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.
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.
Except, of course, that ^ claim is just more of your projection and endless dishonesty.
Bullshit. Your “onrecord” pronouncements are mere self-serving backdrop scenery.
www.usmessageboard.com
This is what YOU posted and placed emphasis on in your post...
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.
Wrong. But your feeble attempt is understood. It comes from your feeble ability to handle distinctions.
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.
No you don’t. You only subscribe to the outcomes that please you for putrid partisan political preference.
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.
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.
Give it up. You've lost already. Trump will be the the 45th and 47th president.
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.
