We heard plenty of salacious stories from Miss Daniels and no argument about the accounting irregularities.

Please explain where the electoral interference was? Did Trump stuff ballot boxes?

If Trump is guilty as charged then why not Bill Clinton and George Bush senior. Bush after all promised the voters no tax rises and did the opposite surely that is worst then a man covering up his infidelity.

One more point

A great day for Trump.

Unless the kill him off, he is likely to be the next POTUS.

It's not the Trump supporters who stupidly throw money at him who matter. It's the slice of undecideds in the middle and how they will move. Some will go each way. It's where the balance rests that matters.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

This is a minor accounting crime akin to a parking ticket. The NY DA has bootstrapped this into Electoral interference something no court has ever done before.

Electoral interference refers to stuffing ballot boxed, denying the voter, gerrymandering not paying hush money to a p*** star.

One more point

It just isn’t a minor accounting crime. It might be if there was a benign reason for it, like a mistake, or even an attempt at tax avoidance. It became a crime because the reason was to conceal it from the electorate, thus making it election interference.

It wasn’t the payment of money to a p*** star that was the crime. That’s not illegal. It was the intention behind the falsification of records that was. That has been held to be election interference by the jury on the evidence presented. You cannot just dismiss it because it doesn’t fit your preconceptions of what constitutes election interference!

I am actually quite shocked that this isn’t better understood by someone here. I realise how Trump and his supporters are going to present it but surely we can see through their nonsense and make a more accurate appraisal. It was all very clearly laid out during the trial.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I couldn't agree with your analysis, contained in many posts, more; what was also astonishing to me was how poor his defence was - two people were called one of whom was Costello - a lawyer right out of the same mode of those so called lawyers who were involved in the Georgia case other cases. Indeed the judge had to close the court and issue a stern rebuke given his behaviour.
Trump, of course, was never going to take the witness stand in self defence despite all his bluff and bravado. He would just have committed perjury.

He claims he is an innocent man; not in my book or the jury. It will be interesting to see what happens on July 11th re a very significant fine or beyond. He certainly has done himself no favours with the judge given all his ranting and personal attacks.