Unless you are living under a 
, or maybe you're not obsessed with burger politics (normal), you probably know that 
is on trial in New York for falsifying business records. The prosecutor has made their case and the defense has rested (without DDR testifying. Lame). All that is left is closing arguments on Tuesday. We will likely have a verdict either next week or the week after.
Well, anything as dramatic as the possible conviction or acquittal of a former President of the United States deserves to be treated with the utmost respect and seriousness that a situation like this deserves: A betting thread! 
So r-slurs and r-slurettes (male) of rDrama, what do you think the verdict will be?
- WINNER!
](/images/16674454055116708.webp)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The charges are really convoluted and thin imo. Something that anotger president(-ial candidate) would never have been charged for in the first place. But by the letter of the law, so to say, he probably is guilty technically, and a jury in new york is not gonna be kind to him.
So Im guessing guilty. But it will go to appeals and be overturned eventually, but probably not before the election.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The entire premise for charging it as a felony is absurd in the extreme. Considering that the evidence threshold is beyond reasonable doubt it's difficult to argue that the charges were even proven in the first place. It's such a stretch that the whole trial boils down to whether the jury are explicitly partisan or not.
I'd expect a hung jury, unless the prosecution truly were able to impose a completely wingcucked jury.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
During the preliminary hearing for jury instructions last week the DA's office actually has argued the standard should be preponderance of the evidence for the "other crime" and that other crime doesn't actually need to be a crime and they don't have to specifically identify it. They maintain that's up to the jury and that the jury doesn't even need to agree on what the crime was or tell us what they thought it was. The judge is probably going to side with them based on his preliminary comments. I was holding off on saying the judge was biased. But after reading that exchange I can't come to any other conclusion. I guess we'll see what the jury instructions end up being.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Urban jurors are biased, he should have fought for rural jurors.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I knew a girl who looked like that lol. Competitive but No work ethic
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I love Kevin Grisham
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context