Why the Sudden Doubts about the Verdict?

[AntonToo]

In that case, the FEC said they didn’t have jurisdiction since campaign funds were not used.

Seriously? You are saying FEC said it doesn't have jurisdiction over campaign contributions?

Source the report.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They didn't call him to the stand because Merchan refused to let him testify about campaign finance law

Lie.

He was allowed to testify about campaign finance law.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Lie.

He was allowed to testify about campaign finance law.

Really? Show me the transcript of that testimony, Fort!
You can't because that man never stepped foot in that courtroom.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really? Show me the transcript of that testimony, Fort!

Why do you say such idiotic things? We already figured out he didn't testify because the defense didn't call him.

Fk, son, pay attention!

 

[Man With A Plan]

Why do you say such idiotic things? We already figured out he didn't testify because the defense didn't call him.

Fk, son, pay attention!

Then obviously he wasn't allowed to testify about campaign finance law AS THE DEFENSE WANTED TO DO BECAUSE MERCHAN REFUSED TO ALLOW HIM TO!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then obviously he wasn't allowed to testify about campaign finance law

Lie.

He was allowed to testify about campaign finance law.

But the defense decided not to call him.

I really can't dumb this down any further.

He was prevented from testifying about other cases. All he could have done was describe and help the jury understand the laws.

Since the defense knew that basically made him a witness for the prosecution, they didn't call him.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Lie.

He was allowed to testify about campaign finance law.

But the defense decided not to call him.

I really can't dumb this down any further.

How exactly was he "allowed" when the judge ruled that he could not testify about campaign finance law? Are you really this dense?

That wasn't a decision made by the defense...it was a decision made by Merchan.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How exactly was he "allowed" when the judge ruled that he could not testify about campaign finance law?

Lie. The judge did not rule that.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Lie. The judge did not rule that.

He most certainly did. He ruled at the beginning of the trial that he would not allow the testimony of ANY experts in campaign finance law!

 

[AntonToo]

He most certainly did. He ruled at the beginning of the trial that he would not allow the testimony of ANY experts in campaign finance law!

....whats this then?

Smith is an election law expert...but he will not testify after Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith could speak before the court on the basic definitions surrounding election law but not expand beyond that scope.

Key Trump witness nixed after Merchan's stringent rulings reveals what his testimony would have been

Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith was set to testify in NY v. Trump, but he was not brought before the court after the presiding judge limited what he could discuss.

www.foxnews.com

Maybe you should change your screen name to a Man Without a Clue.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Which means the jury will only hear from two people about campaign finance law in this trial...Michael Cohen and Judge Merchan. Two people that are blatantly biased against Trump. One that will lie about anything. One that doesn't care if his verdict is overturned.

 

[Man With A Plan]

....whats this then?

Smith is an election law expert...but he will not testify after Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith could speak before the court on the basic definitions surrounding election law but not expand beyond that scope.

Key Trump witness nixed after Merchan's stringent rulings reveals what his testimony would have been

Former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith was set to testify in NY v. Trump, but he was not brought before the court after the presiding judge limited what he could discuss.

www.foxnews.com

Maybe you should change your screen name to a Man Without a Clue.

"Smith wrote on social media that while the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, was allowed to go "on at length about whether and how his activity violated" the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), he was barred from broadening the scope of his previously anticipated testimony, which "effectively" led to the jury getting "its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!"

Bradley Smith was supposed to be a defense witness in the NY v. Trump case. (Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images/File)
Smith spoke with the Washington Examiner on Monday and discussed what he would have said in court if he testified.


"Judges instruct the juries on the law," Smith told the outlet. "And they don’t want a battle of competing experts saying here’s what the law is. They feel it’s their province to make that determination. The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex and just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much."

Smith said he anticipated "to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious" while noting election laws are very complicated matters."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He most certainly did. He ruled at the beginning of the trial that he would not allow the testimony of ANY experts in campaign finance law!

2 lies.

You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[AntonToo]

Which means the jury will only hear from two people about campaign finance law in this trial...Michael Cohen and Judge Merchan. Two people that are blatantly biased against Trump. One that will lie about anything. One that doesn't care if his verdict is overturned.

Judge instructs the jury on the law, not defendant's witnesses.

 

[AntonToo]

"Smith wrote on social media that while the prosecution’s star witness, Michael Cohen, was allowed to go "on at length about whether and how his activity violated" the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), he was barred from broadening the scope of his previously anticipated testimony, which "effectively" led to the jury getting "its instructions on FECA from Michael Cohen!"

Bradley Smith was supposed to be a defense witness in the NY v. Trump case. (Douglas Graham/Roll Call/Getty Images/File)
Smith spoke with the Washington Examiner on Monday and discussed what he would have said in court if he testified.


"Judges instruct the juries on the law," Smith told the outlet. "And they don’t want a battle of competing experts saying here’s what the law is. They feel it’s their province to make that determination. The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex and just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much."

Smith said he anticipated "to lay out the ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious" while noting election laws are very complicated matters."

Yea thanks dumbass, I can read my own links just fine without you.

Starting with he fact that YES, he was in fact allowed to testify about campaign finance law, even if limited in how much of his own opinion he could inject about it.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Judge instructs the jury on the law, not defendant's witnesses.

Which means in this case the jury will have heard what the law was from Michael Cohan and Judge Merchan.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Yea thanks dumbass, I can read my own links just fine without you.

Starting with he fact that YES, he was in fact allowed to testify about campaign finance law, even if limited in how much of his own opinion he could inject about it.

Come on Anton...you KNOW that Merchon wouldn't let him testify any more than he let Costello testify! It would have been one sustained objection after another just like Costello.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Come on Anton...you KNOW that Merchon wouldn't let him testify any more than he let Costello testify! It would have been one sustained objection after another just like Costello.

Merchan allowed him to testify. The defense chose not to call him.

Get it through your head.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Merchan allowed him to testify. The defense chose not to call him.

Get it through your head.

Just like he allowed Bob Costello to testify? You keep telling yourself that!

 

[AntonToo]

Come on Anton...you KNOW that Merchon wouldn't let him testify any more than he let Costello testify! It would have been one sustained objection after another just like Costello.

Costello IN FACT testified.

You probably should find some way to post without stating blatant counter-factuals.