Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

🚨🚨 WAIT… LIL DURK COULD REALLY BE FREE IF THIS RULE 29 GETS GRANTED?! 😳⚖️🔥 Everybody talking about what the JURY might do… meanwhile Judge Fitzgerald STILL has the defendants’ RULE 29 MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL UNDER SUBMISSION! 👀 Translation: the judge still has to determine whether—even viewing... the evidence in the light most favorable to the FEDS—there’s legally enough evidence for a rational jury to convict. ⚖️ And after ALL THIS?! 😭 ✈️ Paying for flights ALONE ≠ bounty 🚫 The Feds agreed they can’t just pin DeDe/Wilson’s independent decisions on Durk if Durk didn’t know about them ⚖️ Judge required PROXIMATE CAUSATION 👀 Defense got SUBJECTIVE FEAR language on one stalking theory 🚫 Judge BLOCKED the government from putting “LUL PAB” in the jury instructions because it could unfairly highlight damaging evidence against Durk Now imagine Judge Fitzgerald walks into court and says: RULE 29 GRANTED. 😳😳😳 Depending on which counts were granted, Durk could potentially have counts taken completely OUT OF THE JURY’S HANDS—and if judgment of acquittal were granted on every remaining count against him, THAT COULD END DURK’S CASE WITHOUT THE JURY CONVICTING HIM. 🚨🔥 I BEEN TELLING Y’ALL… RULE 29 AIN’T DEAD. IT’S PENDING. 👀⚖️ Tuesday just got REAL interesting. #LilDurk #LilDurkTrial #OTF #Rule29 #FreeDurkshow more

DONAT

5,083 subscribers

96,549 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Musik Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

39 Kommentare

Profilbild von 🙊

🙊vor 22 Tagen

@donatpov u say traploreross is bias but somehow in 11 days of trial you have yet to give the prosecution credit for anything but only say the defense is coming them in everything. It’s clear as day ur a bias dickrider tryna give durk fanboys hope. U are the most bias journalist

Profilbild von DONAT

DONATvor 22 Tagen

I’ve made several videos giving the Prosecutors their props. It just gets butchered on Cross-Examination. Day 11 was 7 defense witnesses 3 of which were cross examined and the others DEBUNKED the gov. Theory.

Profilbild von 🙊

🙊vor 22 Tagen

No you haven’t, you have put one tweet out saying the government did good when there was times they did. You know negative durk tweets gets you hate but anything good about him gets all the clicks. Just admit ur a small creator looking for free clout so ur chasing it

Profilbild von 🙊

🙊vor 22 Tagen

*haven’t

Profilbild von Zay

Zayvor 22 Tagen

Durk isn’t coming home no time soon , he still has 2 cases to beat AFTER this.

Profilbild von Dillon Daniel

Dillon Danielvor 22 Tagen

😂😂😂 this pure engagement bait

Profilbild von Jaz Smithlyn

Jaz Smithlynvor 22 Tagen

Omg u on some super fanned out click bait pro Durk shit ctfu ain’t no motions being granted this going to a jury calm tf down!!

Profilbild von 𝑴𝒊𝒅𝒏𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒚𝒆

𝑴𝒊𝒅𝒏𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒚𝒆vor 22 Tagen

Watch trap bitch Ross say the exact opposite lmao

Profilbild von Liminati

Liminativor 22 Tagen

He still has another murder case to fight back in Chicago bru

Profilbild von JupiterFL11

JupiterFL11vor 22 Tagen

The judge ain’t going to do that bro

Profilbild von Bettingbanks

Bettingbanksvor 22 Tagen

Yall forgetting bro got another case 😩

Profilbild von 𝐄𝐥𝐢♛

𝐄𝐥𝐢♛vor 22 Tagen

Misleading

Profilbild von Mont

Montvor 22 Tagen

Bro durk don’t and will never fuck wid you gang 😆 LIG it … Let It Go

Profilbild von Izzy Rich

Izzy Richvor 22 Tagen

This nigga high

Profilbild von Xomoneyman

Xomoneymanvor 22 Tagen

Glad u not out der taking lighters like u was tryna take mines Thursday 😂😂

Profilbild von DONAT

DONATvor 22 Tagen

🤣🤣🤣

Profilbild von Xomoneyman

Xomoneymanvor 22 Tagen

I’ll be back Tuesday for sure support 🫡..also keep up the good work ✊🏾

Profilbild von Hermann Ledloss

Hermann Ledlossvor 22 Tagen

Delusional.

Profilbild von JudgeJuryExecutioner

JudgeJuryExecutionervor 22 Tagen

You people are absolutely fucking retarded. Holy fuck.

Profilbild von Left Right Center MI

Left Right Center MIvor 22 Tagen

I fear you will be the most sad of all at the end of this

Profilbild von Dz

Dzvor 22 Tagen

You a bitch

Profilbild von youngdriller762

youngdriller762vor 22 Tagen

Free durk

Profilbild von ‘Jay BZA

‘Jay BZAvor 21 Tagen

False reporting

Profilbild von STILLIS

STILLISvor 22 Tagen

Mayne shut the fuck up . Y’all sound stupid

Profilbild von KT785🙏🏾🔥

KT785🙏🏾🔥vor 22 Tagen

Probably didn’t even say sorry for your loss one time to pabs family smh

Profilbild von JudgeJuryExecutioner

JudgeJuryExecutionervor 22 Tagen

He's got a whole nother RICO trial you dumb motherfuckers . And it's a jury trial not a bench trial. You people are so fucking stupid. He's not getting a bond IF he beats this case but he's not.

Profilbild von BBA🩸

BBA🩸vor 22 Tagen

Your high, the judge is against durk he’s on the prosecution side, he’s denying that

Profilbild von SB1's

SB1'svor 22 Tagen

DURK WON IN 6

Profilbild von 👾

👾vor 21 Tagen

And dude said trap was bias man you a goofy lmao

Profilbild von BAEHELPJAYLIN

BAEHELPJAYLINvor 21 Tagen

What rule 29 means

Profilbild von Bigga L

Bigga Lvor 22 Tagen

Shut up

Profilbild von hot fyre

hot fyrevor 21 Tagen

who is this dude drug dealer yeah he gotta be from mars lmfao

Profilbild von Who I love, Who I’ll Die 4

Who I love, Who I’ll Die 4vor 22 Tagen

Pending don’t mean it will be granted

Profilbild von Georgia

Georgiavor 21 Tagen

Anyone listening to your recaps are taking the same drugs as you.

Profilbild von Fettuccine’sⓂ️,

Fettuccine’sⓂ️,vor 22 Tagen

U tripping ctfu

Profilbild von Angel Rivera

Angel Riveravor 22 Tagen

Yo dumbass he is facing ANOTHER murder charge and bruh HE AIN’T NOT COMING HOME BRUH!

Profilbild von John Garrity

John Garrityvor 22 Tagen

Donat every single case defense files this same motion after prosecution rests and 99.9% of them fail it’s probably 100% I’ve never heard of a single one getting granted

Profilbild von deshanny

deshannyvor 22 Tagen

Im screamin Free Smurk

Profilbild von red death400

red death400vor 22 Tagen

😒😒😒

Ähnliche Videos

🚨🚨 OTF JAM JUST THREW A GRENADE INTO THE LIL DURK TRIAL DAYS BEFORE CLOSINGS! 😳💣⚖️ The Government’s KEY cooperating witness is on Instagram PUBLICLY discussing the SAME EVENTS he testified about AFTER the evidence closed?! 🤯 Jam is now saying Durk knew they were being followed because of the car, nobody warned them, AND he claims he came to LA without knowing what he was walking into! 👀 NAH… BRING THAT MAN BACK TO THE WITNESS STAND! 🎤⚖️ Durk’s defense could ask Judge Fitzgerald to REOPEN THE RECORD, RECALL JAM for more cross-examination, seek additional impeachment, demand an inquiry—and potentially MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL depending on what happened. 🚨 And Akademiks blasting the statement to MILLIONS right before the jury gets the case makes this even crazier! 📲🔥 THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN WITNESS JUST CREATED A WHOLE NEW ISSUE BEFORE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. Tuesday just got MESSY. 🍿⚖️ #LilDurk #LilDurkTrial #OTFJam #OTF #FreeDurk

🚨🚨 OTF JAM JUST THREW A GRENADE INTO THE LIL DURK TRIAL DAYS BEFORE CLOSINGS! 😳💣⚖️ The Government’s KEY cooperating witness is on Instagram PUBLICLY discussing the SAME EVENTS he testified about AFTER the evidence closed?! 🤯 Jam is now saying Durk knew they were being followed because of the car, nobody warned them, AND he claims he came to LA without knowing what he was walking into! 👀 NAH… BRING THAT MAN BACK TO THE WITNESS STAND! 🎤⚖️ Durk’s defense could ask Judge Fitzgerald to REOPEN THE RECORD, RECALL JAM for more cross-examination, seek additional impeachment, demand an inquiry—and potentially MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL depending on what happened. 🚨 And Akademiks blasting the statement to MILLIONS right before the jury gets the case makes this even crazier! 📲🔥 THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN WITNESS JUST CREATED A WHOLE NEW ISSUE BEFORE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. Tuesday just got MESSY. 🍿⚖️ #LilDurk #LilDurkTrial #OTFJam #OTF #FreeDurk

DONAT

51,869 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

🚨🔥 THE DEFENSE IS WINNING: REASONABLE DOUBT IS EVERYWHERE! 🔥⚖️ 🚨 JOIN MY DISCORD FOR LIVE LIL DURK TRIAL UPDATES + RECEIPTS: Lil Durk’s defense is building its case that DURK WAS SET UP — NOT RUNNING THE CONSPIRACY! 👀💣 The defense has presented evidence it says creates REASONABLE DOUBT about whether Durk knowingly participated in the alleged conspiracy. Their theory points toward Jason Smith and Vonnie, with Astronaut Sound, LLC and alleged unauthorized activity involving Durk’s American Express account becoming critical pieces of the puzzle. 💳🧩 And that TIMELINE matters: the defense says Durk messaged Jason Smith around 1:00 AM on August 18, 2022, telling him to “FALL BACK” regarding Quando Rondo — BEFORE Smith allegedly contacted OTF Jam and BEFORE the flight purchases. ✈️🚨 If Durk said FALL BACK, yet other people allegedly continued making moves using resources connected to him, the defense has a powerful question for the jury: Where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that DURK agreed to the conspiracy? ⚖️👀 The government still has its case to prove, but right now the defense is attacking the connection between Durk’s money and Durk’s intent. Those are NOT automatically the same thing. 🔥 #LilDurk #LilDurkTrial #OTF #OTFJam #QuandoRondo

🚨🔥 THE DEFENSE IS WINNING: REASONABLE DOUBT IS EVERYWHERE! 🔥⚖️ 🚨 JOIN MY DISCORD FOR LIVE LIL DURK TRIAL UPDATES + RECEIPTS: Lil Durk’s defense is building its case that DURK WAS SET UP — NOT RUNNING THE CONSPIRACY! 👀💣 The defense has presented evidence it says creates REASONABLE DOUBT about whether Durk knowingly participated in the alleged conspiracy. Their theory points toward Jason Smith and Vonnie, with Astronaut Sound, LLC and alleged unauthorized activity involving Durk’s American Express account becoming critical pieces of the puzzle. 💳🧩 And that TIMELINE matters: the defense says Durk messaged Jason Smith around 1:00 AM on August 18, 2022, telling him to “FALL BACK” regarding Quando Rondo — BEFORE Smith allegedly contacted OTF Jam and BEFORE the flight purchases. ✈️🚨 If Durk said FALL BACK, yet other people allegedly continued making moves using resources connected to him, the defense has a powerful question for the jury: Where is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that DURK agreed to the conspiracy? ⚖️👀 The government still has its case to prove, but right now the defense is attacking the connection between Durk’s money and Durk’s intent. Those are NOT automatically the same thing. 🔥 #LilDurk #LilDurkTrial #OTF #OTFJam #QuandoRondo

DONAT

57,406 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 LIL DURK TRIAL — DAY 7: OTF JAM’S OWN WORDS GOT THE COURTROOM LOOKING AT HIM DIFFERENT. 😳🐀⚖️ During testimony, allegations surfaced about Jam making disturbing threats involving his OWN FAMILY and even comments involving his son. 🤯 This is the SAME cooperating witness the Feds are asking the jury to believe against Lil Durk. At this point, Brian Steel isn’t just questioning Jam’s story — HE’S PUTTING JAM’S CHARACTER AND CREDIBILITY UNDER A MICROSCOPE. 🔬🔥 OTF JAM IS LOOKING LIKE A MONSTER ON THAT STAND. 👀 #LilDurk #LilDurkTrial #OTFJam #BrianSteel #Day7

🚨 LIL DURK TRIAL — DAY 7: OTF JAM’S OWN WORDS GOT THE COURTROOM LOOKING AT HIM DIFFERENT. 😳🐀⚖️ During testimony, allegations surfaced about Jam making disturbing threats involving his OWN FAMILY and even comments involving his son. 🤯 This is the SAME cooperating witness the Feds are asking the jury to believe against Lil Durk. At this point, Brian Steel isn’t just questioning Jam’s story — HE’S PUTTING JAM’S CHARACTER AND CREDIBILITY UNDER A MICROSCOPE. 🔬🔥 OTF JAM IS LOOKING LIKE A MONSTER ON THAT STAND. 👀 #LilDurk #LilDurkTrial #OTFJam #BrianSteel #Day7

DONAT

15,272 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 Akademiks and 6ix9ine debate what could happen when the Lil Durk verdict comes down tomorrow and say beating the murder-for-hire count alone still wouldn’t necessarily mean he walks free Ak says Durk would still need to beat several other major counts: “He really gotta beat four of the main ones.” Ak says even a 15–20 year outcome on a lesser count could be viewed as a win compared to what Durk is facing, also says the case may ultimately come down to whether the jury believes the cooperating witnesses. “If they do, he cooked. If they don’t… I could see them saying there’s reasonable doubt.”

🚨 Akademiks and 6ix9ine debate what could happen when the Lil Durk verdict comes down tomorrow and say beating the murder-for-hire count alone still wouldn’t necessarily mean he walks free Ak says Durk would still need to beat several other major counts: “He really gotta beat four of the main ones.” Ak says even a 15–20 year outcome on a lesser count could be viewed as a win compared to what Durk is facing, also says the case may ultimately come down to whether the jury believes the cooperating witnesses. “If they do, he cooked. If they don’t… I could see them saying there’s reasonable doubt.”

CY Chels

28,597 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

🚨 OTF Jam’s alleged testimony could become a major part of Lil Durk’s federal trial. According to hip-hop documentarian Trap Lore Ross, who attended the court hearing, Jam is expected to claim Durk and other OTF members once pulled him into a bathroom during a video shoot and warned him to slow down because his alleged actions could bring federal attention to the crew. Prosecutors also reportedly plan to reference the $50,000 Durk mentioned giving Jam on “Back Again,” with Jam allegedly expected to describe it as a reward for loyalty and an expectation that he could do things for Durk in the future. These remain allegations and expected testimony—not proven facts. Lil Durk is presumed innocent unless convicted. 👀⚖️ What do y’all think the jury will make of Jam’s testimony?

🚨 OTF Jam’s alleged testimony could become a major part of Lil Durk’s federal trial. According to hip-hop documentarian Trap Lore Ross, who attended the court hearing, Jam is expected to claim Durk and other OTF members once pulled him into a bathroom during a video shoot and warned him to slow down because his alleged actions could bring federal attention to the crew. Prosecutors also reportedly plan to reference the $50,000 Durk mentioned giving Jam on “Back Again,” with Jam allegedly expected to describe it as a reward for loyalty and an expectation that he could do things for Durk in the future. These remain allegations and expected testimony—not proven facts. Lil Durk is presumed innocent unless convicted. 👀⚖️ What do y’all think the jury will make of Jam’s testimony?

Traps N Trunks

29,098 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨👀 POPULAR LAWYER BRADFORD COHEN UPDATES & CLARIFIES HIS EARLIER STATEMENTS ABOUT LIL DURK’S NEXT CASE Bradford Cohen is giving a little more insight into the next federal case Lil Durk is facing after taking another look at the indictment and there are some VERY interesting legal questions surrounding it. 🧐 One of the biggest questions right now is whether the alleged October 5 incident involves a completely different victim and whether the government can rely on certain allegations that were already heavily litigated in Durk’s first trial. 🧐 COHEN POINTS TO THE INDICTMENT: ➡️ Cohen says the indictment contains an “overt acts” section that references other alleged conduct, including the Chicago incident. ➡️ However, he points out that Count 1 of the indictment appears to focus on the murder-for-hire allegation that Durk was JUST ACQUITTED of. ➡️ That could become extremely important when Durk’s attorneys begin filing motions challenging what evidence the government should be allowed to use in the next case. 🗣️ BRADFORD COHEN’S BIG QUESTION: Is it REALLY worth the U.S. Attorney’s Office moving forward with another trial when they could potentially have to rely on many of the same witnesses whose credibility was heavily attacked during the first trial? Cohen specifically points to the jail calls and testimony that he believes were “viciously” challenged during the previous proceedings. ⚖️ THE BOND QUESTION COULD ALSO BE HUGE Cohen believes the defense will likely seek bond pending the next trial and he believes Durk SHOULD be granted bond. His reasoning? Durk was found NOT GUILTY of the murder-for-hire charges that Cohen believes are closely connected to the substance of this next case. Of course, Cohen acknowledges that the judge ultimately gets to decide what happens with bond. 👀 AND THIS IS WHERE THE LEGAL WRANGLING GETS INTERESTING… Cohen says cases like this aren’t just about what happened on the surface. There are MANY layers: ➡️ What evidence can come in? ➡️ What evidence gets excluded? ➡️ What motions will the defense file? ➡️ How will the government respond? ➡️ Which witnesses can still be used? ➡️ And perhaps most importantly — HOW DO YOU PICK THE JURY? Cohen believes jury selection itself is one of the most important parts of winning a case, something that doesn’t always get discussed when people are simply watching the trial from the outside. 💭 MY THOUGHTS: This next chapter could get VERY interesting because the government isn’t just starting from scratch. There are now previous testimony, jail calls, witness credibility issues, motions and an entire first trial that Durk’s defense can potentially point back to. The big question is going to be whether the government believes it has enough to justify putting all of this through another trial and what evidence the judge ultimately allows them to use. 👀 WE’LL DEFINITELY BE WATCHING THIS ONE.

🚨👀 POPULAR LAWYER BRADFORD COHEN UPDATES & CLARIFIES HIS EARLIER STATEMENTS ABOUT LIL DURK’S NEXT CASE Bradford Cohen is giving a little more insight into the next federal case Lil Durk is facing after taking another look at the indictment and there are some VERY interesting legal questions surrounding it. 🧐 One of the biggest questions right now is whether the alleged October 5 incident involves a completely different victim and whether the government can rely on certain allegations that were already heavily litigated in Durk’s first trial. 🧐 COHEN POINTS TO THE INDICTMENT: ➡️ Cohen says the indictment contains an “overt acts” section that references other alleged conduct, including the Chicago incident. ➡️ However, he points out that Count 1 of the indictment appears to focus on the murder-for-hire allegation that Durk was JUST ACQUITTED of. ➡️ That could become extremely important when Durk’s attorneys begin filing motions challenging what evidence the government should be allowed to use in the next case. 🗣️ BRADFORD COHEN’S BIG QUESTION: Is it REALLY worth the U.S. Attorney’s Office moving forward with another trial when they could potentially have to rely on many of the same witnesses whose credibility was heavily attacked during the first trial? Cohen specifically points to the jail calls and testimony that he believes were “viciously” challenged during the previous proceedings. ⚖️ THE BOND QUESTION COULD ALSO BE HUGE Cohen believes the defense will likely seek bond pending the next trial and he believes Durk SHOULD be granted bond. His reasoning? Durk was found NOT GUILTY of the murder-for-hire charges that Cohen believes are closely connected to the substance of this next case. Of course, Cohen acknowledges that the judge ultimately gets to decide what happens with bond. 👀 AND THIS IS WHERE THE LEGAL WRANGLING GETS INTERESTING… Cohen says cases like this aren’t just about what happened on the surface. There are MANY layers: ➡️ What evidence can come in? ➡️ What evidence gets excluded? ➡️ What motions will the defense file? ➡️ How will the government respond? ➡️ Which witnesses can still be used? ➡️ And perhaps most importantly — HOW DO YOU PICK THE JURY? Cohen believes jury selection itself is one of the most important parts of winning a case, something that doesn’t always get discussed when people are simply watching the trial from the outside. 💭 MY THOUGHTS: This next chapter could get VERY interesting because the government isn’t just starting from scratch. There are now previous testimony, jail calls, witness credibility issues, motions and an entire first trial that Durk’s defense can potentially point back to. The big question is going to be whether the government believes it has enough to justify putting all of this through another trial and what evidence the judge ultimately allows them to use. 👀 WE’LL DEFINITELY BE WATCHING THIS ONE.

Cousin Tino ™️

50,755 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

🚨👀 DJ AKADEMIKS GETS A CALL FROM LAWYER BRADFORD COHEN AND HE’S SHOCKED OTF JAM POSTED ON INSTAGRAM DURING THE TRIAL DJ Akademiks received a call from popular attorney Bradford Cohen, who was in disbelief that OTF Jam allegedly posted messages to his Instagram while he is a cooperating witness in the middle of Lil Durk’s federal trial. And Cohen wasn’t holding back… 🗣️ Bradford Cohen: “This might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in a case.” According to Cohen, there is already testimony establishing that the Instagram account belongs to Jam. During his testimony, Jam reportedly said he instructed someone to use that same account to post a message involving his address. That makes the recent posts potentially even more significant. ⚖️ WHY COHEN SAYS THIS COULD BE A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR JAM Cohen explained that Jam chose to cooperate with the government, meaning he agreed to certain conditions as part of that cooperation. If Jam is now publicly discussing the case, attacking Lil Durk, or potentially making statements about other witnesses, Cohen believes that could create serious issues for his cooperation agreement. And then there’s the alleged 5K1.1 issue. Cohen pointed out that prosecutors have the ability to consider a cooperating witness’s conduct when determining whether they receive the benefits they were expecting from their cooperation. 👀 BUT HERE’S WHERE IT GETS EVEN MORE INTERESTING… Jam’s posts could potentially give Durk’s defense another avenue to argue that Jam has bias or animosity toward Durk. One of the messages reportedly included: “Fuck Durk.” Cohen believes statements like that could potentially reinforce an argument that Jam has a personal motive or bias against Durk. And there’s another issue… During cross-examination, Jam reportedly denied making certain negative statements about Durk. But if his recent Instagram posts contradict that testimony, the defense could potentially use that inconsistency to attack his credibility. 🧠 THE TIMING IS WHAT MAKES THIS EVEN CRAZIER The prosecution has rested. The defense has rested. Closing arguments are coming. And now a key government cooperating witness is allegedly making public statements about the case from behind bars. Cohen explained that this creates a difficult situation for the government and potentially the judge as well. Could the defense ask to reopen its case? Could Jam potentially be brought back to the stand? Could the defense seek a mistrial? Cohen said those are possibilities that could be raised, although he does not expect the judge to simply grant a mistrial. Instead, the judge could potentially look for ways to address the issue without derailing the entire trial. 🚨 AND HERE’S THE BIGGER PICTURE: According to Cohen, this could ultimately become another issue for the defense to raise regarding Jam’s credibility, bias, the terms of his cooperation, and potential appellate issues. As Cohen put it, this is basically another layer of problems the government now has to deal with. And all of this happened right before closing arguments. 👀 THIS TRIAL JUST GOT EVEN MORE INTERESTING.

🚨👀 DJ AKADEMIKS GETS A CALL FROM LAWYER BRADFORD COHEN AND HE’S SHOCKED OTF JAM POSTED ON INSTAGRAM DURING THE TRIAL DJ Akademiks received a call from popular attorney Bradford Cohen, who was in disbelief that OTF Jam allegedly posted messages to his Instagram while he is a cooperating witness in the middle of Lil Durk’s federal trial. And Cohen wasn’t holding back… 🗣️ Bradford Cohen: “This might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in a case.” According to Cohen, there is already testimony establishing that the Instagram account belongs to Jam. During his testimony, Jam reportedly said he instructed someone to use that same account to post a message involving his address. That makes the recent posts potentially even more significant. ⚖️ WHY COHEN SAYS THIS COULD BE A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR JAM Cohen explained that Jam chose to cooperate with the government, meaning he agreed to certain conditions as part of that cooperation. If Jam is now publicly discussing the case, attacking Lil Durk, or potentially making statements about other witnesses, Cohen believes that could create serious issues for his cooperation agreement. And then there’s the alleged 5K1.1 issue. Cohen pointed out that prosecutors have the ability to consider a cooperating witness’s conduct when determining whether they receive the benefits they were expecting from their cooperation. 👀 BUT HERE’S WHERE IT GETS EVEN MORE INTERESTING… Jam’s posts could potentially give Durk’s defense another avenue to argue that Jam has bias or animosity toward Durk. One of the messages reportedly included: “Fuck Durk.” Cohen believes statements like that could potentially reinforce an argument that Jam has a personal motive or bias against Durk. And there’s another issue… During cross-examination, Jam reportedly denied making certain negative statements about Durk. But if his recent Instagram posts contradict that testimony, the defense could potentially use that inconsistency to attack his credibility. 🧠 THE TIMING IS WHAT MAKES THIS EVEN CRAZIER The prosecution has rested. The defense has rested. Closing arguments are coming. And now a key government cooperating witness is allegedly making public statements about the case from behind bars. Cohen explained that this creates a difficult situation for the government and potentially the judge as well. Could the defense ask to reopen its case? Could Jam potentially be brought back to the stand? Could the defense seek a mistrial? Cohen said those are possibilities that could be raised, although he does not expect the judge to simply grant a mistrial. Instead, the judge could potentially look for ways to address the issue without derailing the entire trial. 🚨 AND HERE’S THE BIGGER PICTURE: According to Cohen, this could ultimately become another issue for the defense to raise regarding Jam’s credibility, bias, the terms of his cooperation, and potential appellate issues. As Cohen put it, this is basically another layer of problems the government now has to deal with. And all of this happened right before closing arguments. 👀 THIS TRIAL JUST GOT EVEN MORE INTERESTING.

Cousin Tino ™️

81,469 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

🚨 LIL DURK FEDERAL MURDER-FOR-HIRE TRIAL: KEY DETAILS FROM THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 👀 The government and defense filed 82 pages of joint proposed jury instructions ahead of trial. The document lays out how Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald could instruct the jury on the charges, evidence, witness credibility, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, reasonable doubt and the deliberation process. Here are some of the biggest points: 1️⃣ THE CHARGES The proposed instructions identify five counts for the jury instructions: • Count 1 — Stalking conspiracy • Count 2 — Stalking of Tyquian Bowman • Count 3 — Stalking of Saviay’a Robinson resulting in death • Count 4 — Conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire • Count 5 — Murder-for-hire resulting in death ⚠️ The filing notes that the defense objected to beginning with Count Two, so the parties renumbered the counts for the jury instructions. 2️⃣ PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE The proposed instructions make clear that all three defendants have pleaded not guilty and are presumed innocent unless the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The indictment itself is not evidence and does not prove the defendants committed anything. 3️⃣ THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN The jury would be instructed that the government must prove every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants do not have to prove their innocence or present evidence. 4️⃣ DURK DOESN’T HAVE TO TESTIFY If a defendant chooses not to testify, the jury cannot use that decision against him in any way. If a defendant does testify, the jury is instructed to evaluate his testimony the same way it evaluates testimony from any other witness. 5️⃣ WHAT COUNTS AS EVIDENCE The proposed instructions say the jury can consider: • Sworn testimony from witnesses • Exhibits admitted into evidence • Facts agreed upon by the parties But statements, arguments, questions and objections from attorneys are not evidence. 6️⃣ DIRECT VS. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The jury would be instructed that both direct and circumstantial evidence can be used to prove a fact. The law does not automatically give one type more weight than the other. 7️⃣ WITNESS CREDIBILITY WILL BE IMPORTANT Jurors can consider several factors when deciding whether to believe a witness, including: • What the witness could actually see or hear • Their memory • Their behavior while testifying • Possible interest in the outcome • Bias or prejudice • Contradictory evidence • Whether their testimony makes sense alongside the rest of the evidence The instructions also say a witness doesn’t automatically become completely unbelievable just because portions of their testimony conflict with other evidence. 8️⃣ A WITNESS WHO DELIBERATELY LIES If jurors determine that a witness deliberately lied about something important, they may choose not to believe anything that witness said. But they can also believe certain portions of testimony while rejecting other portions. 9️⃣ JURORS CANNOT FOLLOW SOCIAL MEDIA This is a BIG one. The proposed instructions specifically tell jurors they cannot discuss the case on: 📱 Instagram 📱 Twitter/X 📱 YouTube 📱 Facebook 📱 TikTok 📱 Snapchat 📱 Blogs 📱 Text messages 📱 Email 📱 Internet forums They also cannot communicate about the case with family, employers, the media or people involved in the trial. 🔟 NO RESEARCH Jurors cannot independently research: • The case • The law • The defendants • Witnesses • Attorneys • People involved in the case • Locations discussed during trial They also cannot search the Internet for information about the case. 1️⃣1️⃣ JURORS ARE WARNED ABOUT OUTSIDE INFORMATION If a juror accidentally sees or hears something about the case outside the courtroom, they are instructed to report it to the court immediately. The proposed instructions warn that violating these restrictions could jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings and potentially result in a mistrial.

🚨 LIL DURK FEDERAL MURDER-FOR-HIRE TRIAL: KEY DETAILS FROM THE PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 👀 The government and defense filed 82 pages of joint proposed jury instructions ahead of trial. The document lays out how Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald could instruct the jury on the charges, evidence, witness credibility, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, reasonable doubt and the deliberation process. Here are some of the biggest points: 1️⃣ THE CHARGES The proposed instructions identify five counts for the jury instructions: • Count 1 — Stalking conspiracy • Count 2 — Stalking of Tyquian Bowman • Count 3 — Stalking of Saviay’a Robinson resulting in death • Count 4 — Conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire • Count 5 — Murder-for-hire resulting in death ⚠️ The filing notes that the defense objected to beginning with Count Two, so the parties renumbered the counts for the jury instructions. 2️⃣ PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE The proposed instructions make clear that all three defendants have pleaded not guilty and are presumed innocent unless the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The indictment itself is not evidence and does not prove the defendants committed anything. 3️⃣ THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN The jury would be instructed that the government must prove every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants do not have to prove their innocence or present evidence. 4️⃣ DURK DOESN’T HAVE TO TESTIFY If a defendant chooses not to testify, the jury cannot use that decision against him in any way. If a defendant does testify, the jury is instructed to evaluate his testimony the same way it evaluates testimony from any other witness. 5️⃣ WHAT COUNTS AS EVIDENCE The proposed instructions say the jury can consider: • Sworn testimony from witnesses • Exhibits admitted into evidence • Facts agreed upon by the parties But statements, arguments, questions and objections from attorneys are not evidence. 6️⃣ DIRECT VS. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The jury would be instructed that both direct and circumstantial evidence can be used to prove a fact. The law does not automatically give one type more weight than the other. 7️⃣ WITNESS CREDIBILITY WILL BE IMPORTANT Jurors can consider several factors when deciding whether to believe a witness, including: • What the witness could actually see or hear • Their memory • Their behavior while testifying • Possible interest in the outcome • Bias or prejudice • Contradictory evidence • Whether their testimony makes sense alongside the rest of the evidence The instructions also say a witness doesn’t automatically become completely unbelievable just because portions of their testimony conflict with other evidence. 8️⃣ A WITNESS WHO DELIBERATELY LIES If jurors determine that a witness deliberately lied about something important, they may choose not to believe anything that witness said. But they can also believe certain portions of testimony while rejecting other portions. 9️⃣ JURORS CANNOT FOLLOW SOCIAL MEDIA This is a BIG one. The proposed instructions specifically tell jurors they cannot discuss the case on: 📱 Instagram 📱 Twitter/X 📱 YouTube 📱 Facebook 📱 TikTok 📱 Snapchat 📱 Blogs 📱 Text messages 📱 Email 📱 Internet forums They also cannot communicate about the case with family, employers, the media or people involved in the trial. 🔟 NO RESEARCH Jurors cannot independently research: • The case • The law • The defendants • Witnesses • Attorneys • People involved in the case • Locations discussed during trial They also cannot search the Internet for information about the case. 1️⃣1️⃣ JURORS ARE WARNED ABOUT OUTSIDE INFORMATION If a juror accidentally sees or hears something about the case outside the courtroom, they are instructed to report it to the court immediately. The proposed instructions warn that violating these restrictions could jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings and potentially result in a mistrial.

Cousin Tino ™️

28,560 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

🚨 CousinTino Breaks Down What He Saw From The Potential Jurors On Day 1 Of The Lil Durk Trial 👀⚖️ CousinTino gave his initial observations after watching potential jurors enter the jury assembly area on Day 1 of the Lil Durk, Dede & Browneyez murder-for-hire trial. According to Tino, the jury pool he saw appeared to skew 35 and older, with what he described as a predominantly Caucasian group and relatively few younger Black jurors. Tino estimated that he saw roughly 5 Black people, 8 Latino people and 6 Asian people, with the remainder of the group appearing to be predominantly white. He believes the makeup of the potential jury could present a challenge for the defense, particularly with the government expected to present evidence involving alleged street activity, lyrics and other material connected to the case. 🗣️ CousinTino: “It’s going to be an uphill battle. It’s not only is he going to have to fight the evidence, he’s going to have to fight some of them jurors.” Tino also questioned how certain jurors might react to some of the evidence expected to be played in court, while acknowledging that his observations are based solely on what he saw during jury assembly. The court is currently working through approximately 80 potential jurors with the goal of narrowing the pool down to 16, while also determining whether any prospective jurors have personal or family connections to the defendants or others involved in the case. Tino ultimately believes the defense team — including Brian Steel, Drew Findling, Christy O’Connor and others — could have their hands full depending on who makes the final jury. ⚠️ Tino’s comments are his personal observations and opinions, not a determination of how any individual juror will ultimately view the case. Jurors are required to base their decisions on the evidence and the law. 👀 What do you make of CousinTino’s observations from Day 1 of jury selection?

🚨 CousinTino Breaks Down What He Saw From The Potential Jurors On Day 1 Of The Lil Durk Trial 👀⚖️ CousinTino gave his initial observations after watching potential jurors enter the jury assembly area on Day 1 of the Lil Durk, Dede & Browneyez murder-for-hire trial. According to Tino, the jury pool he saw appeared to skew 35 and older, with what he described as a predominantly Caucasian group and relatively few younger Black jurors. Tino estimated that he saw roughly 5 Black people, 8 Latino people and 6 Asian people, with the remainder of the group appearing to be predominantly white. He believes the makeup of the potential jury could present a challenge for the defense, particularly with the government expected to present evidence involving alleged street activity, lyrics and other material connected to the case. 🗣️ CousinTino: “It’s going to be an uphill battle. It’s not only is he going to have to fight the evidence, he’s going to have to fight some of them jurors.” Tino also questioned how certain jurors might react to some of the evidence expected to be played in court, while acknowledging that his observations are based solely on what he saw during jury assembly. The court is currently working through approximately 80 potential jurors with the goal of narrowing the pool down to 16, while also determining whether any prospective jurors have personal or family connections to the defendants or others involved in the case. Tino ultimately believes the defense team — including Brian Steel, Drew Findling, Christy O’Connor and others — could have their hands full depending on who makes the final jury. ⚠️ Tino’s comments are his personal observations and opinions, not a determination of how any individual juror will ultimately view the case. Jurors are required to base their decisions on the evidence and the law. 👀 What do you make of CousinTino’s observations from Day 1 of jury selection?

Cousin Tino ™️

11,568 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

BREAKING.🚨 Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a UNANIMOUS verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump. "One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices." "This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?" "Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent," said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. "Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime." "And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom." "If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is." The jury has now gone to deliberations.

Kyle Becker

5,835,348 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

DJ Akademiks BREAKS DOWN what he believes could be Lil Durk’s defense strategy, saying his lawyers may focus on beating the HIGHEST charges and limiting his potential sentence 👀 Ak explains the distinction between the alleged Lil Pab stalking charge, which he says is tied to a death and could carry life, versus the alleged Quando Rando stalking charge, which he says carries around 10 years. He also highlights the courtroom dispute over whether someone can legally be considered stalked if they didn’t know they were being stalked, calling the defense’s position potentially “good news” for Durk. 😳 “ if they can’t be all the cases .. a clean sweep .. the charge they argue to make sure they can kind of pick out it the stalking of quando rando “

DJ Akademiks BREAKS DOWN what he believes could be Lil Durk’s defense strategy, saying his lawyers may focus on beating the HIGHEST charges and limiting his potential sentence 👀 Ak explains the distinction between the alleged Lil Pab stalking charge, which he says is tied to a death and could carry life, versus the alleged Quando Rando stalking charge, which he says carries around 10 years. He also highlights the courtroom dispute over whether someone can legally be considered stalked if they didn’t know they were being stalked, calling the defense’s position potentially “good news” for Durk. 😳 “ if they can’t be all the cases .. a clean sweep .. the charge they argue to make sure they can kind of pick out it the stalking of quando rando “

Akademiks TV

20,443 Aufrufe • vor 19 Tagen

Judge schedules Nov 4 bond hearing for Lil Durk. This means you will not see a trial on Oct 4. If he gets the bond, it’s huge. Here’s why: You will see a double jeopardy motion to dismiss. That’s going to take a fair amount of time to brief and then for the Judge to decide. Even after it has decided, there will most certainly be an appeal regardless of who wins. So while all that is playing out if you are out on bond, you are winning. And now it makes sense why we didn’t see such a fast pond motion. Do you want to take your time and get this motion together as fully and completely as you can in terms of the bond package, the Security that’s gonna monitor him, and the legal arguments for why the bond should be granted. Also, you want the judge to be looking at the motion to dismiss at the same time as the bond motion if you were the defendant and by taking your time you have allowed yourself to do that.

Judge schedules Nov 4 bond hearing for Lil Durk. This means you will not see a trial on Oct 4. If he gets the bond, it’s huge. Here’s why: You will see a double jeopardy motion to dismiss. That’s going to take a fair amount of time to brief and then for the Judge to decide. Even after it has decided, there will most certainly be an appeal regardless of who wins. So while all that is playing out if you are out on bond, you are winning. And now it makes sense why we didn’t see such a fast pond motion. Do you want to take your time and get this motion together as fully and completely as you can in terms of the bond package, the Security that’s gonna monitor him, and the legal arguments for why the bond should be granted. Also, you want the judge to be looking at the motion to dismiss at the same time as the bond motion if you were the defendant and by taking your time you have allowed yourself to do that.

Mohammed (Moe) Gangat

63,741 Aufrufe • vor 9 Tagen

Charleston White crashes out on Akademiks for helping Lil Durk get a not guilty verdict after Akademiks claimed the video evidence shown in court was scripted. “It’s a black mother over there crying, we all know he was guilty AK, you the reason he got away ni—a. When the judge brought that sh-t up, when you said that sh-t was a script, you the one who f—ked this sh-t up AK, I swear to God ni—a, you the reason for the f—k up, you know how many victims you’ve hurt because of that AK… Until you came, and gave a public statement. Until you said what you said the jury didn’t need nothing, you wrong AK… Before you said what you said, the jury convened and the judge had to throw your name up in it and they said they was wrong, up until that point, you was the evidence they needed and had to convict him, and then you came with that bullsh-t, you saved that ni—a life my ni—a, and everybody know it, and I’m mad as a mf, I hope they slam that ni—a in the state court… DJ Akademiks, It’s some victim mothers who have buried their son to g-n violence and the people who have k-lled them get to rap and sing about it and you help them… The jury ain’t ask for no evidence until you did that sh-t, they filed that motion, and the judge had to make that statement infront of the jury. Your video was used as evidence as self-confession.”

Charleston White crashes out on Akademiks for helping Lil Durk get a not guilty verdict after Akademiks claimed the video evidence shown in court was scripted. “It’s a black mother over there crying, we all know he was guilty AK, you the reason he got away ni—a. When the judge brought that sh-t up, when you said that sh-t was a script, you the one who f—ked this sh-t up AK, I swear to God ni—a, you the reason for the f—k up, you know how many victims you’ve hurt because of that AK… Until you came, and gave a public statement. Until you said what you said the jury didn’t need nothing, you wrong AK… Before you said what you said, the jury convened and the judge had to throw your name up in it and they said they was wrong, up until that point, you was the evidence they needed and had to convict him, and then you came with that bullsh-t, you saved that ni—a life my ni—a, and everybody know it, and I’m mad as a mf, I hope they slam that ni—a in the state court… DJ Akademiks, It’s some victim mothers who have buried their son to g-n violence and the people who have k-lled them get to rap and sing about it and you help them… The jury ain’t ask for no evidence until you did that sh-t, they filed that motion, and the judge had to make that statement infront of the jury. Your video was used as evidence as self-confession.”

FearBuck

393,703 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

Yale Law Professor Has Brilliant Plan for Trump Legal Team to Overturn 'Guilty' Verdict Before the Election "Could Trump actually be put in jail? You bet he could." "Each count of this 34 count indictment has a maximum penalty attached to it of four years. Well, that's four times 34. That's a maximum sentence, prison sentence of 136 years." "Will he do that? Of course not. He won't. But could he sentence him to some incarceration? Yes, he could. Will he? Nobody knows." Yale Law Professor Jeb Rubenfield, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law, counseled the Trump legal team on a course of action that could potentially see his 'guilty' verdict overturned before the 2024 election. "Now, when is sentencing scheduled for? Well, Judge Merchan has set it for July 11th." "Will something happen between then and now? Yes. Trump's team will ask for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict." "They'll ask for Judge Merchan to throw out the jury's verdict and find Trump innocent despite the verdict, and Judge Merchan will turn that down." "Then there will be arguments about what the sentence should be briefing on both sides, possibly even a hearing. Then on July 11th, sentencing will be announced. And at that point, that triggers the Trump team's right to appeal." "To what court would they appeal? Well, they would appeal to New York's appellate level court... And after the appellate court rules, then the case could go up to New York's highest court, which is actually called the Court of Appeals... And after that, the case could go up to the Supreme Court." "And ultimately it might well go to the Supreme Court where finally we will have a definitive, conclusive ruling on whether the conviction was constitutional or not." Professor Rubenfield identified a massive, glaring problem with this legal appeals process. "Of course that would take years, and that's a problem here. Why is it a problem? It's a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election." "There are surveys, many polls in which a substantial number of American voters say they will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a felony. Many independents say that, many Republicans even say that. If that's true, an unlawful conviction in this case could interfere with and in fact decide the outcome of the next election of the next President of the United States" "Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone in legal terms. That's called IRREPARABLE HARM. The irreparable harm, once again, is that a 'convicted felon' could affect the election, could decide the election." "And if so, then District Attorney Bragg and Judge Merchan will have UNLAWFULLY INTERFERED with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means. And no years long appeal could have any effect on that." This is the critical point that Professor Rubenfield makes: There is another way. "Well, is that where we are? So are we stuck with that possibility? Well, believe it or not, there is one other avenue that the Trump lawyers could pursue. They could sue in federal court and ask for an emergency temporary restraining order." "Restraining order of what? Well, let me tell you something that you might not know. You've probably been reading in the press if you've been reading about this case. The Trump is already a "convicted felon." The jury has convicted him. He's a "convicted felon." "Well, guess what? THAT'S NOT TRUE." "You're not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You're not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you. The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt." "Now in New York, it's very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issued sentencing. That'd be July 11th." "So what would this federal case be about in this federal action? Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here." "Let me tell you why I think that might be a very important thing to happen. Because going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a VERY BAD LOOK for this country." "It's an especially bad look when the folks bring in the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party. And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial." "And even now, we don't know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of. If you're going to go after a former president and somebody who's running for president now the poll leading candidate, if you're a member of the other party and you're going to do that, YOU BETTER HAVE THE GOODS. You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball. It's not even clear what the charges are." "That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad and dangerous precedent." "That's why it's so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution and decide, was it constitutional, was it not?" "The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts and maybe the Supreme Court itself can on an emergency basis adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments." "If that doesn't happen, then that IRREPARABLE HARM danger that I mentioned before, well that's where we are." "But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place." "Maybe that's what the nation needs and maybe that's what the law requires here. So if I were Trump's lawyer, that's probably what I would do."

Yale Law Professor Has Brilliant Plan for Trump Legal Team to Overturn 'Guilty' Verdict Before the Election "Could Trump actually be put in jail? You bet he could." "Each count of this 34 count indictment has a maximum penalty attached to it of four years. Well, that's four times 34. That's a maximum sentence, prison sentence of 136 years." "Will he do that? Of course not. He won't. But could he sentence him to some incarceration? Yes, he could. Will he? Nobody knows." Yale Law Professor Jeb Rubenfield, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law, counseled the Trump legal team on a course of action that could potentially see his 'guilty' verdict overturned before the 2024 election. "Now, when is sentencing scheduled for? Well, Judge Merchan has set it for July 11th." "Will something happen between then and now? Yes. Trump's team will ask for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict." "They'll ask for Judge Merchan to throw out the jury's verdict and find Trump innocent despite the verdict, and Judge Merchan will turn that down." "Then there will be arguments about what the sentence should be briefing on both sides, possibly even a hearing. Then on July 11th, sentencing will be announced. And at that point, that triggers the Trump team's right to appeal." "To what court would they appeal? Well, they would appeal to New York's appellate level court... And after the appellate court rules, then the case could go up to New York's highest court, which is actually called the Court of Appeals... And after that, the case could go up to the Supreme Court." "And ultimately it might well go to the Supreme Court where finally we will have a definitive, conclusive ruling on whether the conviction was constitutional or not." Professor Rubenfield identified a massive, glaring problem with this legal appeals process. "Of course that would take years, and that's a problem here. Why is it a problem? It's a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election." "There are surveys, many polls in which a substantial number of American voters say they will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a felony. Many independents say that, many Republicans even say that. If that's true, an unlawful conviction in this case could interfere with and in fact decide the outcome of the next election of the next President of the United States" "Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone in legal terms. That's called IRREPARABLE HARM. The irreparable harm, once again, is that a 'convicted felon' could affect the election, could decide the election." "And if so, then District Attorney Bragg and Judge Merchan will have UNLAWFULLY INTERFERED with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means. And no years long appeal could have any effect on that." This is the critical point that Professor Rubenfield makes: There is another way. "Well, is that where we are? So are we stuck with that possibility? Well, believe it or not, there is one other avenue that the Trump lawyers could pursue. They could sue in federal court and ask for an emergency temporary restraining order." "Restraining order of what? Well, let me tell you something that you might not know. You've probably been reading in the press if you've been reading about this case. The Trump is already a "convicted felon." The jury has convicted him. He's a "convicted felon." "Well, guess what? THAT'S NOT TRUE." "You're not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You're not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you. The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt." "Now in New York, it's very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issued sentencing. That'd be July 11th." "So what would this federal case be about in this federal action? Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here." "Let me tell you why I think that might be a very important thing to happen. Because going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a VERY BAD LOOK for this country." "It's an especially bad look when the folks bring in the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party. And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial." "And even now, we don't know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of. If you're going to go after a former president and somebody who's running for president now the poll leading candidate, if you're a member of the other party and you're going to do that, YOU BETTER HAVE THE GOODS. You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball. It's not even clear what the charges are." "That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad and dangerous precedent." "That's why it's so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution and decide, was it constitutional, was it not?" "The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts and maybe the Supreme Court itself can on an emergency basis adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments." "If that doesn't happen, then that IRREPARABLE HARM danger that I mentioned before, well that's where we are." "But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place." "Maybe that's what the nation needs and maybe that's what the law requires here. So if I were Trump's lawyer, that's probably what I would do."

Kyle Becker

804,540 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Just today I realized how fucking insane it was to put him on the witness list —in a murder trial where he didn’t know a single person involved in this or had been to Canton, let alone 34 Fairview, on 1/29/22. We knew it was to shut him up (“can you do something - so he’ll stop blogging about us “) and that pissed us off sure🤬 … but holy shit - how desensitized I became from the constant Canton fuckery that Brennan putting him on the list was one of the most obvious displays of a fraud on the court and true obstruction of justice. Just like withholding the FBI’s involvement from the jury! That is a judge selecting what “is important” for the jury to know to come to their own conclusion. Just like Chief Rafferty withholding video evidence, that’s obstruction of justice. 🤬🤣 Who else is re-triggered for justice again! Ha!!! 👋🏼

Just today I realized how fucking insane it was to put him on the witness list —in a murder trial where he didn’t know a single person involved in this or had been to Canton, let alone 34 Fairview, on 1/29/22. We knew it was to shut him up (“can you do something - so he’ll stop blogging about us “) and that pissed us off sure🤬 … but holy shit - how desensitized I became from the constant Canton fuckery that Brennan putting him on the list was one of the most obvious displays of a fraud on the court and true obstruction of justice. Just like withholding the FBI’s involvement from the jury! That is a judge selecting what “is important” for the jury to know to come to their own conclusion. Just like Chief Rafferty withholding video evidence, that’s obstruction of justice. 🤬🤣 Who else is re-triggered for justice again! Ha!!! 👋🏼

Malicious Prosecution

16,213 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨👀 Lil Durk Trial Update: Trap Lore Ross Responds After Being Approached By Durk Supporters Outside Courthouse Trap Lore Ross addressed a video circulating online that shows him being approached outside the courthouse by people who questioned his reporting on the Lil Durk trial and challenged him over why he wouldn’t say “Free Lil Durk.” Ross says he found the interaction funny at the time, especially because the person accused him of doing “police stuff” while standing outside a federal courthouse where the actual prosecutors and federal agents were inside the courtroom. However, Ross says the incident was more serious because it allegedly marked the third time someone has attempted to interfere with his reporting outside the courthouse. Ross also described a previous encounter with a person who repeatedly appeared in the background of his videos. He claims that when he later approached the individual and asked who they were and what they were doing, they refused to provide any information. According to Ross, that same person later approached him again and allegedly made comments that he viewed as intimidating toward him, his security and people he had met around the courthouse. Ross also claims another individual showed up wearing a mask and using a speaker in an apparent attempt to disrupt his filming. 🗣️ Trap Lore Ross: “All of these people that are trying to meddle in what I’m doing, you’re making things worse for Lil Durk.” Ross pointed to the judge recently admonishing people for handing out “Free Durk” flyers inside the courthouse, arguing that attempts to intimidate or interfere with reporters could create an even bigger issue for Durk and his defense. He also said he doesn’t believe Durk’s team is happy about the behavior happening outside the courthouse. Ross overall message: If you’re trying to support Lil Durk, he believes confronting reporters, disrupting coverage or attempting to intimidate people could ultimately hurt more than help. 🧐 What Do You All Think?

🚨👀 Lil Durk Trial Update: Trap Lore Ross Responds After Being Approached By Durk Supporters Outside Courthouse Trap Lore Ross addressed a video circulating online that shows him being approached outside the courthouse by people who questioned his reporting on the Lil Durk trial and challenged him over why he wouldn’t say “Free Lil Durk.” Ross says he found the interaction funny at the time, especially because the person accused him of doing “police stuff” while standing outside a federal courthouse where the actual prosecutors and federal agents were inside the courtroom. However, Ross says the incident was more serious because it allegedly marked the third time someone has attempted to interfere with his reporting outside the courthouse. Ross also described a previous encounter with a person who repeatedly appeared in the background of his videos. He claims that when he later approached the individual and asked who they were and what they were doing, they refused to provide any information. According to Ross, that same person later approached him again and allegedly made comments that he viewed as intimidating toward him, his security and people he had met around the courthouse. Ross also claims another individual showed up wearing a mask and using a speaker in an apparent attempt to disrupt his filming. 🗣️ Trap Lore Ross: “All of these people that are trying to meddle in what I’m doing, you’re making things worse for Lil Durk.” Ross pointed to the judge recently admonishing people for handing out “Free Durk” flyers inside the courthouse, arguing that attempts to intimidate or interfere with reporters could create an even bigger issue for Durk and his defense. He also said he doesn’t believe Durk’s team is happy about the behavior happening outside the courthouse. Ross overall message: If you’re trying to support Lil Durk, he believes confronting reporters, disrupting coverage or attempting to intimidate people could ultimately hurt more than help. 🧐 What Do You All Think?

Cousin Tino ™️

49,362 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨👀 FBI JAM JUST MADE A POST ON HIS IG AND HE HAD A LOT TO SAY ABOUT DURK FBI Jam is speaking out after everything that has unfolded, and he is placing a lot of the blame directly on Lil Durk. Here’s the main message from his post 👇🏽 🗣️ “Fuck Durk.” 👀 Jam says money made Durk a leader, but argues that someone who has never truly been a soldier can’t fully understand how to lead one. He claims a real leader would never ask people he loves to do something he wouldn’t do himself—or put his own people in a bad position. Jam also explained his perspective on what happened: • He says he had just served 12 years and had only been free for about six months, experiencing being a free father to his son for the first time. • According to Jam, he received a call telling him to come to Los Angeles, but says he wasn’t told exactly what he was coming for. • He claims that when he arrived, he was confronted with a situation involving people he didn’t know and in a city he wasn’t familiar with. • Jam acknowledges that none of this makes what happened right but says he believes Durk was more concerned with his image and reputation than protecting the people around him. 👀 JAM’S BIGGEST ACCUSATION: Jam claims Durk knew law enforcement was onto them because of the vehicle involved, but says neither he, Boogie, nor Dede were warned. He referenced testimony in court and said Durk allegedly told them “they doing they job” instead of warning them to get out of town or helping them financially. Jam’s argument is essentially: A real leader would’ve warned his people. Instead, he believes Durk was focused on protecting his image and making sure people could continue saying “Slide for Von.” 👀 Jam ended the post making it clear that he isn’t bothered by what Durk fans have to say about him. He says the only person he’s really mad at is himself for getting involved with people he now considers “goofy” and giving people something to talk about. ⚠️ These are Jam’s allegations and opinions expressed in his IG post—not established facts.

🚨👀 FBI JAM JUST MADE A POST ON HIS IG AND HE HAD A LOT TO SAY ABOUT DURK FBI Jam is speaking out after everything that has unfolded, and he is placing a lot of the blame directly on Lil Durk. Here’s the main message from his post 👇🏽 🗣️ “Fuck Durk.” 👀 Jam says money made Durk a leader, but argues that someone who has never truly been a soldier can’t fully understand how to lead one. He claims a real leader would never ask people he loves to do something he wouldn’t do himself—or put his own people in a bad position. Jam also explained his perspective on what happened: • He says he had just served 12 years and had only been free for about six months, experiencing being a free father to his son for the first time. • According to Jam, he received a call telling him to come to Los Angeles, but says he wasn’t told exactly what he was coming for. • He claims that when he arrived, he was confronted with a situation involving people he didn’t know and in a city he wasn’t familiar with. • Jam acknowledges that none of this makes what happened right but says he believes Durk was more concerned with his image and reputation than protecting the people around him. 👀 JAM’S BIGGEST ACCUSATION: Jam claims Durk knew law enforcement was onto them because of the vehicle involved, but says neither he, Boogie, nor Dede were warned. He referenced testimony in court and said Durk allegedly told them “they doing they job” instead of warning them to get out of town or helping them financially. Jam’s argument is essentially: A real leader would’ve warned his people. Instead, he believes Durk was focused on protecting his image and making sure people could continue saying “Slide for Von.” 👀 Jam ended the post making it clear that he isn’t bothered by what Durk fans have to say about him. He says the only person he’s really mad at is himself for getting involved with people he now considers “goofy” and giving people something to talk about. ⚠️ These are Jam’s allegations and opinions expressed in his IG post—not established facts.

Cousin Tino ™️

160,982 Aufrufe • vor 21 Tagen

🚨WHAT ON EARTH?!!! A MASSIVE MANHUNT is underway for a convicted felon who was found GUILTY by a Texas jury... ...but the judge let him WALK OUT THE DOOR and told him to come back for sentencing the "next day." He NEVER DID... OF COURSE!!!! Even the DA BEGGED the judge not to, she said, "this guy's not coming back." And just to be perfectly clear: The jury convicted him... and then the JUDGE sent him home on the freaking HONOR SYSTEM. His name is Jamarcus Robinson. He's 33. On August 17th, a Chambers County, Texas jury found him guilty of illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Instead of cuffing him right there, like the sheriff says normally happens after a guilty verdict, the judge let the jury go home and told Robinson to come back the NEXT day to be sentenced. The District Attorney saw it coming a mile away. In her own words: "I said, 'Please have the judge call me before he sends him home, because this guy's NOT coming back.' Sure enough, my prediction came true." Robinson went home... and then he vanished. The judge sentenced him to 10 years anyway, even though he WAS NOT EVEN THERE IN THE COURT ROOM AND THEY ARE STILL LOOKING FOR HIM. Now the Chambers County Sheriff AND the FBI are burning manpower hunting a man who should already be in a cell. It gets worse. This isn't even his only gun case. He's ALSO wanted in Harris County for the exact same crime, felon with a firearm. His record already includes assault causing bodily injury. As the DA put it: it's "a waste of manpower" and it's "putting the entire society at risk." The DA predicted EXACTLY what would happen, the judge IGNORED HER and of course... it happened. How hard is this? You convict a felon... you KEEP him IN JAIL... OBVIOUSLY!!!!!! WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS.

🚨WHAT ON EARTH?!!! A MASSIVE MANHUNT is underway for a convicted felon who was found GUILTY by a Texas jury... ...but the judge let him WALK OUT THE DOOR and told him to come back for sentencing the "next day." He NEVER DID... OF COURSE!!!! Even the DA BEGGED the judge not to, she said, "this guy's not coming back." And just to be perfectly clear: The jury convicted him... and then the JUDGE sent him home on the freaking HONOR SYSTEM. His name is Jamarcus Robinson. He's 33. On August 17th, a Chambers County, Texas jury found him guilty of illegally possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. Instead of cuffing him right there, like the sheriff says normally happens after a guilty verdict, the judge let the jury go home and told Robinson to come back the NEXT day to be sentenced. The District Attorney saw it coming a mile away. In her own words: "I said, 'Please have the judge call me before he sends him home, because this guy's NOT coming back.' Sure enough, my prediction came true." Robinson went home... and then he vanished. The judge sentenced him to 10 years anyway, even though he WAS NOT EVEN THERE IN THE COURT ROOM AND THEY ARE STILL LOOKING FOR HIM. Now the Chambers County Sheriff AND the FBI are burning manpower hunting a man who should already be in a cell. It gets worse. This isn't even his only gun case. He's ALSO wanted in Harris County for the exact same crime, felon with a firearm. His record already includes assault causing bodily injury. As the DA put it: it's "a waste of manpower" and it's "putting the entire society at risk." The DA predicted EXACTLY what would happen, the judge IGNORED HER and of course... it happened. How hard is this? You convict a felon... you KEEP him IN JAIL... OBVIOUSLY!!!!!! WE DO NOT HAVE TO LIVE LIKE THIS.

Matt Van Swol

340,339 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Lil Durk Update - Day 1 of Trial - JURY SELECTION In a federal criminal trial, picking the jury is basically like picking 12 referees for the biggest game of someone’s life. The court starts with a big group; judge tells them a little about the case and asks questions to see if anyone has a reason they cannot be fair. The questioning part is called “voir dire,” which is just a fancy French way of saying, “Who are you, and can you actually be fair?” People can be kicked off the jury for a real reason, which is called being removed “for cause.” Then both sides also get a few chances to say, “Nah, not that person,” without proving the person is biased. Those are called peremptory challenges. Here is where it gets interesting. The people who end up in federal court as defendants do not always look like the people sitting in the jury box. In 2025, about 23% of people sentenced in federal court were Black, and about 88% of everyone sentenced was male. More than 4,000 Black males age 30 or younger were sentenced in federal court that year. While there is no reliable nationwide number telling us exactly how many young Black men actually make it onto federal juries. Researchers have found, though, that Black people are underrepresented in federal jury pools, sometimes because fewer people respond to jury summonses or because of the way the lists are built. My own experience says young black males are simply absent from jury pools, as well as young men, generally being underrepresented. While a Black defendant is not legally entitled to have Black people, or young Black men, on his particular jury it does raise the question whether or not people are being tried by a jury of their peers.

Lil Durk Update - Day 1 of Trial - JURY SELECTION In a federal criminal trial, picking the jury is basically like picking 12 referees for the biggest game of someone’s life. The court starts with a big group; judge tells them a little about the case and asks questions to see if anyone has a reason they cannot be fair. The questioning part is called “voir dire,” which is just a fancy French way of saying, “Who are you, and can you actually be fair?” People can be kicked off the jury for a real reason, which is called being removed “for cause.” Then both sides also get a few chances to say, “Nah, not that person,” without proving the person is biased. Those are called peremptory challenges. Here is where it gets interesting. The people who end up in federal court as defendants do not always look like the people sitting in the jury box. In 2025, about 23% of people sentenced in federal court were Black, and about 88% of everyone sentenced was male. More than 4,000 Black males age 30 or younger were sentenced in federal court that year. While there is no reliable nationwide number telling us exactly how many young Black men actually make it onto federal juries. Researchers have found, though, that Black people are underrepresented in federal jury pools, sometimes because fewer people respond to jury summonses or because of the way the lists are built. My own experience says young black males are simply absent from jury pools, as well as young men, generally being underrepresented. While a Black defendant is not legally entitled to have Black people, or young Black men, on his particular jury it does raise the question whether or not people are being tried by a jury of their peers.

Mohammed (Moe) Gangat

78,290 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat