Yes. I have seen very solid arguments to support the underlying crimes. I know exactly what they are.
Based on a preponderance of the evidence; Trump is more likely than not guilty.
Out in the real world, we know he was guilty. Stormy Daniels and those other people were coerced into signing RNDAs. This was all done at Trump's direction. He just hadn't reimbursed on the others yet.
Anyway, it's obvious Trump's lawyers failed to raise reasonable doubt. I think they could have. I explained why/how, by raising jurisdictional issues.
Arguing the bs that Trump didn't violate Federal Election Laws made no sense. They still had the state law and the tax laws.
They were " coerced" ?
Do you think they had lawyers by their side when they signed the NDAs ?
"Based on a preponderance of the evidence; Trump is more likely than not guilty."
I think a conviction requires a tiche more than "more likely than not". Something to the effect of "proof beyond reasonable doubt".
Speaking of "beyond reasonable doubt" those words weren't included in the jury instructions with respect to the "unlawful means".
The 2 charges, falsifying business records and a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election, require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The "unlawful means" instructions given to the jury were ......
"In determining whether the defendant conspired to
promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful
means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act
otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business
records; or (3) violation of tax laws."
The jury instructions did not include that any of the 3 "unlawful means" were needed to include "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
The defense was not given the opportunity to rebut FECA violations. There is reasonable doubt that alleged FECA violations can be tried at the state level. Merchan limiting what the former FEC Commissioner would be allowed to testify to should also raise reasonable doubt.
The idea that state tax laws were used "with proof beyond reasonable doubt" in a conspiracy to influence an election is reasonably doubtful.
That would leave falsification of other business records as the remaining "unlawful means" yet the prosecution focused on FECA violations in their closing arguments. The defense had no opportunity to rebut the prosecution closing arguments and the jury went to deliberations after being told of FECA violations multiple times in closing arguments.
Relying on the falsification of other business records by falsifying business records in a conspiracy to influence an election would seem to be a little circuitous.
Trump's lawyers have said that pre-trial hearings let them know that their ability to provide an adequate trial defense was being limited by Merchan.
The defense can only provide a defense that the judge will allow.
RecentTRANSFER PORTAL 2026 by ILLove1997
No New Wars! Well, maybe ...
by murphstahoe 
Total Members: 142