Will Trump go free?

[ChefPapiChulo]

It's not looking good for the prosecution.

Updates

+1 y

They're not going to put a President in jail. I meant free in a different sense.

Updates

+1 y

"My guess is we will actually see a hung jury."

No one cares what your guess is.

[northerngal]

Honestly in my humble opinion I think the worst case for Trump would be probation. He is a first time offender and there are possible mitigating circumstance for his behavior. Now of course I have no expertise in US law and this is only if he is convicted. Just my 2 cents.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Yeah, he def won't be going to prison.

[ManInChains]

Trump will go free because this whole thing is baseless political persecution with no real charges. He will go free because he is already free as he did nothing wrong and he will be elected president this November. I’m interested as to how the next 4 years of having Trump back in the White House will go.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. He won't be president again.

[ManInChains]

What makes you think that?

[ChefPapiChulo]

He doesn't have the ability to get the vote from the people in the middle center.

[ManInChains]

According to the current polls he does

[ChefPapiChulo]

No, the polls have them at 50/50.

[ManInChains]

https://youtu.be/jkLqirXQr7U?si=bI9DXYF7xnwU2VKb

[ManInChains]

You’re gonna be surprised come November 😁

[ManInChains]

Trump2024 😁🇺🇸

[normalice]

In what way isn't it looking good for the prosecution?

In any case, guilty or not, he won't see jail time before the election.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Because of Cohen not being credible.

[normalice]

Trumps lawyers are of course trying to paint him that way but what makes you think they are succeeding?

[ChefPapiChulo]

Because he's not credible.

[normalice]

Oh. So based on nothing..

[ChefPapiChulo]

And he's basically the center piece for this prosecution.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I'm not claiming to be a lawyer. I'm relaying the information to you what expert lawyers think

[normalice]

Each witness is critical. The case doesn't work if you remove or discredit any of them. But the defense has to actually do that work - they can't just say "look at what Twitter has to say about Cohen, though" and assume it is done. There has to be grounds to reasonably assume he is lying under oath.

[normalice]

And are these lawyers you are hearing from under oath when you hear them? If not they are under no obligation to be honest.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Bro what are you smoking?

[normalice]

I'm not saying they are right or wrong. I think they are trying to generate views. My guess is we will actually see a hung jury. Surely at least one die hard Trump supporter lied his way onto the jury. And surely at least one die hard anti-trumper lied his way on as well. No matter what the evidence says, they will not reach a unanimous verdict and so they will have to do it over.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Let me ask you this, what is your guess worth?

[normalice]

As much as a lawyer who also isn't in the courtroom and has incentive to generate views instead of inform honestly. Which is to say none at all.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Okay buddy.

[normalice]

So, you're imagining what talking heads on television have to say will change the outcome of the case?

[ChefPapiChulo]

Are you asking if I'm a fortune teller or are you still trying to prove your opinion is the same as experts?

[normalice]

I'm wondering if you're assigning the "worth" of an opinion based on how much influence it has over the case.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I don't think you've ever really thought about anything tbh.

[normalice]

I've just told you something I'm wondering, though. You could have just said yes or no 🤷

[ChefPapiChulo]

Kind of tired of your nonsense tbh.

[normalice]

You don't even seem to be reading it, tbh.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I'm not going to respond to your nonsensical devils advocate bullshit.

[normalice]

I simply forgot to ask what you mean by "worth" first. If you mean "influence," then we all have zero. If you mean "predictive value," well, that's a bit like the blind men describing an elephant.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Did you see my update?

[normalice]

I don't understand why you're getting so fussy about this, is all. What did this TV lawyer do to earn such loyalty?

[ChefPapiChulo]

You saying stupid things and being incredibly biased is enough to warrant a little anger.

[normalice]

You keep saying that sort of thing but you refuse to explain yourself, so I can't tell if you're just trolling for fun 🤷

[ChefPapiChulo]

" I think they are trying to generate views. My guess is we will actually see a hung jury."

No one cares what you think or what your guess is. Get over it.

[normalice]

Why did you ask if you dont care about opinions you disagree with? Also, you sure do reply a lot to opinions you don't care about.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I don’t think you understand. Most likely from a lack of education. You never want to state “I believe, I think, etc” no one cares what you believe unless you have credentials. Even then, that tends to be poor word usage.

[normalice]

So, you'd prefer people leave that out and state their opinions as fact?

[ChefPapiChulo]

You’re a schizo man.

[normalice]

I can't tell if you've just been trolling this entire time but you usually seem reasonable and here you aren't even trying to make sense.

[ChefPapiChulo]

Stop schizo posting on my question. Get a life.

[normalice]

I'm replying to you 1 for 1 🤷

[ChefPapiChulo]

BRO. You are not a legal no expert. Your stupid ass opinion about what is going to happen means absolutely nothing. Get over it! Quit being a schizo.

[normalice]

I'm also not a propaganda expert but you would prefer to trust those who are.

[ChefPapiChulo]

I’m a liberal, but you’re an actual nut job with half the shit you say.

[ChefPapiChulo]

“Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a propaganda expert” - you

Get help you schizo.

[normalice]

You will not find that quote anywhere.

The problem is I asked you to explain yourself and you refused, so I had to guess. If you want to correct by guess the only way to do that is to stop refusing to explain yourself.

[ChefPapiChulo]

There’s no way you took that literally. You actually do have schizophrenia.

[normalice]

I'm simply not convinced you were aware that you made that up.

[ChefPapiChulo]

*incoherent gibberish* - you

[normalice]

Feel free to explain what didn't make any sense.

[ChefPapiChulo]

“ Each witness is critical. The case doesn't work if you remove or discredit any of them. But the defense has to actually do that work - they can't just say "look at what Twitter has to say about Cohen, though" and assume it is done. There has to be grounds to reasonably assume he is lying under oath.”
He has lied under oath in the past. He’s not a credible witness.

[ChefPapiChulo]

“ As much as a lawyer who also isn't in the courtroom and has incentive to generate views instead of inform honestly. Which is to say none at all.”

This one is pretty incoherent too. As if anyone who disagrees with your schizo beliefs is just trying to generate views, never mind that you’re a complete idiot playing armchair lawyer.

[normalice]

Having lied under oath in the past is a significant ding, but the obvious counter is he lied for Trump. To suggest he is now lying against him is to confess that loyalty can change but behavior can not, which isn't the way it works.

Anyway, it's not just his word if he has evidence.

And again since you won't tell me what your source is I have to assume it's just someone trying to get attention. Feel free to correct me by telling me who it is.

[ChefPapiChulo]

He has a history of lying and has an extreme bias against Trump. Stop posting your stupid bullshit on my question. You are not an expert. You are a schizo.

[normalice]

Again, there are ways to explain it. If you could tell me who your legal expert is I could hear what they have to say directly.

[Anonymous]

Everyone knows he's guilty but I don't find this to be a serious offense. It'll be something light. He'll go to jail for all the other stuff, the classified documents, trying to overturn the election etc. It's only a matter of when.

[DextroShade]

I sure hope so, this entire trial has been a farce from the start.

[Anonymous]

Legally sure

From one of the Clinton's contract killers absolutely not

[ChefPapiChulo]

What’s that supposed to mean? Is that a threat?

[Opinion Owner]

No but they will kill him if he gets too close, they killed Ivana as a warning not to mention more Kennedys than I have in my stash and Jeffrey Epstein

[ChefPapiChulo]

What do you mean to not mention Kennedys?

[Opinion Owner]

People killed by Democrats led presently by the Clintons but soon to be handed to probably Barack

[Alex-Snow]

We can only hope for jail for the idiot