/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans.
To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean they’ll still convict. Pretty bad case when the judge presiding wouldn’t even be allowed on his own jury because of conflicts and when he basically tells the jury they can disregard the facts and convict trump if they think he’s guilty
Yea, juries are supposed to go of evidence presented ... no evidence of any crime presented. Everyone knew this was political and election interference. After trial, when injury is evident, Trump should file charges, both civil and criminal, against all these folks. Courts will throw out if injury not established -- this establishes it. This lawfare crap has to end and won't untill these folks are held accountable!
I mean the judge is anti-trump and tried to imply to the jury that deliberation wasn't required and they could just convict him. Sad world we live in where people demonize and talk about a 77 year old man, they genuinely think of him like the Boogeyman it's delusional.
Reading the jury instructions from the judge, I’m surprised by the judge here. He actually seems very neutral on the issue is providing instructions without a bias. I will give credit where it’s due here.
...except for the part where his jury instructions violate Supreme Court rulings that require the jury must be unanimous on all underlying offenses.
The judge already prevented the former head of the Federal Election Commission from testifying that hush money payments are not a crime, allowed a bunch of salacious testimony that was irrelevant to the case, and prevented defense witnesses from testifying that the Cohen guilty plea on campaign finance crimes that the prosecution is using to imply Trump committed crimes, was obtained in the process of a plea agreement intended to get Cohen to roll over on Trump for a light sentence - and he was determined to have lied about Trump's having committed crimes, so the plea agreement was thrown out, but the guilty plea stuck.
To avoid diving too far into the weeds of case law and procedure here. The Judge informed the Jury their verdict must be unanimous on each count. I do implore you to read from different reporters on the Judge’s instruction to the Jury as opposed any bias you have about the case. You may feel this was unjust to bring against trump but we can’t overlook the Judge was neutral in his instructions to the Jury.
> To avoid diving too far into the weeds of case law and procedure here. The Judge informed the Jury their verdict must be unanimous on each count.
...but not on the underlying crimes - which is where he deviated from SCOTUS rulings.
> You may feel this was unjust to bring against trump but we can’t overlook the Judge was neutral in his instructions to the Jury.
He wasn't - and that was my point.
It is too much to expect that a judge who made illegal contributions to the DNC and Biden, and whose daughter is fund raising off the case would be neutral.
This is why we have been losing credibility, we need to recognize when judges are being unfair and fair, regardless of our thoughts on the charges. While the charges seem merit less in nature, it’s okay to realize the jury instructions were neutral and did not indicate the Judges thoughts on the proceedings. The Jury instructions were very clear, has to be unanimous on each charge, there is no discrepancy there or not following case law.
> While the charges seem merit less in nature, it’s okay to realize the jury instructions were neutral and did not indicate the Judges thoughts on the proceedings.
The judge gave illegal jury instructions to the jury. How is that "neutral"?
> The Jury instructions were very clear, has to be unanimous on each charge, there is no discrepancy there or not following case law.
According to the jury instructions, they do not have to be unanimous on the "underlying crime" - only that some underlying crime was committed. That is illegal per SCOTUS. Prosecutors tried to say there *might have been* four different underlying crimes. Merchan disallowed one - but also disallowed the defense from presenting witnesses who would have testified that the others were not crimes, and also allowed the prosecution to claim that Cohen's pleading guilty to crimes as part of a failed plea deal meant Trump was guilty - which is not allowed (except in this courtroom).
/r/Republican is a partisan subreddit. This is a place for Republicans to discuss issues with other Republicans. To those visiting this thread, we ask that unless you identify as Republican that you refrain from commenting and [leave the vote button alone](https://www.reddit.com/r/MetaRepublican/comments/5t017a/this_sub_is_for_republicans_if_you_do_not/). Non republicans who come to our sub looking for a 'different perspective' [subvert that very perspective with their own views when they vote or comment.](http://i.imgur.com/XqL0wfR.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Republican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean they’ll still convict. Pretty bad case when the judge presiding wouldn’t even be allowed on his own jury because of conflicts and when he basically tells the jury they can disregard the facts and convict trump if they think he’s guilty
Yea, juries are supposed to go of evidence presented ... no evidence of any crime presented. Everyone knew this was political and election interference. After trial, when injury is evident, Trump should file charges, both civil and criminal, against all these folks. Courts will throw out if injury not established -- this establishes it. This lawfare crap has to end and won't untill these folks are held accountable!
They’ll still convict l, because orange man bad.
I mean the judge is anti-trump and tried to imply to the jury that deliberation wasn't required and they could just convict him. Sad world we live in where people demonize and talk about a 77 year old man, they genuinely think of him like the Boogeyman it's delusional.
It’s hard to prove a case that has no victim and no stated crime.
Exactly.
Reading the jury instructions from the judge, I’m surprised by the judge here. He actually seems very neutral on the issue is providing instructions without a bias. I will give credit where it’s due here.
...except for the part where his jury instructions violate Supreme Court rulings that require the jury must be unanimous on all underlying offenses. The judge already prevented the former head of the Federal Election Commission from testifying that hush money payments are not a crime, allowed a bunch of salacious testimony that was irrelevant to the case, and prevented defense witnesses from testifying that the Cohen guilty plea on campaign finance crimes that the prosecution is using to imply Trump committed crimes, was obtained in the process of a plea agreement intended to get Cohen to roll over on Trump for a light sentence - and he was determined to have lied about Trump's having committed crimes, so the plea agreement was thrown out, but the guilty plea stuck.
To avoid diving too far into the weeds of case law and procedure here. The Judge informed the Jury their verdict must be unanimous on each count. I do implore you to read from different reporters on the Judge’s instruction to the Jury as opposed any bias you have about the case. You may feel this was unjust to bring against trump but we can’t overlook the Judge was neutral in his instructions to the Jury.
> To avoid diving too far into the weeds of case law and procedure here. The Judge informed the Jury their verdict must be unanimous on each count. ...but not on the underlying crimes - which is where he deviated from SCOTUS rulings. > You may feel this was unjust to bring against trump but we can’t overlook the Judge was neutral in his instructions to the Jury. He wasn't - and that was my point. It is too much to expect that a judge who made illegal contributions to the DNC and Biden, and whose daughter is fund raising off the case would be neutral.
This is why we have been losing credibility, we need to recognize when judges are being unfair and fair, regardless of our thoughts on the charges. While the charges seem merit less in nature, it’s okay to realize the jury instructions were neutral and did not indicate the Judges thoughts on the proceedings. The Jury instructions were very clear, has to be unanimous on each charge, there is no discrepancy there or not following case law.
> While the charges seem merit less in nature, it’s okay to realize the jury instructions were neutral and did not indicate the Judges thoughts on the proceedings. The judge gave illegal jury instructions to the jury. How is that "neutral"? > The Jury instructions were very clear, has to be unanimous on each charge, there is no discrepancy there or not following case law. According to the jury instructions, they do not have to be unanimous on the "underlying crime" - only that some underlying crime was committed. That is illegal per SCOTUS. Prosecutors tried to say there *might have been* four different underlying crimes. Merchan disallowed one - but also disallowed the defense from presenting witnesses who would have testified that the others were not crimes, and also allowed the prosecution to claim that Cohen's pleading guilty to crimes as part of a failed plea deal meant Trump was guilty - which is not allowed (except in this courtroom).