This is a musical salute to tRump for being too much of a chickensh@it to testify in his own defense.
The instrument being played is one of those squeaking chickens that tRump had his Secret Service detail confiscate from the audience during his teleprompter reading at the Libertarian Convention:

Waited for the right time to tweet this. That time has come. pic.twitter.com/fOshkV0PR3

— Sgt Pepper (@MzSgtPepper) May 29, 2024

*Even Matt Taibbi's perma-grin would transform to a giggle viewing that.

tequila4kapp said:

---

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?

---

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?

---

What I think is that many of these things individually are innocuous. So the Defense goes 1st? Unusual, but whatever, it is a legal curiosity. And it is mostly harmless because in 99.9999% of criminal cases the charged offenses are completely contained within the Indictment. Same with the way misdemeanors are extended by another felony - perhaps irregular but not necessarily problematic. But when you start adding stuff up, like:
- the felonies don't have to be stated in the indictment
- the felonies never have to be stated during trial
- the defendant didn't have to be charged or convicted of those felonies, just have the 'intent' to commit them
- the prosecutor only announces what the felonies are at closing, after the defense cannot speak again
- the judge rules there doesn't have to be a unanimous decision from the jury about which felonies the defendant intent to commit

It really seems unconstitutional to me, at least.

---

Hmmm

I guess it's kinda like how Al Capone was ultimately convicted on tax evasion charges, right?
I mean, he had to be thinking to himself "after everything that's happened, I get taken down on THIS? THIS?!?!!!"




Fun facts:
Al Capone served a total of 4 years at Alcatraz. He was suffering from long-term exposure to syphilis, which started to affect his brain, and was transferred to Terminal Island Prison in Southern California for the remainder of his sentence. Capone left Alcatraz on January 6, 1939.

Yeah. Sounds about right.

bearister said:

---

This is a musical salute to tRump for being too much of a chickensh@it to testify in his own defense.
The instrument being played is one of those squeaking chickens that tRump had his Secret Service detail confiscate from the audience during his teleprompter reading at the Libertarian Convention:

Waited for the right time to tweet this. That time has come. pic.twitter.com/fOshkV0PR3

— Sgt Pepper (@MzSgtPepper) May 29, 2024

---

That's so funny that you post that guy. I got lost last week in Erik Satie's Gymnopedies and Gnossiennes and he was one of the piano players I came across.





Here they are all together, 3 Gymnopedies and 6 Gnossiennes, if you wish to get lost, too.

I think Trump could put this on an endless loop to kill time in prison for assistance in contemplating how it all went so wrong. He will either find peace or go mad.

oski003 said:

---

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?

---

I get the feeling you don't need Viagra this week.

---

I get your point, but rest assured, my boys can swim. I ain't firing blanks!!!

When do you think the Democrat jury in Democrats' NYC show trial will vote to convict?

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) May 29, 2024

bearister said:

---

This is a musical salute to tRump for being too much of a chickensh@it to testify in his own defense.
The instrument being played is one of those squeaking chickens that tRump had his Secret Service detail confiscate from the audience during his teleprompter reading at the Libertarian Convention:


*Even Matt Taibbi's perma-grin would transform to a giggle viewing that.

---

Careful. We must respect the caution from Scream "this is the moment the killer comes back for one last scare!"
(FF to 2:43)

oski003 said:

---

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?

---

I get the feeling you don't need Viagra this week.

---

So, you're a viagra patient?

All valid points. But the presumption of innocence applies to the court of law. This forum is just one of countless courts of public opinion.


Hopefully the opinions are informed by facts, experience, and thoughtful consideration. But often the opinions are fueled by emotion, feelings, and tradition.

dajo9 said:

---

I don't gave a prediction for this case. I have no idea. We are entitled to a trial by injury and Trump is having his day in court. If he wins I won't say it was a fraud. If he loses I won't say it was a fraud. If 1 juror let's him walk - then he walks. The right would make that juror out to be a hero. That would be a shame.

What's happening in NYC should make us proud as Americans. Nobody is above the law and we are all entitled to a trial by jury. What is happening in Florida with Judge Cannon and in Georgia are a travesty. A disgrace to all Americans.

---

I'm not satisfied.
The case should be broadcast. It's nearly impossible for the average person to understand what has occured.
Further, we are going to rely on a unanimous decision by 12 rando-people to tell us what happened here?

Like, I guess I could accept that if the case wasn't so politically charged such that someone on either side is likely to take an absolutist opinion of things and cause a Hung Jury. But it IS so charged, so we aren't going to get a fair verdict - if 1 of the 12 sticks their foot in the political mud, then the case isn't being tried, the politics of it is. So, the result will be unsatisfactory.

This is not just any case. This case could, in a way, determine the future of the united states, and the world!
If he skates by and gets re-elected, all hell could break loose.
If he is found guilty, it might be enough to make him go away.
Biden is no great consolation prize - there are a number of things I'll be left wanting on, but it will be great to avoid disaster.

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.

My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!

---

I hope you're not referring to me. (there is another DLS name on here so maybe I got this wrong). But I voted for Biden in 2020!! My only dem vote in my short voting life. Geez.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.

My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!

---

I hope you're not referring to me. (there is another DLS name on here so maybe I got this wrong). But I voted for Biden in 2020!! My only dem vote in my short voting life. Geez.

---

Yes. I was referring to you.
I said you disapprove of trump - I got that right.
But I believe you also are having a hard time with the skewering of Trump; am I wrong?

In the trial, like the election, Trump's base is inoculated against loss


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/29/trump-verdict-republican-base/

"Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict," Fox News's John Roberts wrote on social media." "4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict."

As people immediately pointed out, this is false. The 34 felony charges Trump faces allege that he falsified business records (or caused them to be falsified) to cover up another crime; specifically, conspiracy to influence an election by unlawful means. Merchan's point wasn't that unanimity wasn't needed to convict Trump; it is. His point was that jurors didn't need to agree on the unlawful means used in that conspiracy to determine that Trump attempted to cover up the conspiracy. Four of them could think the unlawful means was falsifying other documents or four might think it was violating federal election law. It didn't matter."

bearister said:

---

"There's a false narrative circulating that the Trump jury need not be unanimous in their finding of guilt.

Here is the actual instruction:

First, the jury must find unanimously that Trump knowingly caused a business record to be falsified.

Second, the jury must find unanimously that Trump intended to defraud by concealing a conspiracy to promote his election as president by "unlawful means."

Third the jurors must find at least one of several offered "unlawful means," but they need not be unanimous on which one. That's because this is not an element of the offense, but a manner and means of committing it. This instruction is consistent with the law and with due process."
-Barbara McQuade

---

I did some digging in response to this post. I stumbled upon the linked document, which appears to include the order on Trump's motion to dismiss: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

See page ".2 OTHER CRIMES", page 11. The prosecution's 4 theories for other crimes are explicitly discussed. Merchan agreed that 1 of them was insufficient; 3 are deemed sufficient. Conclusion: Trump was put on notice about the other crimes.

Good morning.
I've had msnbc audio on for a couple hours, and as always they've been detailing the ins and outs of the case, as best they can given lack of video feed. They do a good job of debating what stuff means, the law. Reading jury testimony leaves.

Then I turn on Fox and speed through the last hour (I have everything always on record on my unlimited DVR offered by YouTubeTV. Fox spends far too little time on what's actually happening in the courtroom ir analyzing the law or how it's being applied or how the jury might be thinking given their questions to the judge. Fox spends too much time criticizing the entire case, participants in it, an opining endlessly how trump did nothing wrong, declaring his innocence.

Even just now, Fox News host Bill Hemmer just told a personal story of watching Cohen on the stand and how enthralled he was with the back and forth the prosecutor worked through lies Cohen told previously. He was trying to say how believable it was. But the guest at the table was a Trump lawyer who completely ignored the question and went off on a tirade about Cohen. Hemmer stopped him and redirected to the question about how "couldn't that be convincing for the jury to hear?"
The lawyer again ignored and expressed his opinions about how much of a liar Cohen is.
The conversation then shifted to how they will sue Bragg from wrongful prosecution and appeal a guilty verdict.
That's a threat. Typical.

Then they bring in another legal voice to sew lack of understanding about how the law is being applied here. Not helping to clarify the law, but to foment derision of its application in this case.

Then they talk about how the Supreme Court can save trump with all Uber Immunity ruling. Ha!!

Now they are claiming that Trump can be convicted on a divided jury. See, this PROVES that Kapp is getting his misinformation from Fox. Bearister just explained it for you, bud. But Fox keeps spreading their confusion and outrage.

tequila4kapp said:

---

bearister said:

---

"There's a false narrative circulating that the Trump jury need not be unanimous in their finding of guilt.

Here is the actual instruction:

First, the jury must find unanimously that Trump knowingly caused a business record to be falsified.

Second, the jury must find unanimously that Trump intended to defraud by concealing a conspiracy to promote his election as president by "unlawful means."

Third the jurors must find at least one of several offered "unlawful means," but they need not be unanimous on which one. That's because this is not an element of the offense, but a manner and means of committing it. This instruction is consistent with the law and with due process."
-Barbara McQuade

---

I did some digging in response to this post. I stumbled upon the linked document, which appears to include the order on Trump's motion to dismiss: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdf

See page ".2 OTHER CRIMES", page 11. The prosecution's 4 theories for other crimes are explicitly discussed. Merchan agreed that 1 of them was insufficient; 3 are deemed sufficient. Conclusion: Trump was put on notice about the other crimes.

---

Oh wow!
Good for you.
That's like a curry made 3.
Points for you.

I'm telling you, Foxnews is a massive sinner!!!!

tequila4kapp said:

---

---

Next of Fox - Karl Rove in studio and expresses confusion how if this case was rejected by the FEC, Biden's Justice department passed, and Bragg's NY DA predecessor passed, how can it be that Bragg can then try the case?
Well, idiot Rove, who disapproves of Trump big time (by the way), there are answers to your question. You must be trying to sell the viewing public that if A and B jump off a bridge, then C should too.

Republican logic just doesn't work.

Now fox is preparing his public for Merchan's punishment phase.
Probation?

I think trump should get thrown in the clink for 30 days for his repeated breaking of the gag rule, just as a message of Judge to Trump: F YOU for your horrible behavior. Let the nation chew on the fact that he has a fat uncontrollable mouth.

Then give him the standard probation for white collar crime of documents fraud.

concordtom said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.

My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!

---

I hope you're not referring to me. (there is another DLS name on here so maybe I got this wrong). But I voted for Biden in 2020!! My only dem vote in my short voting life. Geez.

---

Yes. I was referring to you.
I said you disapprove of trump - I got that right.
But I believe you also are having a hard time with the skewering of Trump; am I wrong?

---

Yes, you are wrong. He is horrible. The fact that he has a chance of being elected shows how ****ed up we are. And I don't mean just the Republicans who will vote for him.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

concordtom said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.

My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!

---

I hope you're not referring to me. (there is another DLS name on here so maybe I got this wrong). But I voted for Biden in 2020!! My only dem vote in my short voting life. Geez.

---

Yes. I was referring to you.
I said you disapprove of trump - I got that right.
But I believe you also are having a hard time with the skewering of Trump; am I wrong?

---

Yes, you are wrong. He is horrible. The fact that he has a chance of being elected shows how ****ed up we are. And I don't mean just the Republicans who will vote for him.

---

Okay. Received.
But what's your impression of this trial? Did I get you wrong here?

Jeanine pirro, FoxNews' judge, just delivered the tirade on how fake this case is. She's full it nonsense.
Faulkner, same.
The bad trump AG Matt Whittaker then takes his stab at it.

FoxNews is the biggest problem in the USA and it shines through in their reporting of this case!!

Next on Fox
Lengthy segment ripping on the president.
Then coverage of Hunter Biden court case where he lied on a form to buy a gun - if he was an addict.
Trey Gowdy says he doesn't think it should be prosecuted, as it never is for addicts. Faulkner blows past that and suggests there so much dirt on Hunter that they can get him on that stuff later, too/instead.