Does Either Alvin Bragg or Juan Merchan Have a Shred of Decency?

[excalibur]

As I said a few months back, when Bragg calls Michael Cohen as a witness, he will be suborning perjury.

And no doubt that judge Merchan was fully aware of Cohen's lies, yet permitted calling him as a witness. Thus permitting the suborning of perjury in his courtroom.

Did either expect anything different? How could they have?

It is within a judge’s authority to declare a witness so inherently unreliable that no reasonable juror could accept as true beyond a reasonable doubt any testimony offered by that witness.

If that witness is the only source of evidence on one or more elements of the offense, such a finding would lead to a directed verdict of acquittal.​

 

[Dr.Destructo]

They wouldn't know what DECENCY is, even if it walked up and shoved a railroad spike into their eyesockets!!!!!

(Im on a mean streak today....)

 

[Toro]

1000 percent more than your Orange Jesus, cultist!

LOL

 

[BackAgain]

Short answer: no.

 

[MarathonMike]

Merchant, Bragg, James and Engoron MIGHT have a shred of personal decency but obviously they have ZERO professional ethics.

 

[whitehall]

If allegations are true that Bragg leaked details of a sealed indictment he might be guilty of a more serious crime than the one Trump is charged with. With a crooked media covering for a crooked NY judicial system it doesn't matter

 

[JGalt]

As I said a few months back, when Bragg calls Michael Cohen as a witness, he will be suborning perjury.

And no doubt that judge Merchan was fully aware of Cohen's lies, yet permitted calling him as a witness. Thus permitting the suborning of perjury in his courtroom.

Did either expect anything different? How could they have?

​

It is within a judge’s authority to declare a witness so inherently unreliable that no reasonable juror could accept as true beyond a reasonable doubt any testimony offered by that witness.​

​

If that witness is the only source of evidence on one or more elements of the offense, such a finding would lead to a directed verdict of acquittal.​

They did the same thing with Stormy Daniels' testimony. She had already signed a statement in 2018 that she did not have an affair with Trump. Then she perjures herself at the trial.

 

[Winston]

They did the same thing with Stormy Daniels' testimony. She had already signed a statement in 2018 that she did not have an affair with Trump. Then she perjures herself at the trial.

Stormy Daniels Said 2018 Letter Denying She Had Sex With Trump Is a 'Lie' - FactCheck.org

Porn actor Stormy Daniels maintains that she had sex with Donald Trump in 2006. Daniels said a letter she signed under pressure in 2018, claiming the affair "never happened," was a "lie." But some conservatives are misleadingly citing that letter as proof that Trump and Daniels were never...

www.factcheck.org

 

[Vrenn]

As I said a few months back, when Bragg calls Michael Cohen as a witness, he will be suborning perjury.

And no doubt that judge Merchan was fully aware of Cohen's lies, yet permitted calling him as a witness. Thus permitting the suborning of perjury in his courtroom.

Did either expect anything different? How could they have?

​

It is within a judge’s authority to declare a witness so inherently unreliable that no reasonable juror could accept as true beyond a reasonable doubt any testimony offered by that witness.​

​

If that witness is the only source of evidence on one or more elements of the offense, such a finding would lead to a directed verdict of acquittal.​

You can get a lot more to agree with you if you weren't trying to cover for tRump (the t is silent) who has zero ethics and thinks decency is a porn style that he's been filmed at.

 

[LuckyDuck]

As I said a few months back, when Bragg calls Michael Cohen as a witness, he will be suborning perjury.

And no doubt that judge Merchan was fully aware of Cohen's lies, yet permitted calling him as a witness. Thus permitting the suborning of perjury in his courtroom.

Did either expect anything different? How could they have?

​

It is within a judge’s authority to declare a witness so inherently unreliable that no reasonable juror could accept as true beyond a reasonable doubt any testimony offered by that witness.​

​

If that witness is the only source of evidence on one or more elements of the offense, such a finding would lead to a directed verdict of acquittal.​

Of course they don't have a shred of decency.....they're Democrats.

 

[Winston]

MSN

 

[BackAgain]

MSN

ZZZ

 

[eagle7-31]

As I said a few months back, when Bragg calls Michael Cohen as a witness, he will be suborning perjury.

And no doubt that judge Merchan was fully aware of Cohen's lies, yet permitted calling him as a witness. Thus permitting the suborning of perjury in his courtroom.

Did either expect anything different? How could they have?

​

It is within a judge’s authority to declare a witness so inherently unreliable that no reasonable juror could accept as true beyond a reasonable doubt any testimony offered by that witness.​

​

If that witness is the only source of evidence on one or more elements of the offense, such a finding would lead to a directed verdict of acquittal.​

No decency whatsoever.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Bragg and Merchan have all the righteousness that excalibur forfeited.

 

[Man With A Plan]

You can get a lot more to agree with you if you weren't trying to cover for tRump (the t is silent) who has zero ethics and thinks decency is a porn style that he's been filmed at.

So what you're basically saying is that if it were anyone else BUT Trump you'd agree that the case should have been thrown out but because it IS Trump then you're OK it proceeding? Noted...

 

[MarathonMike]

If allegations are true that Bragg leaked details of a sealed indictment he might be guilty of a more serious crime than the one Trump is charged with. With a crooked media covering for a crooked NY judicial system it doesn't matter

Trump is the cure for the Democrat infection.

 

[Vrenn]

So what you're basically saying is that if it were anyone else BUT Trump you'd agree that the case should have been thrown out but because it IS Trump then you're OK it proceeding? Noted...

Not even close. Cohen is a piece of crap but even a piece of crap may have a message. You keep trying to change the fact that tRump (the t is silent) is a sick, insane, power hungry, dictator wannabe that we stopped before and are living with some of his power grab things right now. It's going to take years to get things back to the center. And if ANYONE else were to do what tRump has done to destroy our Country, I would suggest a firing squad for treason.

 

[skye]

No, they don't.

 

[Crepitus]

As I said a few months back, when Bragg calls Michael Cohen as a witness, he will be suborning perjury.

And no doubt that judge Merchan was fully aware of Cohen's lies, yet permitted calling him as a witness. Thus permitting the suborning of perjury in his courtroom.

Did either expect anything different? How could they have?

​

It is within a judge’s authority to declare a witness so inherently unreliable that no reasonable juror could accept as true beyond a reasonable doubt any testimony offered by that witness.​

​

If that witness is the only source of evidence on one or more elements of the offense, such a finding would lead to a directed verdict of acquittal.​

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So what you're basically saying is that if it were anyone else BUT Trump you'd agree that the case should have been thrown out but because it IS Trump then you're OK it proceeding? Noted...

All should go to a jury. The defense hit some hits in the questioning today but Cohen is still ahead on creditability. Pending no null jury homer, Monday's cross will make the difference.