15 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Jury request. 

THE FOUR REQUESTS: 1) David Pecker’s testimony regarding the phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting 2) David Pecker’s testimony re: life rights for McDougal. 3) Pecker testimony regarding TT meeting  4)  Michael Cohen’s testimony regarding TT meeting

The jury focusing on Pecker's communication with DJT and the Trump Tower meetings doesn't sound great for the defendant. You never know for sure with this stuff, but can't see this as a positive for Trump.

 

28 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

That judge is doing everything he can to utterly f it all up and reinforce the "it's rigged" narrative. Dershowitz went off last week BEFORE his jury instructions last week or the 4x4 BS today. 

https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/

He needed to run it almost perfectly to 1. get a conviction to stand up on appeal, which it won't now, and 2. avoid turning this into something that reinforces the "he's a victim" narrative. He's horrible. Even people who might not like him are going to look at that BS and go WTF. 

Costello was a trainwreck of a witness that Trump's lawyers didn't even want to call; Trump insisted on it, per reports.

He tried to represent himself to the jury as acting on behalf of Cohen, when he was in fact acting on Trump and Giuliani's behalf.  He should be disbarred if he hasn't been already.

35 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

2. avoid turning this into something that reinforces the "he's a victim" narrative.

My dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there isn't a scenario in this universe where Trump and his supporters would ever leave the victim card in their pockets in any one of these cases. Let's be real here, that narratve was poured in concrete the minute he was indicted regardless of what the judge, jury, or anyone else has to say about it.

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

My dude, I don't know what planet you're living on, but there isn't a scenario in this universe where Trump and his supporters would ever leave the victim card in their pockets in any one of these cases. Let's be real here, that narratve was poured in concrete the minute he was indicted regardless what what the judge, jury, or anyone else had to say about it.

Agree, but many people are idiots like me who just on the face of things see the 4x stuff and go WTF. So you are right, but at the same time there is no reason to even appear to give validity to that narrative. If 8 out of the 12 think he is innocent of one charge they don't get a say because 4 others are considered unanimous? Even if there is merit to it that sounds like utter BS on the surface. 

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Agree, but many people are idiots like me who just on the face of things see the 4x stuff and go WTF. So you are right, but at the same time there is no reason to even appear to give validity to thst narrative. If 8 out of the 12 think he is innocent of one charge they don't get a say because 4 others is considered unanimous? Even if there is merit to it that sounds like utter BS on the surface. 

I don't think you're understanding the judge's instructions here. He never said only 4 jurors are needed to convict Trump and be considered a unanimous decision. 

18 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

That doesn't mean what he saw wasn't utter BS. From what he spelled out it sounded pretty bad. Even taking AD out of it I've never heard of a judge giving instructions like he did last week or the 4x4x4 BS today. Even if it's got merit, you can't pull that BS in a high-profile case like this, where one guy is playing the victim constantly. Was he guilty? Probably. Does it look like it's rigged to get a guilty verdict now? Yeah. Three groups of 4 get to decide on different crimes?? WTF. I hope there is something more to that than is being reported. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Jury Instructions are agreed to by Counsel for both sides and then presented to the Judge, who then signs off on them. It's not like the Judge acted unilaterally to approve his own Jury instructions. 

He became a victim the moment he LOST the election.  Being he was unable to concede, and he was given many chances to prove it was stolen, he and the entire rest of the world has been sucked into his oblivion.  He should be committed.  Honestly.  I am so tired of his victim ish.

 

Hopefully the jury is looking for the intent to defraud.  If they find it is without a doubt, then it's felony charge.

3 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I don't think you're understanding the judge's instructions here. He never said only 4 jurors are needed to convict Trump and be considered a unanimous decision. 

I heard on NPR that his instructions broke them up into 3 groups taking different charges and that group of 4 gets to decide on those charges and would be considered unanimous. I absolutely don't understand but it should be as simple as all 12 get to decide on them all.

2nd note requesting to rehear the Jury Instructions. 

 

 

Just now, Diehardfan said:

I heard on NPR that his instructions broke them up into 3 groups taking different charges and that group of 4 gets to decide on those charges and would be considered unanimous. I absolutely don't understand but it should be as simple as all 12 get to decide on them all.

Not sure what you heard on NPR, but I posted a tweet with the relevant excerpt above, or you can read the full set of instructions here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

Nowhere does it say anything about only 4 jurors need to be in accord to be considered unanimous on any of the charges. 

 

Judge is reading the instructions again which could take an hour. Court is supposed to end today at 4:30 p.m I look forward to the verdict tomorrow around say 2:00. 

From WGB's link:

 

INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. Intent does not require premeditation. In other words, intent does not require advance planning. Nor is it necessary that the intent be in a person's mind for any particular period of time. The intent can be formed, and need only exist, at the very moment the person engages in prohibited conduct or acts to cause the prohibited result, and not at any earlier time. The question naturally arises as to how to determine whether a defendant had the intent required for the commission of a crime. To make that determination in this case, you must decide if the required intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt from the proven facts. In doing so, you may consider the person's conduct and all of the circumstances surrounding that conduct, including, but not limited to, the following: what, if anything, did the person do or say; what result, if any, followed the person’s conduct; and was that result the natural, necessary and probable consequence of that conduct.

 

He says he didn't do anything and then paid the woman money. I mean, really?  He's a pretty intent LIAR!

18 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not sure what you heard on NPR, but I posted a tweet with the relevant excerpt above, or you can read the full set of instructions here: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

Nowhere does it say anything about only 4 jurors need to be in accord to be considered unanimous on any of the charges. 

 

Elon posted something similar. Perhaps it's in the way it's interpreted by outlets. It looks like Fox jumped on that as well. He will treat 4 people deciding as unanimous. I think he did it. It's all just a 🎪 

49 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Well, the guy was a Democrat who campaigned for Hillary. From a legal perspective, he could be correct, I don't know. He is probably a POS in his real life and the respected part doesn't apply to that but rather his legal mind. 

Do I get to call George Conway an unbiased legal opinion because he's a republican who voted for Bush and McCain?

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Elon posted something similar. Perhaps it's in the way it's interpreted by outlets. It looks like Fox jumped on that as well.

This is America, and you are certainly free to consume news updates in any manner you desire, but if you want to actually be informed on a given subject, I highly suggest steering clear of anything Elon Musk, Alan Dershowtiz, or Fox News has to say about it.

Court is over for the day. 

so the question is why the Judge did not give the Jury a paper Jury Instruction form. I don't know if this is the way it's done in NY or not. But how are they so supposed to remember 34 counts without paper forms? I hope this is not a form of reversible error. 

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This is America, and you are certainly free to consume news updates in any manner you desire, but if you want to actually be informed on a given subject, I highly suggest steering clear of anything Elon Musk, Alan Dershowtiz, or Fox News has to say about it.

Absolutely. That was the only thing similar to what I heard on NPR driving. She read part of the instructions in the X video that I think is the root of it where they could split 4x4x4. It could be perfectly fine but just sounds off.

34 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Agree, but many people are idiots like me who just on the face of things see the 4x stuff and go WTF. So you are right, but at the same time there is no reason to even appear to give validity to that narrative. If 8 out of the 12 think he is innocent of one charge they don't get a say because 4 others are considered unanimous? Even if there is merit to it that sounds like utter BS on the surface. 

Uh...that's not how it works. All 12 have to vote to convict on each count. That was about breaking into working groups.

Just now, Diehardfan said:

Absolutely. That was the only thing similar to what I heard on NPR driving. She read part of the instructions in the X video that I think is the root of it.

No, she's reading a misleading interpretation of the instructions. I literally posted a link to all of the instructions, verbatim. You won't find anything she said in there for a reason. I'll let you guess as to whatever that reason might be.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Absolutely. That was the only thing similar to what I heard on NPR driving. She read part of the instructions in the X video that I think is the root of it.

Yeah, dude, he was talking about breaking into discussion groups. All convictions take unanimous consent of all 12 jurors. This judge can't just change the rules of the US justice system.

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

Uh...that's not how it works. All 12 have to vote to convict on each count. That was about breaking into working groups.

 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No, she's reading a misleading interpretation of the instructions. I literally posted a link to all of the instructions, verbatim. You won't find anything she said in there for a reason. I'll let you guess as to whatever that reason might be.

I'm trying to get through it but it's 55 pages

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Yeah, dude, he was talking about breaking into discussion groups. All convictions take unanimous consent of all 12 jurors. This judge can't just change the rules of the US justice system.

That's why I couldn't understand when I heard that. The incorrect interpretation seems to be flying around pretty fast on social media and Fox as well. 

Just now, vikas83 said:

Yeah, dude, he was talking about breaking into discussion groups. All convictions take unanimous consent of all 12 jurors. This judge can't just change the rules of the US justice system.

It's not even about smaller discussion groups during deliberations. Diehard is getting confused on the aspect of the conspiracy charges where the judge says the jurors need not be in accordance on which of the 3 listed unlawful means were used in execution of that charge, only that the end result of the charge meets at least one of the three. Naturally, the moron on FNC, and Elon Musk misinterpreted that to mean they don't have to be unanimous on the charge itself, which is obviously false. The groups of 4 thing is what the FNC anchor was saying they could be equally split on, referring to the 3 unlawful means that I posted a tweet about earlier. They purposefully frame it like any disagreement on any aspect means they're not unanimous on a conviction but that the judge will overrule them and treat it like such. 

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

That's why I couldn't understand when I heard that. The incorrect interpretation seems to be flying around pretty fast on social media and Fox as well. 

And you're surprised?