“Stand Back and Let It Fall”: Jonathan Turley Says Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump Is “Collapsing” After Witness Testimony

[lantern2814]

Pathetic.


But you continue to insult.
You are a weak man. Very WEAK.
No wonder your children and Grandchildren HATE you.

If you could just stick to the topic, it would make the MODS jobs easier.

Talk about an ironic statement ^^^

 

[lantern2814]

Yeah, he was just charged with financial records fraud for the cover up of the campaign finance law crimes committed by Cohen for Trump.

Sorry. FEC and DOJ said there were no campaign finance violations. So you and Fat Alvin have NO underlying crime. But by all means keep digging....

 

[Seymour Flops]

And a case bought and paid for by George Soros.

Just a miserable matter that any judge with an ounce of fairness would have tossed by now.

​

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley on Friday said the prosecution’s case against former President Donald Trump is failing as a key witness is benefiting the defense.​

​

... The prosecution’s first witness, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, was helpful to Trump as the prosecution made mistakes that the defense capitalized on during cross-examination, Turley asserted on Fox News’ “Outnumbered.”​

​

“It’s a breakdown in the courtroom. They have a witness that is disassembling in front of them,” Turley said. “The prosecution never revealed to the jury in the direct that Pecker had actually killed stories for other celebrities, that he had been working on stories two decades before the election with Trump that he was suppressing. ​

I'm not surprised at much that happens this prosecution. At least I should not be. But I am suprised at this incompetence.

We can't hear the questions and answers, but I'm sure the prosecutors are asking questions in fake shocked tones about Trump's supposed misconduct by purchasing these stories, with a plan to eventually show that he must have done it for the sake of winning the election and could have no other motivation.

Did the prosecutor really not anticipate that many people not running for anything, including Trump himself pre-2015 pay to kills stories. If so, he should have brought it out and figured out some way to spin the Stormy Weather case or whatever her name is as something somehow different from all those other absolutely non-political efforts.

I dont' know how he would have differentiated those apolitical catch-and-kills from this they claim was purely political, but maybe some of the Democrats on here have some ideas.

And now it’s only getting worse. Yesterday was really bad In terms of the cross-examination for the prosecution. Today is much worse. I mean, here Pecker is saying that Trump didn’t want to purchase the story. Yesterday when he asked him about reimbursing Cohen, he said he didn’t know anything about that.”​

​

Then why is he a witness? Clearly, he is not going to be able to testify that Trump made false entries in a business record in order to conceal a crime.

Is the prosecution hoping that the editor of the National Enquirer might be seen as such a huge and outlandish liar that even Michael Cohen looks honest by comparison?

...​

​

“I think the defense is doing a very good job, but I have to say that this is collapsing on its own weight,” he added. “You just have to stand back and let it fall. Just asking simple questions that the jury would want to know has left serious damage for the prosecution. These are not strange tangential questions, these are questions you would’ve expected the prosecution to ask as just the completion of their line of questioning. Like was Donald Trump the only one you did this for, when did you start to do this?”​

​

Can there be a New York jury so unsophisticated that it is unaware of celebrities paying rags like the National Enquirer to kill stories?

Despite Pecker’s testimony not damaging Trump, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy on Friday suggested Judge Juan Merchan’s friendliness toward Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could lead to jury bias against the former president.​

​

“It’s one thing to be watching the trial through the media, if you are watching it on our channel, you hear me. You hear Kerry Kupec, you hear Jonathan Turley talk about the weaknesses of the case,” McCarthy said. “The jury is not getting that filter. The jury is getting the district attorney’s version of events and taking its cues from a judge who has been very friendly to the district attorney. So if you’re watching this with legal commentary, you know they’re not really proving a conspiracy in there and don’t really have federal campaign finance in there. But I don’t know that the jury knows that.”​

This is the problem, and how the prosecution thinks it might accomplish its secondary goal of getting a conviction. Convince the jury that Trump is a really bad guy, who did something bad, even if they never do make heads or tails out of exactly what.

 

[Crepitus]

What part do you think is going well for the govt?

You mean the state of new york

 

[Crepitus]

DR.Hurley is famous for his accuracy in matters of politics and a credit to this nation. He tells the truth.

Living up to your moniker? Yep, ya are.

Who is DR Hurley?

 

[struth]

You mean the state of new york

The govt

 

[scruffy]

donations by individuals are limited to $2500 and not $130k

Go tell Soros.

In kind campaign donations by businesses like the N/E are limited also, and must be reported under campaign finance law

Money is speech.

 

[scruffy]

Turley says what the cult wants to hear, so he can keep cashing checks.

All media is that way now.

 

[beautress]

Who is DR Hurley?

Oh, goodness, my bad. I'm using my cell phone because my computer is down, and my forefinger get numb and hits the wrong key frequently. I should have said Juris Dr. Turley. It's been a bad week. Thank you for the correction. Also, his doctorate was honorarium granted by Marshall Law School for his beneficent and scholarly contributions to his field of lawyering as a professor and public servant. I always like to hear him speak due to his wiserly ways, Don't you?

 

[Care4all]

DR.Hurley is famous for his accuracy in matters of politics and a credit to this nation. He tells the truth.

Living up to your moniker? Yep, ya are.

Yes, he is knowledgeable in Constitutional and Tort law...

Criminal law is not one of his expertise....but that doesn't alone negate his opinion on this trial... I've just skimmed his opinion which turns out to be wrong on this...

And I'm thinking this opinion he had was after the Defense team had questioned Pecker's memory, and motives etc...which appeared to present some doubt on Pecker's previous testimony and Turley was pretty excited about the Defense team's job in their cross examination!

But then....after that and likely after the Turley article....

The prosecution got their redirect chance, and absolutely blew up every one of the Defense team's perceived wins in their cross examination....

They got blown to smithereens!

And may have left the jury with not trusting what the Defense team presents in the future because of being deceived by them....which is not a good position to be in...

 

[struth]

Yes, he is knowledgeable in Constitutional and Tort law...

Criminal law is not one of his expertise....but that doesn't alone negate his opinion on this trial... I've just skimmed his opinion which turns out to be wrong on this...

And I'm thinking this opinion he had was after the Defense team had questioned Pecker's memory, and motives etc...which appeared to present some doubt on Pecker's previous testimony and Turley was pretty excited about the Defense team's job in their cross examination!

But then....after that and likely after the Turley article....

The prosecution got their redirect chance, and absolutely blew up every one of the Defense team's perceived wins in their cross examination....

They got blown to smithereens!

And may have left the jury with not trusting what the Defense team presents in the future because of being deceived by them....which is not a good position to be in...

I mean he only teaches criminal law at GW law school…

Geez you are an idiot

 

[beautress]

I mean he only teaches criminal law at GW law school…

Geez you are an idiot

No she isn't an idiot, she's a blessing to USMB. The crow has been cooked so you can eat it any time. <giggle>

 

[Concerned American]

Yes, he is knowledgeable in Constitutional and Tort law...

Criminal law is not one of his expertise....but that doesn't alone negate his opinion on this trial... I've just skimmed his opinion which turns out to be wrong on this...

And I'm thinking this opinion he had was after the Defense team had questioned Pecker's memory, and motives etc...which appeared to present some doubt on Pecker's previous testimony and Turley was pretty excited about the Defense team's job in their cross examination!

But then....after that and likely after the Turley article....

The prosecution got their redirect chance, and absolutely blew up every one of the Defense team's perceived wins in their cross examination....

They got blown to smithereens!

And may have left the jury with not trusting what the Defense team presents in the future because of being deceived by them....which is not a good position to be in...

Please link to your qualifications in constitutional, tort OR criminal law? I'll wait. I think I'll go with Turley's opinion over a non-descript social media poster who can't provide any credentials. LMAO

 

[meaner gene]

Sorry. FEC and DOJ said there were no campaign finance violations. So you and Fat Alvin have NO underlying crime. But by all means keep digging....

You forget about David Pecker, who plead guilty to campaign finance violations. Besides, Bragg is using the New York election laws as the second leg of the business record crime.

 

[Care4all]

Go tell Soros.



Money is speech.

Unrelated Nonsense on both!

 

[Care4all]

Please link to your qualifications in constitutional, tort OR criminal law? I'll wait. I think I'll go with Turley's opinion over a non-descript social media poster who can't provide any credentials. LMAO

What for silly one? Knee jerk? Did you read what I wrote? Nope!

 

[meaner gene]

I mean he only teaches criminal law at GW law school…

Geez you are an idiot

As noted, Turley may have written his opinion, prior to getting all the facts.

 

[Concerned American]

What for silly one? Knee jerk? Did you read what I wrote? Nope!

I read it, I've just skimmed his opinion which turns out to be wrong on this... What are your credentials that I should put any stock in your opinion over that of a constitutional scholar? Now do you want to answer or are you going to speculate some more?

 

[Crepitus]

The govt

This isn't federal.

 

[Crepitus]

Oh, goodness, my bad. I'm using my cell phone because my computer is down, and my forefinger get numb and hits the wrong key frequently. I should have said Juris Dr. Turley. It's been a bad week. Thank you for the correction. Also, his doctorate was honorarium granted by Marshall Law School for his beneficent and scholarly contributions to his field of lawyering as a professor and public servant. I always like to hear him speak due to his wiserly ways, Don't you?

I hadn't herd anyone title him a dr. Lawyers don't usually do that.