Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's called the real world, untainted by your idiotic propaganda.Not sure what world you are living in with these comments.
Ayn Rand is on line #3It's called the real world, untainted by your idiotic propaganda.
I'm libertarian, I have no use for your money laundering machines. (The ones you call "parties").
I have no great love for Republicans either. But you leftards are the worst by far. You're bad for children and other living things.
Your endless reliance on a dishonest claim (as bait and trolling) isn’t just off topic, which you usually are, but a testament to your boring lack of originality, the dainty.
Now. Back on topic:
A Trump conviction absolutely legally rests on Cohen’s testimony. If the jury is fair and honest, they cannot ever find Cohen credible. He simply isn’t.
Indeed, if you were honest (a contrasting fact hypothetical), even you would have to concede that Cohen is completely lacking in any hint of credibility. Especially after the defense cross examination shredded whatever was left of the lying scumbag.
But, of course, you’re a joke here, the dainty.
This shows just how weak the case really is.Opinion
Guest Essay
Jeffrey Toobin
"A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen"
Opinion | A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen
As provocative as the testimony has been, this case may turn on something a great deal more mundane.www.nytimes.com
Toobin asks "Did the former president “cause” the creation of false business records?"
Trump supporters have been attacking Trump's former long time, personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, just as they have attacked Stormy Daniels and other prosecution witnesses -- even attacking the witnesses who are not hostile to Trump, who even showed a like or respect for the man. But as I've said before -- the case against Trump doesn't rise or fall on the testimony of Cohen alone ("We don’t have to rely on just Cohen’s word. We can believe Cohen because of the receipts, the tapes and the hard evidence.”)
Trump supporters have been attacking people for discussing the historical trial happening in real time. Attacking people for discussing a criminal trial without precedent in the history of the United States, as somehow being an unhealthy obsession with Trump. As if being focused on a former president being tried in criminal court should somehow not be upper most in discussions around the proverbial water coolers. How desperate, pathetic, and sad that is I'll leave up to others to decide.
I like what Toobin has laid out in his article. While I do not claim him as being the last word on this, his insights and opinions are well informed and well argued.
If the jury is told the in instructions what the case is really about? There will be no not guilty verdict, no hung jury. Only a well reasoned guilty verdict.
quotes from reporters inside the courthouse today:
Emil Bove, a defense lawyer, is suggesting that the prosecutors, in their proposed jury instructions, has shifted their theory of the case. It sounds like he’s talking about the state election law that underlies the felony business records charges against Trump. Justice Merchan doesn’t seem to agree, but in any case, he says, the prosecution’s proposal for jury instructions holds no weight at the moment. It is only a proposal.
“Just relax,” Merchan tells the defense lawyer, as he continues to argue. Nothing, he signals, has been determined yet.
Bove continues to argue. He can tell that the judge is frustrated, but it’s clear that Bove is, too. If he believes that the prosecution changed its theory of the case in these final weeks, it would help to explain why he’s irate. Merchan seems to understand that, as Bove continues to push for more testimony from their proposed expert witness on election law.
Trump folds his arms over his chest as Bove finishes his argument. He then starts whispering to his lawyer as Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, begins to address the court.
Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, stands up and fights back. He says that “there’s nothing new at all” about the theory to which the defense is objecting. In short: the charges against Trump are felonies because prosecutors have argued that he falsified business records to conceal another crime. They have signaled that other crime was seeking to promote his own election "by unlawful means," in violation of state election law. That introduces a third potential crime.
So, if you’re keeping score, that’s three potential crimes, all wrapped into each of the 34 felony charges of falsifying business records.
Interesting day.
The jury hasn't heard what the underlying crime is. Hell, no one has...lolIgnore realities all you want:
What the jury hears is what is going to determine the outcome.
People are all over the place on how weak or strong the prosecution's case may be. What I see is so far, the defense is left making Trumpian political arguments as if that should sway the jury.This shows just how weak the case really is.
It's been listed here and elsewhere.The jury hasn't heard what the underlying crime is. Hell, no one has...lol
Take out Cohen's name in your screed & insert Trump's, then you'll be getting somewhere.Your endless reliance on a dishonest claim (as bait and trolling) isn’t just off topic, which you usually are, but a testament to your boring lack of originality, the dainty.
Now. Back on topic:
A Trump conviction absolutely legally rests on Cohen’s testimony. If the jury is fair and honest, they cannot ever find Cohen credible. He simply isn’t.
Indeed, if you were honest (a contrasting fact hypothetical), even you would have to concede that Cohen is completely lacking in any hint of credibility. Especially after the defense cross examination shredded whatever was left of the lying scumbag.
But, of course, you’re a joke here, the dainty.
The only crime Cohen testified to was the one he committed by stealing money from Trump Inc.As I've pointed out before: "We don’t have to rely on just Cohen’s word. We can believe Cohen because of the receipts, the tapes and the hard evidence.”
Here is an interesting exchange you might want to ignore: It's about who is actually on trial:
With Susan Hoffinger asking questions, Michael Cohen is again leaning into the notion that he is a victim in all of this.
“Are you actually on trial here in this case?” Hoffinger asks Cohen. “No,” he says. Through her questions, Hoffinger makes an obvious point — that the defense sought to make Cohen look like a criminal. But ultimately, the jurors aren’t here to judge Cohen’s criminality. They are here to judge Trump.
Ok, what is it?It's been listed here and elsewhere.
denial is desperation on steroids
Cohen is not on trial. Donald Trump is.The only crime Cohen testified to was the one he committed by stealing money from Trump Inc.
go back a few posts. start there and then do your own homework rather that regurgitating MAGA talking points.Ok, what is it?
Ok, what is it?
But what is the other crime? Here is where the case gets shaky. In court filings, the prosecution has argued that Trump was attempting to commit or conceal federal and state election law crimes, along with state tax crimes. The election law theory has real weaknesses, however. While I’ve long believed the hush-money scheme violated federal criminal law, I also recognize that the underlying legal theory has not been fully tested.
Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, pleaded guilty to federal crimes in connection with this same scheme, but a guilty plea doesn’t have the same value as a court precedent. There isn’t clear federal precedent on the matter, and no federal charges have been brought against Trump on these grounds, by the Department of Justice under either Trump or President Biden. In addition, the state election law that the prosecution cites may well be pre-empted by federal law and therefore be inapplicable to the case.
www.documentcloud.org
Influencing an election isn't illegal. It's literally what campaigns do...lolDocumentCloud
People here at usmb and elsewhere have been arguing over and over again "what other crime?" -- yet when the other crime is mentioned they've ignored it completely. But in the courtroom the facts can't so easily be ignored. The jury is being reminded by the prosecution team over and over again, that records were doctored to further or conceal another crime - , an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election.
Alan Feuer
Reporting on Trump’s criminal trial
Just a reminder about the structure of the charges in this case: Trump has been indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to reimbursing Cohen for the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. Those misdemeanor charges can be bumped up to felonies...
if the jury believes the records were doctored to further or conceal another crime —
in this instance, an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/13/nyregion/trump-trial-michael-cohen
And you'd think the prosecution's star witness could incriminate Trump more, rather than incriminating himself more...lolCohen is not on trial. Donald Trump is.
Influencing an election isn't illegal. It's literally what campaigns do...lol
See? Told you no one has heard what the underlying crime is.
lawandcrime.com
thefederalist.com
www.nationalreview.com
The prosecution's case is not based on Cohen alone.
Stop making shit up.
Bait shit ^ from troll boi rejected yet again.Now do you want to make a bet -- or not?
Could you be trusted.
Another lie, already long since refuted, troll shit.You go on about honesty, yet here @ usmb you have been proven by your own words to be totally dishonest.
I’ll take your stage directions under advisement, troll bitch. Ok. Done. Application rejected.So stop the personal attacks on the honesty of other members,
Again. Projection. ^ You have the image of a corrupted judge as your avie at present. Why? Because you want a specific outcome. And you’re hostile to even the notion of fairness or justice.and try and post with playing your sleazy little ratfaced games.
A snippet of why the dainty loves Merchan.
Judge Merchan is trying to prevent Trump from testifying: Analysis
A ruling from New York Judge Juan Merchan may have a chilling effect on Donald Trump and impermissibly dissuade him from testifying in his hush-money case.
Judge Bans Fmr FEC Chairman From Sharing Facts In Trump Trial
A New York judge has strictly limited the information a key witness for Trump’s defense can testify about in court.
Bragg’s Prosecution of Trump Violates New York State’s Constitution | National Review
A crucial due-process provision is meant to prevent exactly what the DA has done: force a defendant to go to trial without being put on notice of the charge.
Of course like most people I'd like a specific outcome, but unlike most I do not demand it.Again. Projection. ^ You have the image of a corrupted judge as your avie at present. Why? Because you want a specific outcome. And you’re hostile to even the notion of fairness or justice.
