What comes next for Donald Trump?

[yelped]

Next stop the old folks home?
https://x.com/BidensWins/status/1792000790938198296

"Come on, man". I'm no Trump fan, but it seems like he's most likely waiting for a broken teleprompter to get fixed, or pausing and allowing the music space for dramatic effect, most likely the first.

[CountValentine]

Coming down to crunch time on this trial. Trump has attacked our legal system at every chance he could, despicable.
It is funny how the right says the left is going to go nuts when he is acquitted. The exact opposite will happen if he is found guilty.

[JMHO]

Coming down to crunch time on this trial. Trump has attacked our legal system at every chance he could, despicable.
It is funny how the right says the left is going to go nuts when he is acquitted. The exact opposite will happen if he is found not guilty.

When or if?

[CountValentine]

When or if?

Yes!

[zh cohen]

It is funny how the right says the left is going to go nuts when he is acquitted. The exact opposite will happen if he is found not guilty.

Indeed, the Justice system has lost the trust of people on all sides of the political divide.

[CountValentine]

Indeed, the Justice system has lost the trust of people on all sides of the political divide.

When it is constantly being attacked for one's own personal gain what do you expect?

[aygart]

When it is constantly being attacked for one's own personal gain what do you expect?

Between that and it being used for personal gain.....

[YitzyS]

When it is constantly being attacked for one's own personal gain what do you expect?

When the Biden federal justice department declines to prosecute and a vocal local AG takes it up, that is not a typical case of attacking for one's own personal gain.

[CountValentine]

When the Biden federal justice department...

I see Israel is investigating this tragic mistake.

I did use "mistake' on purpose to show a point. 

[YitzyS]

Jury officially in deliberations now. Set to go until 4:30 today (if no verdict before then)

[CountValentine]

Let's all play jury experts. 

Quick verdict will be bad for Trump.

[UKinNYS]

I think they know this which is why they are punting.
https://twitter.com/johnrich/status/1795499777490117021

[CountValentine]

I think they know this which is why they are punting.

Who is punting?

[shapsam]

When the Biden federal justice department declines to prosecute and a vocal local AG who campaigned on prosecuting Trump takes it up, that is not a typical case of attacking for one's own personal gain.

FTFY
This is worse than what takes place in many 3rd world countries, perhaps some more paperwork though.

[shapsam]

Judge skewing the verdict
https://twitter.com/johnrobertsFox/status/1795830647719932058

[CountValentine]

Judge skewing the verdict

He didn't skew anything. He is following the law.

[aygart]

He didn't skew anything. He is following the law.

Where is this in the law? This was a serious point of contention and is certain to be appealed if a conviction is based on this. It is also not what some are making it seem like. It does not mean that they can different between charges but rather what the underlying crime he was covering up was.

[shapsam]

He didn't skew anything. He is following the law.

Generally speaking, you need a unanimous verdict on each count. Even if the judge has a legal way to justify this and twist it into being legal, it's still skewing the verdict.

[CountValentine]

Where is this in the law? This was a serious point of contention and is certain to be appealed if a conviction is based on this. It is also not what some are making it seem like. It does not mean that they can different between charges but rather what the underlying crime he was covering up was.

They must be unanimously on two things.
1 - he falsified business records
2 - he did so intending to commit a separate crime

They don't need to be unanimously on the separate crime. That is the Judges understanding of the law.

ETA: This doesn't seem uncommon. A prosecutor gave an example of someone being guilty of murder even if the some of the jury felt the murder weapon was a bat and others thought it was a pipe.

[shapsam]

They must be unanimously on two things.
1 - he falsified business records
2 - he did so intending to commit a separate crime

They don't need to be unanimously on the separate crime. That is the Judges understanding of the law.

ETA: This doesn't seem uncommon. A prosecutor gave an example of someone being guilty of murder even if the some of the jury felt the murder weapon was a bat and others thought it was a pipe.

Wow, prosecutor found an extreme example from some murder case. When was the last time this judge ruled this way?

In any other trial there would need to be a unanimous verdict on each of the 34 counts.