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.
At the end of the day in a fair trial before an honest jury, what Blanche did to Cohen would make Cohen a laughingstock throughout the land (and for all of history) resulting in a prompt acquittal.at the end of the day:
Todd Blanche is throwing a lot at the wall during this motion to dismiss the case. It sounds a bit like his opening, as he seeks to convince the judge — as he sought to convince the jury — that there is no crime here. Justice Merchan is listening, leaning back.
Blanche just said that there was no evidence of a conspiracy having been formed in October 2015, misstating the month in which prosecutors say Trump, Michael Cohen and David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, agreed that Pecker would suppress negative stories on Trump’s behalf. It was August.
...
Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor, is calm as he responds to Todd Blanche. His arguments are a little more legalistic than Blanche’s: He points to New York law on the issues of falsifying business records and intent to defraud, and says that the grand jury record shows evidence of a “general intent to deceive.” Referring to the “overwhelming record of concealment,” Colangelo drives home that prosecutors have made a good showing on intent. The court reporter asks him to slow down and he apologizes, before moving forward.
Cohen was never presented as a virtuous man. To use your analogy, every mafia trial in history should've ended with a verdict of -- let the bad guys go, because another bad guy testified.At the end of the day in a fair trial before an honest jury, what Blanche did to Cohen would make Cohen a laughingstock throughout the land (and for all of history) resulting in a prompt acquittal.
You should know that better than anyone.Here's good old Rudy in all his glory thinking about how he screwed Costello out of millions of dollars in legal fees. What a crew. No honor among thieves:
Another lie. Neither of us demand anything. Nice try fraud boi. But the truth is, you only want one outcome and for only one reason: politics. Your concern is utterly devoid of anything to do with justice.Of course like most people I'd like a specific outcome, but unlike most I do not demand it.
Except, of course, that ^ claim is just more of your projection and endless dishonesty.See? You're so full of projection and shit you can't hear, see, or speak straight.
Bullshit. Your “onrecord” pronouncements are mere self-serving backdrop scenery.I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me.
Another lie. Neither of us demand anything. Nice try fraud boi. But the truth is, you only want one outcome and for only one reason: politics. Your concerns utterly devoid of anything to do with justice.
www.usmessageboard.com
This is what YOU posted and placed emphasis on in your post...The charge isn't influencing an election. No one, except trolls like you are saying influencing an election is illegal.
straw man alert!
Key word "illegally"This is what YOU posted and placed emphasis on in your post...
"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."
I believe a case could be made without Cohen's testimony, but it would be what you people are claiming now -- seriously weak. With his testimony, the case is strengthen and that is what irritates fools like you.Another lie. Neither of us demand anything. Nice try fraud boi. But the truth is, you only want one outcome and for only one reason: politics. Your concerns utterly devoid of anything to do with justice.
Except, of course, that ^ claim is just more of your projection and endless dishonesty.
Bullsgit. Your on record pronouncements are mere self-serving backdrop scenery.
Absolutely everyone who reads your bullshit posts knows you for the lying hack you are.
But back more fully on topic, you can’t seem to admit that without Cohen’s testimony (and it being believed) no verdict of guilty is or could be legally valid.
Also irrelevant. Nobody said that a prosecutor is only allowed to call virtuous people as witnesses. Deals are often made with awful people to “turn” on defendants.Cohen was never presented as a virtuous man.
Wrong. But your feeble attempt is understood. It comes from your feeble ability to handle distinctions.To use your analogy, every mafia trial in history should've ended with a verdict of -- let the bad guys go, because another bad guy testified.
Bragg's Case against Trump, a Legal Embarrassment, a Historic Mistake?
I've gone on record saying it was enough for me to see Mr. Trump brought before justice. Any specific outcome matters less to me. There are general and nuanced arguments out there from many scholars, and armchair legal experts. On social media and places like usmb, I see the average person...
Unlike you , the renowned usmb welche
You don’t though., I can back up my shit.
No you don’t. You only subscribe to the outcomes that please you for putrid partisan political preference.I believe in the American system of justice, which is why I could never embrace a MAGA politician.
Opinions are like assholes everyone got one. My opinion of your propaganda is you're full of shit.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.
In the cesspool that is Trump Tower, who else...? His cfo is in prison for being a Trump followerZzz
Troll shit says what?
Off topic ad hominem troll bait scumbag.
The topic remains the impropriety of the persecution calling such a scumbag witless as Cohen.
Good luck with that. It's over, and whoever believed it was Biden salvation is shit out of luck.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.
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.
There's no such thing as "illegally influencing" an election. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing the laws that make it illegal.Key word "illegally"
thank you.
now go back to sleep
Give it up. You've lost already. Trump will be the the 45th and 47th president.In the cesspool that is Trump Tower, who else...? His cfo is in prison for being a Trump follower
Oh sure. They call a porn star and a corrupt felon to testify to falsification of business records? According to legal mind not afflicted with TDS, so far no witness has testified to a single crime committed by Trump. And almost none of the testimony given in court so far has been about falsification of business records.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.
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.
If a persecutor like Bragg or his DOJ temporarily lended aid cannot make out a legally sufficient case without calling the person they know to be a compulsive liar, the persecutor isn’t obligated to call the witless.In the cesspool that is Trump Tower, who else...? His cfo is in prison for being a Trump follower
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.
