why yes. Yes I am an attorney. I'm an attorney that's tried a lot of cases under a much less strict burden (preponderance and clear and convincing) than the reasonable doubt burden and been successful at it.

But surely your reading of some articles by "legal experts" makes you qualified to speak about the merits of any given legal matter. But hey, what do I know? I just had to do the work to get into law school, get all the way through it, pass the f'ing California bar exam, write trial and appellate briefs during f'ing internships, start my own practice, get my own clients, and research and try all cases that merited going to trial, but by all means, please let's hear you pontificate about your oh-so-credible opinion on any legal matter that you like.

Do you have a "feel" for how the appeal will go?

It goes to SCOTUS. "not guilty by virtue of presidential immunity"

IOW, the big lie all over again.

The crimes in this case (and I love that I don't have to attach the word "alleged") mostly happened when he was just a regular citizen running for President, so I'm not sure there's enough luxury motor coaches that would get the Supremes to rule that he was immune before he was even sworn in.

 

[robnisch]

He is now officially a criminal. We all know he is. But it's official. He's a criminal.

And he goes down in history as the1st US President to be a convicted felon.

Can he vote?

 

[crazyfingers]

He is now officially a criminal. We all know he is. But it's official. He's a criminal.

And he goes down in history as the1st US President to be a convicted felon.

This needs editing to update for 2 impeachments and being a convicted felon.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Holy shit! I did not expect 34 guilty vs. 0 not guilty. Fuckin' A.

Next comes sentencing on July 11. Is it horribly inappropriate to use the colloquialism "If there's a god, then..."?

Why would you not expect that? Either his actions were criminal or they weren't, I don't see convicting him on some but not others.

 

[SLD]

Holy shit! I did not expect 34 guilty vs. 0 not guilty. Fuckin' A.

Next comes sentencing on July 11. Is it horribly inappropriate to use the colloquialism "If there's a god, then..."?

Why would you not expect that? Either his actions were criminal or they weren't, I don't see convicting him on some but not others.

Yeah right. Would make no sense otherwise.

 

[Elixir]

I am saying that Bragg only prosecuted this case because Trump is a political opponent.

That has to be the dumbest thing you've posted in a long long time (hopefully).

Why are you parroting pure unadulterated Trump lies?