Poll: Which court will overturn Trump's conviction for his NDA?

[Skylar]

Already provided using my links to Turley, NPR, Newsweek and Politico.

Turley, the guy who made failed legal predictions after failed legal prediction about this case? Turley, who was wrong on the 'constitutional headwinds', wrong on how stong the case was, wrong on how strong the evidence was? Turley who insisted the case wasn't a slam dunk (It was). Turley who insisted that the case was falling apart (It wasn't).

That Turley?

His only issue was that the Supreme Court holds unanimous verdicts sacrosanct.

Um....kiddo? The verdict in Trump's NY trial WAS unanimous. Twice.

So I ask again, the same question you have failed EVERY time I've asked it:

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn the ruling?

Get specific. Offer up another Turley Turd if you like.

 

[Nostra]

Turley, the guy who made failed legal predictions after failed legal prediction about this case? Turley, who was wrong on the 'constitutional headwinds', wrong on how stong the case was, wrong on how strong the evidence was?

That Turley?

His only issue was that the SUpreme Court holds unanimous verdicts sacrosanct.

Um....kiddo? The verdict in Trump's NY trial WAS unanimous. Twice.

So I ask again, the same question you have failed EVERY time I've asked it:

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn the ruling?

Get specific. Offer up another Turley Turd if you like.

Already provided using my links to Turley, NPR, Newsweek and Politico.

 

[Faun]

The crime that resurrected dead misdemeanors was never specified, which is why the hack Merchan gave the jury a plethora of options and said they didn't have to be unanimous, only 4 had to agree. WTF court does that?

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a special kind of dumbfuck.

The crimes were given and no, he never said only 4 had to agree on the underlying charge. He said all 12 had to agree there was a crime covered up. And all 12 agreed there was. The prosecution showed 3 crimes were covered up. § 175.10 is a felony if any crime was covered up by falsifying business records. It didn't matter which of the 3, or any combination of the 3, jury members felt was the underlying crime. What mattered, and will not be overturned on appeal, is all 12 agreed Trump's business records covered up a crime.

 

[Skylar]

Already provided using my links to Turley, NPR, Newsweek and Politico.

And Turley was already wrong on the case falling apart, on the strength of the evidence, on the constitutional headwinds, on how 'legally pathetic' the grand jury findings were, on if the case was a slam dunk.

With less than a day's worth of deliberation and convictions on EVERY count, Turley didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

And that's your source? Laughing.....try again.

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn this ruling?

Be specific. You have yet to offer a single credible reason. Unanimity? It was unanimous. What else?

 

[Nostra]

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a special kind of dumbfuck.

The crimes were given and no, he never said only 4 had to agree on the underlying charge. He said all 12 had to agree there was a crime covered up. And all 12 agreed there was. The prosecution showed 3 crimes were covered up. § 175.10 is a felony if any crime was covered up by falsifying business records. It didn't matter which of the 3, or any combination of the 3, jury members felt was the underlying crime. What mattered, and will not be overturned on appeal, is all 12 agreed Trump's business records covered up a crime.

Multiple choice crimes from the judge isn't how our system works, Dumbass.

This kangaroo court will get bitchslapped on appeal. And I will laugh at your dumbassery and hackery when it does,

 

[Lastamender]

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn the ruling? Its a State case.

Maybe they want to abuse the law and their power too.

 

[Nostra]

And Turley was already wrong on the case falling apart, on the strength of the evidence, on the constitutional headwinds, on how 'legally pathetic' the grand jury findings were, on if the case was a slam dunk.

With less than a day's worth of deliberation and convictions on EVERY count, Turley didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

And that's your source? Laughing.....try again.

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn this ruling?

Be specific. You have yet to offer a single credible reason. Unanimity? It was unanimous. What else?

Already provided using my links to Turley, NPR, Newsweek and Politico.

 

[Skylar]

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a special kind of dumbfuck.

The crimes were given and no, he never said only 4 had to agree on the underlying charge. He said all 12 had to agree there was a crime covered up. And all 12 agreed there was. The prosecution showed 3 crimes were covered up. § 175.10 is a felony if any crime was covered up by falsifying business records. It didn't matter which of the 3, or any combination of the 3, jury members felt was the underlying crime. What mattered, and will not be overturned on appeal, is all 12 agreed Trump's business records covered up a crime.

And by a plethora of options, Nostra means 2. 17-152 and FECA.

And this after Nostra lied his ass off, insisting that the prosecution NEVER relevalede the underlying crime. Now he's claiming they did. But plethoras.

Nostra can't even lie with any consistency.

Remember, this guy doesn't research. He apes what he's told to think by Fox talking heads. No matter how many times reality contradicts them.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOLOL

Dayum, you're a special kind of dumbfuck.

The crimes were given and no, he never said only 4 had to agree on the underlying charge. He said all 12 had to agree there was a crime covered up. And all 12 agreed there was. The prosecution showed 3 crimes were covered up. § 175.10 is a felony if any crime was covered up by falsifying business records. It didn't matter which of the 3, or any combination of the 3, jury members felt was the underlying crime. What mattered, and will not be overturned on appeal, is all 12 agreed Trump's business records covered up a crime.

Link us up to the evidence Fat Alvin produced during the trial for these 3 multiple choice crimes.

Post it here.

 

[Faun]

On what grounds would the Supreme Court overturn the ruling? Its a State case.



Spin away, simp.

LOLOLOL

You dumbfuck, nowhere in that quote does it state the SCOTUS doesn't hear state cases. It's asking you why they would touch this case as there's no apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution, which is all the SCOTUS rules on.

You really do have the reading comprehension of a 4 year old.

 

[Rogue AI]

Poor, brain-dead con. The underlying crime was specified. It was illegal campaign contributions. And yes, it was charged. Michael Cohen went to jail for it, among other crimes.

Not according to the jury instructions. Try harder.

 

[Nostra]

And by a plethora of options, Nostra means 2. 17-152 and FECA.

And this after Nostra lied his ass off, insisting that the proseuction NEVER relevalede the underlying crime. Now he's claiming they did. But plethoras.

He can't even lie with any consistency.

Remember, this guy doesn't research. He apes what he's told to think by Fox talking heads. No matter how many times reality contradicts them.

 

[Faun]

In the post I quoted, moron.

LOLOL

That quote didn't say what you falsely claimed it says.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOLOL

You dumbfuck, nowhere in that quote does it state the SCOTUS doesn't hear state cases. It's asking you why they would touch this case as there's no apparent violation of the U.S. Constitution, which is all the SCOTUS rules on.

You really do have the reading comprehension of a 4 year old.

No reason for him to include the last 4 words, if your spin is correct.

Since you are both full of shit, ya got nothing.

 

[Skylar]

Already provided using my links to Turley, NPR, Newsweek and Politico.

And Turley was wrong again and again in his every legal prediction.

Worse for you, his SOLE basis for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling was that unanimous verdicts were 'sacrosanct'.

Um, kiddo?

The NY ruling was unanimous. TWICE.

Killing your silly Turley Turd. What else have you got? Your first link didn't even mention the Supreme Court.

 

[Nostra]

LOLOL

That quote didn't say what you falsely claimed it says.

Explain the last 4 words.

Take as long as you need to come up with some dumbassery.

 

[Skylar]

No reason for him to include the last 4 words, if your spin is correct.

Since you are both full of shit, ya got nothing.

Says you, pretending to be me. I never said that the Supreme Court coudn't overturn State cases. YOu lied.

I asked you on what grounds the Supreme Court would overturn the case.

And you have no answer.

 

[Nostra]

And Turley was wrong again and again in his every legal prediction.

Worse for you, his SOLE basis for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling was that unanimous verdicts were 'sacrosanct'.

Um, kiddo?

The NY ruling was unanimous. TWICE.

Killing your silly Turley Turd. What else have you got? Your first link didn't even mention the Supreme Court.

Already provided using my links to Turley, NPR, Newsweek and Politico.

 

[Nostra]

Says you, pretending to be me. I never said that the Supreme Court coudn't overturn State cases. YOu lied.

I asked you on what grounds the Supreme Court would overturn the case.

And you have no answer.

So you can't explain why you included the last 4 words.

Got it.

 

[Skylar]

Explain the last 4 words.

Take as long as you need to come up with some dumbassery.

Already done.

Now, show us what grounds the Supreme Court would use to overturn this case. You've NEVER been able to answer that question. Not you, not your links.

Keep running, boy.