Retribution - updated

You want to talk about false equivalency?

Who the Hell is Menendez?

 

That is a much lower profile case. If this happened with a DNC Presidential front runner the DNC brass were 100% all in on I would be shocked if people here did not move to the other side of the issue.

If a leftist leaning SCOTUS justice was involved and you had a Republican POTUS in office you could bet the farm the left would be lining up to defend their team.

 

@coleg Jury just wanted Trump, facts and burden of proof be damned.

 

While it's not beyond the realm of possibility that Trump's conviction could be reversed on appeal based on the novel legal theory the facts absolutely supported that theory and the state definitely met it's burden of proof and as I mentioned in multiple other posts Trump's attorneys accepted that jury. If they thought that there were biased jurors they should have challenged for cause. The trial is not unlike the 2020 election with supporters of the defeated indicted and now convicted former president refusing to accept reality.

 

People may disagree with the prosecutor, the Judge’s rulings, NY law, or the jury instructions. But I’ve seen nothing indicating there’s any valid basis to attack the jurors - who were tasked with making findings of fact based upon the evidence.

 

I suspect when the appellate opinion in this case is issued, the phrase "lack of contemporaneous objection" will be featured. If counsel is trying the case solo, I get that some things will slip by, it's impossible to pay attention to everything at once. When there is literally a team of lawyers involved, that's inexcusable.

 

What rule or standard was changed? Certainly not the rule of law.

 

Any reasonably informed person on a political board should know who Menendez is. That you don't explains a lot.

 

What about . . . what about . . . what about . . .

What about Trump being a career criminal and finally being found guilty? Face it, your guy's a dirty, rotten criminal who btw doesn't give an ounce of spit about your or anyone else.

 

Then you should be satisfied w yesterday's verdict.

 

Sitting Senator, running for re-election in November. He had to run as an independent because the democrats didn't want him on the ballot representing their party. Currently on trial in Manhattan on bribery charges.

 

Excellent point. I recall that when Stormy Daniels was testifying Judge Merchan actually ended up striking the testimony of Daniels on his own volition and ended up admonishing Trump's attorneys for not objecting. Sort of puts to rest the narrative from Trump and his cult-like supporters including a number of posters on this board that Merchan favored the prosecution.
Judge Merchan chides Trump's attorneys for not objecting more during Stormy Daniels Testimony

 

This is the really the heart of the trial. It should have been a political issue allowing the voters to make a decision that included this information, but Trump, Cohen, and the National Enquirer conspired to cover it up and then obscure that cover up by falsifying business records.

They didn't want it to be a political issue and committed a crime to ensure the details wouldn’t be made public prior to the election..

 

“I hope every juror is doxxed and they pay for what they have done,” another user wrote on Trump’s Truth Social platform Thursday. “May God strike them dead. We will on November 5th and they will pay!”

Trump supporters try to dox jurors and post violent threats after his conviction

 

If the government and government courts are the arbiter of truth then slavery used to be right. Marinate on that, then reconsider your worldview.

That does not necessarily mean you are wrong, but hiding behind a court ruling because that is all there is to it is certainly a flawed way of thinking.

I know you would not be thinking this way if a black man was convicted of rape in the South at the beginning of the 20th century. Squint think hard, and then think about the dynamics of Trump being tried in New York of all places.

 

And you know this how? Because you interviewed jurors who told you this? You were in the jury room as they discussed this? Or you don't like their decision. You can clean it up however you want: in the end, they decided on the facts of the case. You don't like it. You have two options:
A. Admit that you were wrong on the facts
B. Deny that you were wrong and attack without any basis

It appears that you chose B.

 

By the way this is the second time that Bob Menendez has been prosecuted for corruption. He was indicted the first time when Obama was president. His first trial ended with a hung jury. The DOJ under Trump which actually prosecuted the case decided not to retry.

 

If the ultimate arbiter of truth is the Bible, then slavery used to be right. Marinate on that.

But seriously, God could have stated "Thou shall not have slaves." He didn't. Why is an interesting question. But what you tried is a pretty weak argument.

 

Slavery was never right although it was definitely legal. Even more than the courts, the blame for the institution of slavery lies with Congress and the state legislatures and I'm only referring to the period in the decade or so prior to the Civil War. The courts were merely upholding the law as written. Remember that the SCOTUS in the Dred Scott decision was upholding and interpreting the Fugitive Slave Act, a law enacted by Congress as well as state laws defining slaves as property rather than as human beings.