In your opinion…Did Trump receive a fair trial?

[FriendofBRW]

In my opinion, the Judge stacked the odds in the Prosecution favor…

[Truckman]

I'm not a big fan of courtroom operas, so I only know about the verdict......Ben

[Honda]

Without being in the courtroom everyday and seeing the rulings and choices made by the judge in person it would be very hard for me to make a decision. There are several aspects of the case that I think have a chance of being overturned on appeal.

[Sandman]

I’m not a legal professional..

I understand that Trump spent money to have Stormy Daniel’s not discuss an encounter between the two (everything is ok so far) …. But then he claimed the money paid to Ms D as a business expense on his taxes (now we have a problem)..

Appeals court should find any procedural issues.. IMHO.. SCOTUS will decide this..

[Mike]

I didn't watch the trial and wouldn't know the fine points of procedural matters anyway. But, I think in light of the historic nature of the trial, coupled with the intense public scrutiny it received, it was probably the most properly run trial that it could be. I feel it was certainly a fairer trial than most folks receive. Were there mistakes made? Could be, but that's why we have appeals courts.

[TriGuy]

I didn't watch the trial and wouldn't know the fine points of procedural matters anyway. But, I think in light of the historic nature of the trial, coupled with the intense public scrutiny it received, it was probably the most properly run trial that it could be. I feel it was certainly a fairer trial than most folks receive. Were there mistakes made? Could be, but that's why we have appeals courts.

I would agree with that assesment

[FriendofBRW]

I guess what I was looking for was people’s opinion…whether or not he actually did, is left to those who will actually rule on it.

Oh well.

[Sandman]

I guess what I was looking for was people’s opinion…whether or not he actually did, is left to those who will actually rule on it.

Oh well.

This was a state trial..

My thought.. probably baseless but.. a few years ago Trump moved his residence to Florida.. he did this because of a taxing issue in New York.. (assumption.. there was “discussion “ of the tax issue between Trump and the New York taxman.. the discussion didn’t go well.. things were said.. ). I believe the trial that we saw is the result of Trump and/or his people not knuckling under to New York, changing the disputed taxes and paying the $$$.. ( the “disputed taxes” were not the subject of the trial, the disputed taxes were so deep in a grey area that a conviction is very iffy)

So.. in a nutshell.. Trump pizzed off the New York “powers to be” (and probably won’t the battle) so New York pulled an ace out of their sleeve..

convected on 34 counts.. and yes, he did “cook the books” .. they nailed him.. but the 34 is not what started all of this..

[Scooter]

Depending on your political leanings will decide your position on the fairness of the trial.
A few things that will likely get all 34 convictions tossed on appeal.
1. Judge instructed jury that they did not need to be unanimous in their conviction.
2. Judge did not allow an expert on election law to testify.
3. Judge was repeatedly asked to recuse himself because of the potential of his daughter to cause bias.
4. Sheer basis of standing of New York to bring him to trial, after multiple federal courts, who have jurisdiction over federal election law, refused the prosecution.
5. That all 34 counts were just replications of one action. I am not an attorney, but I am pretty sure that is not the way charges should be brought.

[Sandman]

Unanimous conviction…. Fact check..

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...k/73917128007/

[FredK]

At least they didn't rush to hang him as in the old days, or burn him at the stake like the witches.

[Honda]

Actually what happened is a law was passed in New York that would allow conduct such as alleged in this case to become a felony if it was linked with another crime. Also that law extended the statute of limitations for the felony count since they could not proceed against Trump on the misdemeanors because the statute of limitations had ran. So in this case they had to find unanimously that a crime had been committed but they were not required to be unanimous about which of the underlying crimes that were alleged in the indictment were committed. I'm not at all familiar with that type process but it must be a New York state law I can't believe the judge would have done it not knowing that that was the law. It's not the law in my area. The law in New York was pretty much customized and tailored to get Trump. Don't take that for me many legal scholars, of which I am not Share the same opinion.