Seymour Flops
Diamond Member
For the sake of argument in this thread only, pretend that Cohen is capable of telling the truth for the sake of telling the truth, rather than saying anything the prosecutors want him to about the president who enraged him by not giving him a top spot in the administration.
What did he say that connects the dots for an actual crime committed by Trump? Did he witness Trump entering a business record? Did he hear Trump say that he would pay for the NDA, since it was a donation to his own campaign? Did he enter the allegedly false busines records at Trump's orders? When he gave that order, did he say, "so we can cover up my crime in donating to my own campaign?"
Here's why I think it will be key: If Cohen said nothing that connected the dots to a crime, the defense can rightly ask for a directed verdict due to no evidence. Directed verdicts are a way to keep prosecutors from presenting an emotional case that - even if seen in the most favorable light - proves no crime, but rolling the dice that the jury will be so fired up they will return a guilty verdict anyway. Judges are the guardrails against that.
What the judge needs to hang his hat on is Cohen actually providing evidence of a crime. Then he can say, that it's up to the jury to judge his credibility.
Let's keep this thread clean, please. TDS, elsewhere. This is your chance to tell us about the actaul evidence of a crime by Trump presented by Cohen.
What did he say that connects the dots for an actual crime committed by Trump? Did he witness Trump entering a business record? Did he hear Trump say that he would pay for the NDA, since it was a donation to his own campaign? Did he enter the allegedly false busines records at Trump's orders? When he gave that order, did he say, "so we can cover up my crime in donating to my own campaign?"
Here's why I think it will be key: If Cohen said nothing that connected the dots to a crime, the defense can rightly ask for a directed verdict due to no evidence. Directed verdicts are a way to keep prosecutors from presenting an emotional case that - even if seen in the most favorable light - proves no crime, but rolling the dice that the jury will be so fired up they will return a guilty verdict anyway. Judges are the guardrails against that.
What the judge needs to hang his hat on is Cohen actually providing evidence of a crime. Then he can say, that it's up to the jury to judge his credibility.
Let's keep this thread clean, please. TDS, elsewhere. This is your chance to tell us about the actaul evidence of a crime by Trump presented by Cohen.