╌>

Trump Defense Implodes As It Rests It's Case

  
By:  John Russell  •  one month ago  •  59 comments


Trump Defense Implodes As It Rests It's Case
 

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks










Acyn

@Acyn






·














“I think the legal term to describe what we just saw from the prosecution in its cross of Robert Costello is Hoffinger beat the snot out of him”


==================================================================================


MeidasTouch
@MeidasTouch
·
30m
Calling Costello as a witness was a very bad decision by the defense.
Quote
Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
·
1h
Replying to @AnnaBower
Another 2018 email, this one from Costello to his law partner: "Our issue is to get Cohen on the right page without giving the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the President," Costello wrote.











Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    one month ago

Barring a MAGA mole on the jury, a conviction seems likely. 

Maybe the pos will get his wish on campaigning out of a jail cell. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
a conviction seems likely.

Don't think so but you hold on to that. And if there is one, it will be overturned on appeal.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

What difference does all this make anyway?  Even if he is found guilty it will be appealed all the way up to the SuTrump Court of America and there won't be a final result until 2025 at the earliest. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2    one month ago

He would be a convicted felon.  But even then, I doubt that would make any difference to anyone who would consider voting for Trump in the first place.  

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.2.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    one month ago
He would be a convicted felon.

which just seems to excite his base even more, just like scoring with an adult pornstar, for only $130,000.00, from the guy who had someone else author his book,\The Art of the Deal      Cause Don the Con can do no wrong, when you have the 'right' to, and on his side, cause who doesn't see a cult, needs To do the chore where as something swabbed off Donny's inner cheek, then under the microscope, take a peak

A BOO, at what and who we see

defending scum bag Don for all he's not worth

for a poorer example of a 'true' good man, be a difficultchore to achieve, asz i do declare and certainly do believe 

our country is in dire a straight, with crooked Donny cheering on the hate, and far too many gullible suckers, suckin up the bait   

never this soon did i see this coming, as in this kind of fate

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.2.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    one month ago

And that is "The American Way", and the American reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world.  

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.2.4  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.2.3    one month ago
the American reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world.  

has been thoroughly soiled, and deserved of scrutiny and disgust, imho

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

This whole case (pretending for a moment there is a crime involved ) hinges on Michael cohen being able to prove trump intentionally and knowingly committed crimes by Engaging in legal acts.  Cohen is a serial perjurer, An admitted embezzler and his own lawyer testified that is lying. 

how dishonest would a juror have to be to believe  that cohen’s word, and cohen’s word alone, is enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt? The prosecution is just about using power to stop trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    one month ago
how dishonest would a juror have to be to believe  that cohen’s word, and cohen’s word alone, is enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt?

that is not the prosecutions case

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago

That is the entire prosecution case.

Concentrate on the salacious Stormy Daniels testimony that had absolutely nothing to do with the charges; and should never been allowed. Even by the kangaroo judge's own admission. And ignore Cohen the serial perjurer, convicted criminal, who not only perjured himself against on the stand multiple times- but admitted to yet another crime of defrauding Trump Inc. 

Be proud Democrats/leftists this is what you have turned our legal system into. Xi and Putin are looking on with envy.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.1    one month ago

This reminds me of the J6 shitshow. Start out to prove one thing (supposedly) and go off on a completely different tangent. I don't know how much farther away from "illegal bookkeeping" they can get.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.2    one month ago

Trump briefly called two witnesses.  One was basically irrelevant and the other humiliated himself. 

The case for his defense is more or less non existent. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago
that is not the prosecutions case

Of course it is.  That's what they literally have to do to secure a conviction. THe DA has to show Trump knowingly and intentionally defrauded someone by authorising a false entry in a bookkeeping system. It's right in the statute.  Putting aside all the issues with  who was defrauded and what exactly the secret second crime is, the only witness who has attempted to testify to Trump's intent is Cohen.  Among all the other massive holes in the prosecution's case, it relies on Cohen, the serial perjurer and embezzler, and cohen alone, to prove the key element of the case. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    one month ago

The case is (1)  there's no crime and the prosecution violated all sorts of laws and precedent by even bringing this and (2) the only witness the prosecution called who can testify to Trump's intent is a perjurer and thief and whose own lawyer tesitifed that he is  lying about his testimony.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    one month ago

Trump, as the defendant, does not have to prove his innocence. 

The prosecution, on the other hand, has to prove he committed some kind of intentional crime...which it hasn't defined yet. They have to believe that all the jurors hate Trump enough to convict regardless of the evidence, or should we say in this case, the lack of it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
2.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.6    one month ago

I was reading an article about this just this morning (and now I cannot refind that article, damn it) and in it they explained that the second crime was the campaign violation. And they said the judge stated the prosecution did not need to define it, they could use that they made the false business records with the intent of covering up a second crime. Seems kind of amazing to me but then I'm not a lawyer.

But in reviewing all the evidence and testimony, it seems like the prosecution has not proven any intent from Trump. Yes, Cohen stated that Trump wanted the Daniels story buried for fear of what it would do to the campaign, but other witnesses also stated that Trump was concerned about how his family would view it.

It doesn't seem like the prosecution has proven intent so I have a very hard time seeing a conviction out of this. Very likely a hung jury and possibly an acquittal. 

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.8  goose is back  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    one month ago
that is not the prosecutions ca

What is the prosecution's case, that remotely shows Trump having "anything" to do with Business Records?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.8    one month ago

They established that he is a micro manager who must approve every check of significance and that certainly includes those major checks to Cohen.   

The checks he signed had the details of the invoice attached to them.

It is not reasonable to believe that Trump signed all these checks, and had no knowledge that this was for paying back Cohen for dealing with the Stormy Daniels situation.

It would surprise me if, on this specific point, the jury (or at least the super majority of same) would not apply their common sense and recognize that of course Trump knew damn well that these checks to Cohen were paying him back for fronting the money to keep Daniels silent.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1.10  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    one month ago

Paying hush money is not a crime, and that's not what Trump is accused of and being prosecuted for. It's still hard to tell at this point of what the actual crime is. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    one month ago

So what? 

They have to prove he intended to commit an unidentified second crime. Signing a check isn’t proof he intended to commit a crime.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.10    one month ago

Focus on what I wrote in context of the comment I replied to.

Further, I did not state that paying hush money is a crime.   The crime, since you say you do not know, is covering up another crime by falsifying records.   The other crime is the violation of campaign finance laws committed by Cohen.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.11    one month ago

No they do not.   Covering up a crime does not require that the crime be directly committed by the accused. 

They have to establish that Trump knowingly and willingly wrote checks as legal fees when they were actually reimbursement for Cohen's crime.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    one month ago
overing up a crime does not require that the crime be directly committed by the accused. 

It requires an intent to commit or coverup a crime.  Signing a check for legal purposes (an NDA) is not proof of that intent. The only evidence of Trump's intent  comes from Cohen and Cohen's own lawyer testified he's lying about that. 

 reimbursement for Cohen's crim

Pretending for a moment that Cohen committed  a crime and also that Trump CO didn't just categorize the fees as legal expenses because that was the most reasonable description in the drop down options available , besides Cohen's testimony, where is the proof Trump KNEW it was a crime?  As the former head of the FEC would testify if the judge didn't prevent him, the expenses are not campaign related and the FEC refused to prosecute Trump for them. Experts don't think it was a crime. What proof is there besides Cohen being allowed to say that it was, that Trump KNEW it was a crime in 2016? 

And that of course, also assumes that's the second secret crime the prosecution is trying to enforce. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.14    one month ago
It requires an intent to commit or coverup a crime.

Correct.   

Pretending for a moment that Cohen committed  a crime ...

If Cohen did not commit a crime then there is no case.

... where is the proof Trump KNEW it was a crime? 

That is what the jury will decide.   They determine if there has been sufficient evidence to convince them that Trump knew that he was falsely paying Cohen "legal fees" to reimburse him for his Daniels money.

If they are convinced then that, Sean, is what matters.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.15    one month ago
hey determine if there has been sufficient evidence to convince them that Trump knew that he was falsely paying Cohen "legal fees" to reimburse him for his Daniels money.

No, they will determine if Trump knew (1) he was defrauding someone and (2)  he was covering up a (unknown)  crime by paying his lawyer legal fees and the only evidence that Trump believed that comes from Cohen, the perjurer/embezzler whose own lawyer testified he's lying. 

It's simply  preposterous to believe this is an actual trial. 

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.17  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    one month ago
that this was for paying back Cohen for dealing with the Stormy Daniels situation.

Are you saying an NDA is illegal?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.17    one month ago
Are you saying an NDA is illegal?

No.   I am also not saying that the Earth is flat.   There are all sorts of things I am not saying in my comment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.16    one month ago
No, they will determine if Trump knew (1) he was defrauding someone and (2)  he was covering up a (unknown)  crime by paying his lawyer legal fees and the only evidence that Trump believed that comes from Cohen, the perjurer/embezzler whose own lawyer testified he's lying. 

Close.   They will determine if Trump knew that he was falsely treating —as mere legal expenses— reimbursements to Cohen for his crimes when he made illegal campaign contributions to silence Daniels (what you refuse to acknowledge).

It's simply  preposterous to believe this is an actual trial. 

Yeah, well it is an actual trial with a real judge, attorneys and jurors.   I find it preposterous that anyone would consider voting for Trump to be PotUS.    Political reality is bizarre nowadays ... wear a cup.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.20  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.18    one month ago
No.

Ok, Cohen is an attorney (well was an attorney) so listing the payment as legal fees isn't nefarious. Cohen is a convicted felon for lying.  Cohen seems to be the only one saying Trump knew about the Daniels payment which doesn't appear to be illegal in the first place.  A former U S Attorney testifies that Cohen told him, Trump didn't know anything. No one that I am aware of has testified Trump had any input as to how the expense classified. 

So, you think a jury will believe a convicted liar and thief vs a former U S Attorney.   

I am also not saying that the Earth is flat.

Well, that's good wouldn't want you to fall off the edge. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.19    one month ago
mine if Trump knew that he was falsely treating —as mere legal expenses— reimbursements to Cohen for his crimes when he made illegal campaign contributions to silence Daniels (what you refuse to acknowledge).

No. The words of the statute are clear.  It is not enough to prove that Trump knew the records were false (and that they were).  The DA has to show an intent to defraud someone (prosecution has not identified who that is to my knowledge) and Trump  knew Cohen was committing a crime and he intentionally concealed it when it happened.   Again, that's assuming the prosecution is alleging Cohen's campaign violation is the second crime, which it has refused to  make explicit.

ah, well it is an actual trial with a real judge, attorneys and juro

Yes, and given the obvious legal flaws, it's blatant violation of New York's Constitution due process requirements, it's Kafkaesque use of secret undisclosed crimes to get around the statute of limitations, its lack of jurisdiction to enforce campaign finance laws, and reliance solely on the words of a perjurer/embezzler to prove critical aspects of the case, it's a mockery of justice. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  goose is back @2.1.20    one month ago
No one that I am aware of has testified Trump had any input as to how the expense classified. 

In fact the bookkeeper testified that it was classified as "legal expenses" because it was the most fitting of the drop box options the bookkeeping system presented . The prosecution did not offer a more fitting option in the system. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.20    one month ago
... so listing the payment as legal fees isn't nefarious

That is what the jury decides is it not?     

Cohen seems to be the only one saying Trump knew about the Daniels payment which doesn't appear to be illegal in the first place.

I suspect the jurors (most if not all) will recognize based on the evidence presented that Trump most definitely knew about the hush money and most definitely knew why he was paying so much money to Cohen.

A former U S Attorney testifies that Cohen told him, Trump didn't know anything. 

At what point in time has Trump ever paid large sums of money to people without knowing what it was for?    Especially attorneys!

So, you think a jury will believe a convicted liar and thief vs a former U S Attorney.   

I think it is possible that a jury will believe that Trump most certainly knew what Cohen was doing and most certainly knew that he was reimbursing Cohen falsely as legal expenses.   Note also that Cohen's testimony was supported by the rest of the evidence.   This is not a case that relies entirely on Cohen's truthfulness.  

This is common sense based on the evidence.   What is not clear is if they will get all jurors to see it the same way — see this as a coverup for a crime (a crime where Cohen was the agent).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.22    one month ago
In fact the bookkeeper testified that it was classified as "legal expenses" because it was the most fitting of the drop box options the bookkeeping system presented .

What matters is if the jury believes that Trump knew that he was repaying Cohen for his payments to Daniels and that Trump knew that this was being falsely disguised as ordinary legal expenses.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.24    one month ago
s is if the jury believes that Trump knew that he was repaying Cohen for his payments to Daniels and that Trump knew that this was being falsely disguised as ordinary legal expenses.

You are ignoring the words in the statute.

That the entry was in fact false and Trump knew it was false is just the first  of the elements the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's not enough to show Trump knew the entry was false.  The prosecution also has to show beyond a reasonable doubt the that Trump (1) had an intent to defraud someone  (one of the  gigantic holes in the prosecution's case as haven't even identified the intended victim nor what money or property they were defrauded of ) and (2) that Trump knew  the false entry was not only false but illegal because it covered up another criminal act (which law, of course, the prosecution didn't identify in their indictment)  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.1.26  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.10    one month ago
It's still hard to tell at this point of what the actual crime is.

Have ya tried google? All 34 charges are clearly listed for all to see. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.1.27  MrFrost  replied to  goose is back @2.1.20    one month ago
Cohen is a convicted felon for lying.

That changes nothing with regards to the facts of the case. "Cohen is a liar!!!", is nothing more than a distraction. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.28  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.25    one month ago
It's not enough to show Trump knew the entry was false.  The prosecution also has to show beyond a reasonable doubt the that Trump (1) had an intent to defraud someone  (one of the  gigantic holes in the prosecution's case as haven't even identified the intended victim nor what money or property they were defrauded of ) and (2) that Trump knew  the false entry was not only false but illegal because it covered up another criminal act (which law, of course, the prosecution didn't identify in their indictment).
Nothing about defrauding a particular ' someone' .   Stick with what the law states.   You would be laughed out of court if you pulled this shit.
§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree , and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof .

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

The state must convince the jury that Trump knowingly paid Cohen reimbursement for hush money and knowingly allowed this to be falsely recorded as legal fees.   In addition, they must establish that the acts of Cohen in the Daniels transaction were criminal.   Given he was found guilty and went to jail, that is a good hint that his actions were criminal.

You can read all sorts of things into the law if that floats your boat, but a) you are not on the jury so it is pointless and b) it makes your comments look silly.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.29  goose is back  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.27    one month ago
"Cohen is a liar!!!", is nothing more than a distraction.

You're right, not only is he a convicted liar. He lied to the jury about the phone call, then admitted to being a thief, distraction my ass you can't believe a word this guy says.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.30  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.23    one month ago

You use "suspect", "definitely knew", "has Trump ever", "think it is possible", "most certainly knew" none of which is beyond a reasonable doubt.  The "coverup for a crime" is a misdemeanor that is beyond its statute of limitations.  What is definite Cohen lied on the witness stand "again" and then admitted to being a thief.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.30    one month ago

Yeah Goose, I do not presume to know the minds of jurors so I use words like ‘suspect’.   

Look, you are trying to argue that the case is invalid.   Yet it is nearly done and was never thrown out.   Thus your legal opinion did not prevail.

Now we will have closing arguments and then the jury decides.   We must live with their decision.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.32  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    one month ago
o thing about defrauding a particular ' someone' .

[ deleted ] [ ] Words in statutes have actual meaning which you need to be aware of to keep up:

, with the intent to defraud , you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise’s business records.”

Here's the defintiion used by an appellate New York Court in dismissing a charge under this stattue for failing to prove someone was defrauded :

The term defraud means to cheat or deprive another person of property or a thing of value or a right.." That conduct, however, is insufficient to establish an "intent to defraud", as charged, since in the instant record, there is no evidence that "another person" was deprived of any property or right as a result of t he defendants' conduct regarding the public records. Accordingly, counts one, two, three, four, five and seven of the indictment must be dismissed (CPL 470.20 ). T (see , 2 CJI[NY] PL 175.25, at 1203; see also , 2 CJI[NY] PL 175.10, 175.05 [1])

Stick with what the law states. You would be laughed out of court if you pulled this shit

More projection.

he state must convince the jury that Trump knowingly paid Cohen reimbursement for hush money and knowingly allowed this to be falsely recorded as legal fees.

[ deleted ] [ ] The law, in about as plain as english as can be written, requires more than just knowingly making a false entry. You somehow managed to skip the requirement that his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof .

Thereof refers to the INTENT to commit a crime or conceal. That means Trump had to know creating the false record was a crime or intended to cover up a crime when it was created. Words matter. you don't get to ignore them to justify your partisan wants.

an read all sorts of things into the law if that floats your boat

I'm simply reading the law. You continue to post laughable perversions of plain english. Why that floats your boat is a question only you can answer.

a ) you are not on the jury so it is pointless a

[ deleted ][ ]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.32    one month ago

Again you insert your own desires between the lines.   The law does not state that a specific individual need be defrauded.   Same with the New York fraud case, there need not be any individual even harmed for fraud to have taken place.   Nowhere does the cited New York law state that someone must have been harmed.   Your (redundant) objections are silly, the law and the lawsuits are illustrating that you are wrong.

Bottom line, nothing you say will make any difference.   The trial has proceeded and clearly has no issue with your little objections.   You are not on the jury so you cannot even influence the interpretation of the law or the facts.

The jury will decide.    Your imaginative views are not relevant.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.33    one month ago
he law does not state that a specific individual need be defrauded

I literally provided the definition of the phrase   intent to defraud  as used in the state of New York and a Court ruling on the how specific statute at issue  must be interpreted. If you want to deny reality, that's on you. 

 Nowhere does the cited New York law state that someone must have been harmed.   Your (redundant) objections are silly, the law and the lawsuits are illustrating that you are wrong.

That you could write that after being provided this is disturbing. Either you don't know what the words mean, or you don't care. 

The term defraud means to cheat or deprive another person of property or a thing of value or a right.." That conduct, however, is insufficient to establish an "intent to defraud", as charged, since in the instant record, there is no evidence that "another person" was deprived of any property or right as a result of t he defendants' conduct regarding the public records.

 You are not on the jury so you cannot even influence the interpretation of the law or the facts.

You've been proven wrong on every argument you've tried to make about this case, so pivoting to this as some sort of new talking point makes sense I guess. Desperate times...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.34    one month ago
I literally provided the definition of the phrase 

Better inform the judge since, per you, he has totally fucked up this case due to his gross misunderstanding of New York law.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.36  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.35    one month ago
e judge since, per you, he has totally fucked up this case due to his gross misunderstanding of New York law.

Now you are catching on..

This has nothing to do with the law, it's about power and using it to get Trump.

Should he be convicted an Appellate Court will throw it out (after the election, of course). 

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.36    one month ago

I have yet to see a Trump supporter who did not argue that every case against Trump is without merit and purely political.   That Trump has, in effect, done nothing wrong.

There is no reasoning with such a mindset.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.38  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.37    one month ago

It's interesting how some people pick and choose language from statutes and cases and think they know the law that applies in every instance. It's also interesting how people who have no idea predict what "will" happen.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.38    one month ago

Armchair attorneys.   It is ridiculous.   When someone argues that a legal proceeding has a fundamental legal flaw, the fact that the case is proceeding (and in this case is rested) should be the first clue that maybe they might not understand the law and the circumstances as well as the legal professionals.

In the end, the jury could very well effectively dismiss the case by not finding Trump guilty because they were not sufficiently convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and arguments.   I doubt the jury will unanimously come to that conclusion on all counts.   But I also find it unlikely that a jury would unanimously find Trump guilty on all counts largely because of the fact that this is a former PotUS and the level of deference and benefit-of-the-doubt is unusually high (compared to the average Joe).

In result, the most likely scenario is a hung jury.   That is what I expect:  either unanimous guilty on at least one count, or a hung jury.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.40  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.37    one month ago
have yet to see a Trump supporter who did not argue that every case against Trump is without merit and purely politica

I can only imagine where you get your news. I've seen plenty of Trump supporters state he committed obstruction and should  be guilty of mishandling classified information if that crime were enforced against Democrats too. 

here is no reasoning with such a mindset.

 I think the same of those who reflexively adopt every anti-Trump narrative that comes across their plate and can't repeat it without apparently understanding their own arguments. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.39    one month ago
hen someone argues that a legal proceeding has a fundamental legal flaw, the fact that the case is proceeding (and in this case is rested) should be the first clue that maybe they might not understand the law and the circumstances as well as the legal professionals.

Great Point! Cases are never reversed on appeal for obvious errors. It's unthinkable a local, politically  appointed Judge could make mistakes. There's no point in having appellate Courts because local trial judges are subject matter experts who are never, ever biased. If there's one thing any American understands, political appointees at the low end of the hierarchy are well know for their brilliance and commitment to justice.  

Remember the Colorado Court case? Some of us  here were  right about that why the  Colorado  Court would be reversed. Just have to be able to read. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.41    one month ago
Cases are never reversed on appeal for obvious errors.

The likelihood that this case is a fundamental mistake is low.   The likelihood that you are wrong is high.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.40    one month ago
I've seen plenty of Trump supporters state he committed obstruction and should  be guilty of mishandling classified information if that crime were enforced against Democrats too. 

I was referring to our local community.

I think the same of those ...

Making up shit allegations is not an argument.  It is childish taunting.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3  Greg Jones    one month ago

It's getting less likely that this sham trial will result in a conviction. The leftist Trump hating judge's prejudicial conduct has irreversibly tainted this trial. Cohen has confessed to a crime that is way more serious than an alleged booking error by Trump...he has no credibility at all. I doubt that every last juror will buy into lies that Bragg is trying to sell.

The Trump Hush Money Trial Imploded Yesterday (townhall.com)

DERSHOWITZ ON FIRE: Legal Scholar Attends Trump Trial, Demolishes Judge Merchan's Prejudicial Conduct – RedState

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3    one month ago

Dershowitz is a pedophile. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JBB  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    one month ago

Epstein's lawyer, friend and confidant? The "Island Guy"? That Dershowitz? Who got Claus Von Bulow off? That paedophile?

I bet Trump has the goods on him!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    one month ago

So is Bill Clinton and Joe Biden.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    one month ago

So is Bill Clinton and Joe Biden.

Um, no. Nice try. LOL 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    one month ago

512

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    one month ago

So, if Cohen is lying now then doesn't that mean he was actually innocent of the same crimes Trump is being prosecuted for, falsely convicted and went to prison for crimes he never committed? 

Uhh Hum...

 
 

Who is online





45 visitors