ChiGoose

My comment was specific to the claims that Merchan is biased against Trump, nothing else. Most of those claims being paraded about on PPP betray a lack of understanding of the court. When people see the judge acted in a way they don’t like, they just immediately assume bias instead of asking “how does this compare to how this issue is normally handled in this court?”

Harry Enten is a Bills fan. Formerly from FiveThirtyEight.

My point is that the claims here about the judge’s bias seem to be mostly built upon misunderstandings of how the courts in NYS work.

It’s almost as if the purpose of the trial is to enforce the law, not to help Biden…

I’m happy that sports gambling is legal now. But sports leagues and the news outlets that cover them should not partner with gambling companies.

That’s so weird. Why would he say this if he’s in the tank for the prosecution…?

How is it rigged if they are following standard process for this court?

No. Obviously. I don’t watch MSNBC.

“I don’t like that the rule of law is being enforced and therefore I am more inclined to support the person it is being enforced against” is certainly an opinion. Sounds like someone on the far left

That’s just how this statute works in a normal court: you don’t have to be charged for the crime you intended to commit and the intent is simply that you’re trying to cover up a crime. The prosecution outlined a handful of crimes they believe Trump was trying to conceal. If a juror believes that he was trying to cover up any of them, then they can find guilt in the first degree.

Off the top of my head, in this case, if Trump had falsified the business records to cover up the affair solely for the purpose of keeping Melania from learning of it, I think that would just be a misdemeanor. I think adultery is technically a crime in NY, but nobody would buy a step-up for that. An unrelated example might be if you made a mistake at work and falsified the company's records to cover that up.

I think it's fair to criticize the laws. What I'm opposed to is using criticism of the laws to state or imply that the case is biased against Trump when it's handled the same as other cases under the existing law. I wonder if more conservatives are going to join the lib criminal justice reformers after this...

Tommy Eyerolls sticks to the script.

Yeah, I think there were about 10 checks Trump himself didn’t sign. Could see the jury not going for those.

It really feels like some people have (very legitimate) complaints about NYS law but are using that to claim bias or impropriety in this particular case.

Is that the same as the standard jury instructions and/or case law for this charge or is it a deviation by Merchan?

Tommy Eyerolls sticks to the script. No need to check facts or think when having an original thought is never the goal. Just parrot the talking points.

Huh. Who could have thought?

I’d be cautious about predicting how the jury reacts to these things. Interpreting credibility from reports and transcripts is a very different thing than being in the room.

What crime could Trump have been allegedly trying to cover up? Prosecutors allege violations of NYS election law, Federal election law (FECA), and tax laws. The big secret that apparently absolutely nobody could possibly have been aware of until now is finally out. If only we could have somehow known!

We probably need an entire thread to the attorneys who got lost their law license for going along with Trump’s insanity. MAGA = Make Attorneys Get Attorneys

Tommy Eyerolls continues to be confused by the concept of linear time and the idea of news. "Wow, people really seem to be talking about the closing arguments of the first ever trial of the former US president that is happening today. That seems odd to me, a real human with a working and thinking brain."

LOL. The judge hasn’t even instructed the jury yet. Not surprised that Sean Davis has no idea what’s going on though, to be honest.

Personally, I can't say for certain either way. Much of his testimony was corroborated by other witnesses. For the parts that wasn't, it's a question as to whether or not the jury finds him credible.

Tommy Eyerolls sticking to the script. Calling people "it," attacking the source instead of the subject, assuming anything that doesn't adhere to his preconceived notions is false. You could just create a bot that responds to posts with "It is parroting MSM talking points" and it's be a more valuable contributor. It'd probably use more brainpower too.