pic.twitter.com/6IzdBulbGU

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) May 28, 2024

Actual photo of tRump leaving court today:

AunBear89 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

That tells me that the lack of cameras in the court renders the case useless. Nobody knows what's going on, cares, and if it ends in conviction, the only thing people will hear is Trump telling everyone how it's all a rigged lie.

---

I disagree.

The TDS crowd would like him drawn, quartered and disemboweled for mean tweets.
A big percentage of people believe the trial is a farce and the result is predetermined.
The remaining people just don't care about politics enough either way.

---

"A big percentage "? There are a lot of assumptions and opinions in your post, and zero facts.

---

Are you expecting facts from a republicon?

concordtom said:

---

Here's what we know about the jury in the Trump trial. Jurors #2 and #4 replaced the two earlier jurors:

Juror #1

Juror #1 is a man originally from Ireland who now lives in New York and works in sales. He was assigned by the judge to be foreperson. He enjoys the outdoors and gets his news from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, Fox News and MSNBC.

Juror #2

Juror #2 is a man who works in investment banking and lives with his wife in New York. He said he follows Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness in the case, on social media, as well as Trump's Truth Social posts. He said he pays attention to "anything that might be able to move the markets I need to know about."

Juror #3

Juror #3 is a corporate lawyer originally from Oregon. He said he likes to go hiking, and gets his news from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Google. He said he was "not super familiar with the other charges" that Trump faces and doesn't "follow the news that closely."

Juror #4

Juror #4 is a security engineer who said he spends most of his spare time with his children. He said he gets his news from a variety of outlets and is not on social media.

Juror #5

The fifth juror is a teacher who said she is not very interested in politics or the news, which she gets from The New York Times and TikTok. While her friends have strong opinions about Trump, she said she does not. She offered this opinion under questioning from one of Trump's lawyers: "President Trump speaks his mind. I would rather that in a person than someone who's in office and you don't know what they're doing behind the scenes."

Juror #6

A software engineer, Juror #6 said she can treat Trump as she would any other person on trial. She reads The New York Times and uses TikTok.

Juror #7

A civil litigator, Juror #7 said he enjoys time outdoors with his children. He told the court he reads The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and The Washington Post. He likes the podcasts "Smartless" and "Car Talk."

Juror #8

The eighth juror is a retired wealth manager. He said he enjoys meditation and yoga, and gets his news from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC and CNBC.

Juror #9

Juror #9 is a woman originally from New Jersey and works as a speech therapist. She said she doesn't "watch any news or follow it too closely" and listens to podcasts about reality TV. She said she does get newsletters from The New York Times and CNN.

"I do not agree with a lot of his politics and his decisions as a president, but I have really taken the past two days to reflect and make sure that I could leave that at the door and be a totally impartial juror, and I feel like I can," she said in court.

Juror #10

The tenth juror is a man originally from Ohio who works in commerce. He said he enjoys the outdoors and animals. He said he could put aside his views about Trump and decide the case impartially.

"I don't have a strong opinion about Mr. Trump," he said. "For some things I am in favor, for [some] things I am not in favor."

Juror #11

Juror #11 is a woman originally from California. She works in product development. She said she thinks Trump "seems very selfish and self-serving, so I don't really appreciate that in any public servant." But she said that doesn't mean she can't be impartial.

"I don't have strong opinions about him, but I don't like his persona, how he presents himself in public. I don't really agree with some of his politics, but that does not mean I can't be impartial," she told the court. "I don't like some of my co-workers, but I am not going to but I can hear him out and understand his point of view and understand his issues."

Juror #12

Juror #12 is a woman who works as a physical therapist. She said she listens to sports and faith-related podcasts, and gets her news from The New York Times, USA Today and CNN.

"As an eligible voter I feel it is my responsibility in regard to elections to establish an educated decision so that I can vote. In regards to this court case and the defendant in the room, I have no opinions until I am presented the information in the courtroom," she said in court.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/trump-trial-jurors-new-york-hush-money/

---

Somebody was on an MSNBC show tonight, and said that if there was any observed favoritism, reading between the lines, it would be a juror # 7 and juror # 2 - favorable to trump based on body language and eye contact.

Foxnews coverage, appears to me, has been deluding its viewers about the case, ginning them up for thinking justice was not applied.
Rigged.
Fixed.
All sorts of terrible vocabulary words used.

I repeat again, they are pure propaganda and if I were head of FCC I would do something to label them as such. Strip the words News at a minimum.

There must be some standards to the reporting profession.

Aside from the trial, they miseducate viewers as to the entire political scene.

They claim that if Biden wins re-election, the border will continue to be a problem. Yeah, that's because Republicans refuse to do anything to fix it. Pass some g.d. bills in congress, you morons!!

AunBear89 said:

---

Such a good little parrot!


Do you either understand or believe anything you wrote? Or, do you just repeat it because you know it's true because Charlie Kirk, Poso, and Catturd told you so?

---

Yes, I understand what I wrote. Thanks.

oski003 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Such a good little parrot!


Do you either understand or believe anything you wrote? Or, do you just repeat it because you know it's true because Charlie Kirk, Poso, and Catturd told you so?

---

Yes, I understand what I wrote. Thanks.

---

Ok. Explain what you wrote. With statistics and facts. Not emotions and feelings

AunBear89 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Such a good little parrot!


Do you either understand or believe anything you wrote? Or, do you just repeat it because you know it's true because Charlie Kirk, Poso, and Catturd told you so?

---

Yes, I understand what I wrote. Thanks.

---

Ok. Explain what you wrote. With statistics and facts. Not emotions and feelings ( the only thing most righties have).


We will wait for you to email one of the bigger MAGAts for help.

---

You are so adorable trying to earn that cracker.

Under the Biden administration, there have been 6.4 million encounters outside official ports of entry along the southern border so far, with the yearly average more than quadruple that of the Trump administration, according to a Monitor analysis of CBP data.

In addition, CBP agents have registered more than 1.6 million encounters at official ports of entry with migrants deemed "inadmissible," some of whom are allowed to temporarily enter the country.

Border Patrol also tracks "gotaways," migrants seen crossing by border agents who are too occupied to respond, or picked up by cameras and sensors. Those totaled nearly 400,000 for the most recent fiscal year reported, 2021, which is more than double the highest annual total during the Trump administration. There is also an unquantifiable number of undetected gotaways.

The Migration Policy Institute, meanwhile, estimated the 2021 unauthorized immigrant population at 11.2 million and noted "larger annual growth than at any point since 2015." The institute indicated that while that could increase the overall population of unauthorized immigrants, the net change depends on numerous factors, including emigration rates.

Overall, illegal crossings have increased significantly during the Biden administration.

oski003 said:

---

Talking points copy and paste, with no real understanding of anything in the post at all.

---

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0416/biden-trump-immigration-border-crossings

From the linked piece (I am assuming this is Monitor you reference. It's hard to tell because you never cite sources unless they are a part of your MAGA bubble. And a more careful reading and analysis of the information deflates your weak ass position):
"Some Republicans claim that Mr. Biden has let in as many as 8 million or 9 million migrants. However, it's not accurate to simply add up encounters and gotaways as a proxy for illegal immigration. "

Fail #1.

Also from the piece:


Note the increases started under Trump, as a result of the pandemic as well as ridiculous overemphasis on "build that wall" as a simpleminded solution to a complex issue.

Please also note that expulsions and returns are up under Biden.

I would also like to read your detailed hand waving explanation of the spike in encounters/apprehensions in 2019. When . . . (Checks notes) your orange crush was president.

AunBear89 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Talking points copy and paste, with no real understanding of anything in the post at all.

---

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2024/0416/biden-trump-immigration-border-crossings

From the linked piece (I am assuming this is Monitor you reference. It's hard to tell because you clowns never cite sources unless they are a part of your MAGA bubble. And a more careful reading and analysis of the information deflates your weak ass position):
"Some Republicans claim that Mr. Biden has let in as many as 8 million or 9 million migrants. However, it's not accurate to simply add up encounters and gotaways as a proxy for illegal immigration. "

Fail #1.

Also from the piece:


Note the increases started under Trump, as a result of the pandemic as well as ridiculous overemphasis on "build that wall" as a simpleminded solution to a complex issue.

Please also note that expulsions and returns are up under Biden.

I would also like to read your detailed hand waving explanation of the spike in encounters/apprehensions in 2019. When . . . (Checks notes) your orange crush was president.



I've got your cracker right here, simp.

---

It is a balanced article. Of course, the data can be exaggerated. Here is the articles conclusion:

Overall, illegal crossings have increased significantly during the Biden administration, but some Republicans are overestimating the net influx of unauthorized migrants.

Notice the word SIGNIFICANTLY.

I feel really bad for your students. Do you anoint an angrybear protege who insults incessantly but never successfully provides anything of context ever? Do you incentivize this behavior just like Democrats incentivize illegally crossing our border?

It's adorable that you think you won anything.

Dunning-Kruger personified : dunningkruger003.


Dunning-kruger003 says "l know EVERYTHING!"

Would any like to place guesstimates?

How long until a verdict is reached?

What the verdict(s) will be?
I've been trying draw you all in with my own guesses and descriptions of the jury. Now come on, let's yourselves be heard.

concordtom said:

---

Would any like to place guesstimates?

How long until a verdict is reached?

What the verdict(s) will be?
I've been trying draw you all in with my own guesses and descriptions of the jury. Now come on, let's yourselves be heard.

---

90% conviction
10% hung jury
If the case goes to the jury today, verdict before the weekend.

Thank you.

Who else?
Place yer bets!

Jurors don't have to unanimously agree and Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose one of the three predicate crimes. So what is that, 99.6% chance of conviction?

bearister said:

---

I am not an expert on New York Civil & Criminal Procedure Rules. Something tells me the judge isn't blowing it like you suggest, and if he is, it will be a slam dunk reversal on appeal.

In other news, are you impressed the way Judge Cannon is in tRump's back pocket in the stolen documents case?

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4681385-ty-cobb-aileen-cannon-donald-trump-classified-documents-case-delays-2024/amp/?nxs-test=amp

---

I have not been following much at all. I already spend way too much time in this stupid thread. That is enough.

An athlete says he was with Trump when he porked Stormy. Trump bragged about it and encouraged others to have sex with her. He said, "You've got to have sex with a porn star. It's incredible. It added 20 yards to my drive today."

Read here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-boasted-about-sex-with-stormy-in-tahoe-athlete-says

tequila4kapp said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Jurors don't have to unanimously agree and Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose one of the three predicate crimes. So what is that, 99.6% chance of conviction?

---

Because other people might not be following along... the judge is saying the 12 jurors do not have to agree on which of the 3 alleged felonies Trump intended to commit. 4 can think he intended election law violations, 4 can think he violated tax law and 4 can think Trump intended book keeping fraud. They do not have to agree on the underlying felony.

---

What if 3 people felt his crime was being born, 3 for being an ass hole, 3 for having a ridiculous hairdo, 2 that think he has a small mushroom between his pants, and 1 who think it's a crime he's still alive - what then?

tequila4kapp said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Jurors don't have to unanimously agree and Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose one of the three predicate crimes. So what is that, 99.6% chance of conviction?

---

THIS IS INSANITY.

On top of that, the defense only learned what the 3 alleged felonies were at the Prosecution's closing statement, which is after the defense's closing thanks to a unique feature of NY law where the defense goes first. That means not only were they not put on notice they also never had a direct chance to refute the charges.

---

What if that's simply the way the law works in NY?
Or, do you just think it's unfair, rigged?

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Jurors don't have to unanimously agree and Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose one of the three predicate crimes. So what is that, 99.6% chance of conviction?

---

Because other people might not be following along... the judge is saying the 12 jurors do not have to agree on which of the 3 alleged felonies Trump intended to commit. 4 can think he intended election law violations, 4 can think he violated tax law and 4 can think Trump intended book keeping fraud. They do not have to agree on the underlying felony.

---

What if 3 people felt his crime was being born, 3 for being an ass hole, 3 for having a ridiculous hairdo, 2 that think he has a small mushroom between his pants, and 1 who think it's a crime he's still alive - what then?

---

Those would all be reasonable conclusions.

Quote:

---

The question here is whether due process requires that [one] theory be considered by the jury apart from [another] theory, and that the jury be unanimous on one theory or the other, even though the Legislature expressly intended that the two coexist in the same subparagraph of the statute. We conclude it does not.

---

People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 406 (N.Y. 2004)

Precisely.

It only takes one.

August Landmesser was one such individual. pic.twitter.com/WYaRL89Wft

— 2A Buff Bill 1 (Formally Clark) (@2ABuffBill1) May 29, 2024

🚨 Donald Trump after court: pic.twitter.com/TnxoPQbcod

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 28, 2024

WalterSobchak said:

---

Quote:

---

The question here is whether due process requires that [one] theory be considered by the jury apart from [another] theory, and that the jury be unanimous on one theory or the other, even though the Legislature expressly intended that the two coexist in the same subparagraph of the statute. We conclude it does not.

---

People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 406 (N.Y. 2004)

---

That does not appear to be on point. The cited case appears to involve two concurrent theories offered in support of a murder 1 conviction. The Trump case gets a little circular, but Bragg is required to prove intent on a felony, at least as an element of the charged offense and possibly as a predicate for the misdemeanor charges not expiring on SOL.

I’m no legal expert, but dismissing the jury feels like when the swing States stopped counting votes in the middle of election night 2020.

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) May 29, 2024

Is someone going to make the jury an offer they can't refuse?