Why the Sudden Doubts about the Verdict?

[SavannahMann]

Trump is winning in the court of public opinion bigly.

The verdict? All anyone in this discussion can do now is speculate. Let's wait and see.

I agree with half your comment. The decision is going to be the Jury’s to make.

As for public opinion. I don’t think so.

Most believe Trump probably guilty of crime as his NYC trial comes to an end, CBS News poll finds

As Donald Trump's New York criminal trial concludes, most Americans believe he's probably guilty of a crime but are much less sure about what the jury will decide.

www.cbsnews.com

A curious point. The poll seems to match Trump’s disapproval numbers. If so. He is winning folks he has already won. He isn’t convincing anyone new.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Costello came off as a disrespectful, crooked mob boss lawyer and thug. The Costello emails proved Cohen's instinct to not trust him as a lawyer was spot on! Thus Cohen not telling Costello about Trump.....

Big big mistake that the defense called him as a witness, thinking it would be easy peasy because of the way the republican Congress treated him with kid gloves in their hearing.....boy were they wrong!

Cohen didn't trust Costello? That's rich. Cohen went to Costello begging for help to stay out of prison on his tax evasion charges. He said he'd do anything to stay out of prison and Costello told him the flat out truth...if you have something on Trump...something illegal that you can give to prosecutors...then Costello would be able to cut him a deal that would make his legal problems go away. Cohen's repeated answer? HE HAD NOTHING ON TRUMP!

As for how Costello was treated by Congress? He was allowed to testify. The Democrat members had full opportunity to challenge that testimony. They didn't lay a "glove" on him! It's hard to do so when you're telling the truth! Stark contrast with Michael Cohen...who's time on the stand was brutal because he lies so often.

Judge Merchan...who's supposed to be neutral...was anything but with defense witnesses. They only wanted to call two and the way that Merchan treated THOSE two witnesses compared to the prosecution's witnesses illustrates how biased he is! Smith...the expert on campaign finance law Merchan wouldn't allow to testify about campaign finance law although he allowed Michael Cohen to testify about it. Costello he repeatedly silenced with rapid SUSTAINED rulings to repeated Prosecution objections and then threatened to strike ALL of his testimony because he didn't like the way Costello "looked at him"!

 

[Man With A Plan]

And Litman says that the Prosecution has proven the case while the defense was scattershot.

Litman: Trump's hush money trial is about to go to the jury. What's the most likely verdict?

New York prosecutors presented a credible narrative. The defense relied mainly on undermining prosecution witnesses such as Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.

www.latimes.com

Harry Litman? You're taking his opinion over Alan Dershowitz? LOL

 

[Man With A Plan]

Yes, the whole thing is weird the way their law is written where it is a misdemeanor, unless accompanied by another crime or attempted crime or cover-up or attempted cover-up of a crime, then the original indictment becomes a felony....while not charging them or needing the accompanied crime to have been charged previously is just one big fat ball of craziness and confusion.

That will likely be on the list of appeal reasons for the defense, if he is found guilty by all the jurors.

But note, NYState has used this law and charged others previous to Trump, at this felony level....it's not new for Trump.

Trump still did what they are claiming in their indictment though....imo!

Who has New York State EVER used the law this way against other than Donald Trump?

The indictment? The indictment doesn't state what the "crime" is!

 

[Seymour Flops]

11 people can vote guilty and 1 not guilty and he gets off. So then does that really mean he is not guilty?

It will mean that the prosecution will have utterly failed to convince a jury of his guilt. Which they should have known hey would not be able to do, if all the laymen on this forum can see it so clearly.

Where y'all getting the 11 to 1 for convicting figure, that you all seem to be parroting?

How do you know it won't be evenly split, or 11 to 1 for acquital?

Is it another case of one person pulling it out of their ass and the rest following the quickest ass-puller?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the jury returns the judge will ask “how guilty do you find the Bad Orange Man?”

 

[pknopp]

Harry Litman? You're taking his opinion over Alan Dershowitz? LOL

Alan Dershowitz? Jeffrey Epsteins best bud?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It will mean that the prosecution will have utterly failed to convince a jury of his guilt. Which they should have known hey would not be able to do, if all the laymen on this forum can see it so clearly.

Where y'all getting the 11 to 1 for convicting figure, that you all seem to be parroting?

How do you know it won't be evenly split, or 11 to 1 for acquital?

Is it another case of one person pulling it out of their ass and the rest following the quickest ass-puller?

They’re hoping for another OJ jury

 

[Seymour Flops]

Smart money says hung jury. Which is not a finding..but rather a declaration that a finding is impossible. I'm sure that the Right will tout a hung jury as a victory, but it really isn't.
Trump isn't going to prison.....not on this charge, anyway~

Right, there is a zero chance he goes to prison over this.

Why did every Trump supporter on here know that from the get-go, while the TDSers were wetting their pants with excitement over the prospect of Trump taking it up the ass in a cold cell?

For that matter, why did the prosecutors not know the futility of their case? We knew it was weak, but we only saw just how weak as the prosecutors presented it. The prosecutors knew it, unless the claim is that they did not even know their own case?

Don't forget, the reason that they brought Matthew Colangelo in was that he is the premier Trump prosecutor, the biggest expert on how to GET TRUMP. Why did he fail so miserably?

Hint: Because Trump dindo nuttin.

 

[pknopp]

Why did every Trump supporter on here know that from the get-go, while the TDSers were wetting their pants with excitement over the prospect of Trump taking it up the ass in a cold cell?

I don't speak for what others might or might not have thought.

For that matter, why did the prosecutors not know the futility of their case? We knew it was weak, but we only saw just how weak as the prosecutors presented it. The prosecutors knew it, unless the claim is that they did not even know their own case?

Don't forget, the reason that they brought Matthew Colangelo in was that he is the premier Trump prosecutor, the biggest expert on how to GET TRUMP. Why did he fail so miserably?

Hint: Because Trump dindo nuttin.

I'll wait for the verdict to comment on the outcome.

 

[SavannahMann]

Harry Litman? You're taking his opinion over Alan Dershowitz? LOL

No. I’m saying there are various opinions.

Former prosecutors and defense attorneys have said that it looks like the Prosecution did a good job. Litman was in the courtroom for much of the trial. So he has seen more than the news synopsis.

But let’s compare and contrast. The famous OJ trial. From day one the Defense pointed their questions at the alternative idea that somebody else did the crime. They brought doubt to every witness and every conclusion. They discredited Furman. They made the DNA expert admit some twenty people in the Los Angeles Basin would have the same DNA profile as OJ.

By contrast the Trump defense has asked some decent questions. But not offering any alternative view of the evidence. Just that the witness was awful. They opposed Trump.

That is what Litman is referencing with the scattershot defense.

Trump’s defense appears to be I did it. So what? The witnesses against me are awful.

The best defenses offer their own narrative of the evidence. They are more successful than anything other than misconduct on the Prosecutions side. An example of that is the Bundy Ranch FBI agent caught lying under oath.

Trump’s team hasn’t offered a narrative. They have only said that the witnesses are awful, and possibly lying. But the audio files make that claim really weak. It’s hard to say the witnesses are lying when the tape backs up their statements.

Rittenhouse offered a narrative that explained the evidence. And he was found not guilty. The McMichaels offered a narrative that was weak, and they were found guilty. That was because their narrative was that Blacks are criminals and dangerous. It didn’t fly.

Trump’s narrative is they’re all out to get me. And so what if I really did it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

No. I’m saying there are various opinions.

Former prosecutors and defense attorneys have said that it looks like the Prosecution did a good job. Litman was in the courtroom for much of the trial. So he has seen more than the news synopsis.

But let’s compare and contrast. The famous OJ trial. From day one the Defense pointed their questions at the alternative idea that somebody else did the crime. They brought doubt to every witness and every conclusion. They discredited Furman. They made the DNA expert admit some twenty people in the Los Angeles Basin would have the same DNA profile as OJ.

By contrast the Trump defense has asked some decent questions. But not offering any alternative view of the evidence. Just that the witness was awful. They opposed Trump.

That is what Litman is referencing with the scattershot defense.

Trump’s defense appears to be I did it. So what? The witnesses against me are awful.

The best defenses offer their own narrative of the evidence. They are more successful than anything other than misconduct on the Prosecutions side. An example of that is the Bundy Ranch FBI agent caught lying under oath.

Trump’s team hasn’t offered a narrative. They have only said that the witnesses are awful, and possibly lying. But the audio files make that claim really weak. It’s hard to say the witnesses are lying when the tape backs up their statements.

Rittenhouse offered a narrative that explained the evidence. And he was found not guilty. The McMichaels offered a narrative that was weak, and they were found guilty. That was because their narrative was that Blacks are criminals and dangerous. It didn’t fly.

Trump’s narrative is they’re all out to get me. And so what if I really did it?

You make some decent points.

I’d like to zero in on your OJ trial example and point out one sharp difference between the Trump trial and the OJ trial. And almost every other criminal trial for that matter.

In the OJ trial - and almost every criminal trisl - there was no question of the existence of the crime. Two people were hacked to death in a brutal way. A horrible crime that police needed to find the perp.

In the Trump case, the idea is to fit actions by Trump somehow into a crime listed in the New York criminal code. The prosecution has not done that successfully.

All the witnesses except Cohen and “Daniel’s” may have told the truth as they saw it. The defense’s question for them would be “how is that a crime?”

They can’t ask that because the witnesses were not legal experts. They tried bringing in a legal expert but the judge shut that down.

As CNN stated, the most important part of Trumps defense was the cross-examination of Cohen. He’s the only person who tied Trump to acts that the prosecution seeks to criminalize, and Defense attorney Blanche made him admit to lying again,

The media knows this, so they are lowering expectations.

 

[SavannahMann]

You make some decent points.

I’d like to zero in on your OJ trial example and point out one sharp difference between the Trump trial and the OJ trial. And almost every other criminal trial for that matter.

In the OJ trial - and almost every criminal trisl - there was no question of the existence of the crime. Two people were hacked to death in a brutal way. A horrible crime that police needed to find the perp.

In the Trump case, the idea is to fit actions by Trump somehow into a crime listed in the New York criminal code. The prosecution has not done that successfully.

All the witnesses except Cohen and “Daniel’s” may have told the truth as they saw it. The defense’s question for them would be “how is that a crime?”

They can’t ask that because the witnesses were not legal experts. They tried bringing in a legal expert but the judge shut that down.

As CNN stated, the most important part of Trumps defense was the cross-examination of Cohen. He’s the only person who tied Trump to acts that the prosecution seeks to criminalize, and Defense attorney Blanche made him admit to lying again,

The media knows this, so they are lowering expectations.

Cohen had his testimony supported before he took the stand. The article I linked showed that witnesses existed to every assertion Cohen made. If it was a meeting where instructions were issued, there was a witness and they testified that it happened.

So discrediting Cohen isn’t working.

Again using the OJ trial. Let’s say that Furman is blasted by being caught in the lie. Ok. But in this case, two others would be there to witness Furman walking up and finding the bloody glove. So burning him doesn’t do any good as the others are not as easily impeached.

The Prosecution has pretty well proven that Trump falsified the entries on the corporate books. So that is not really in question. Again the Trump defense didn’t offer any other narrative. Even if you discount Cohen, there were 21 other witnesses and the audio files, canceled checks, and emails, which show that Trump falsified the business records.

The last question is really two parts. First. The instructions to the Jury where the laws and their application are explained. Second. If the Jury buys the another crime claim.

I think the trial will hinge on those two questions. The prosecution has demonstrated that Trump did it. Now the question is if it was a felony, and if they decide to find him guilty.

 

[Care4all]

Who has New York State EVER used the law this way against other than Donald Trump?

The indictment? The indictment doesn't state what the "crime" is!

1. I read that they have several times since the law was created. Google search could get the answer....I'll see what I can find out, when I can.

2. The indictment states the crimes he is being charged with.... The accompanying crime(s) or attempted crimes or attempted cover up of an accompanying crime to make it a felony, were listed as and/or attempted election and campaign financing crimes, without specific statutes, since those crimes were not being charged in this indictment.

 

[Man With A Plan]

1. I read that they have several times since the law was created. Google search could get the answer....I'll see what I can find out, when I can.

2. The indictment states the crimes he is being charged with.... The accompanying crime(s) or attempted crimes or attempted cover up of an accompanying crime to make it a felony, were listed as and/or attempted election and campaign financing crimes, without specific statutes, since those crimes were not being charged in this indictment.

Bragg refused to name the "crime" in his indictment. Get your facts straight.

Good luck with that Google search.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Justice Merchan ruled he could testify about the law, however he was not allowed to testify about the application of the text of the law to this case.

So while the judge cleared him to testify, the defense choose not to call him.

WW

 

[Man With A Plan]

No. I’m saying there are various opinions.

Former prosecutors and defense attorneys have said that it looks like the Prosecution did a good job. Litman was in the courtroom for much of the trial. So he has seen more than the news synopsis.

But let’s compare and contrast. The famous OJ trial. From day one the Defense pointed their questions at the alternative idea that somebody else did the crime. They brought doubt to every witness and every conclusion. They discredited Furman. They made the DNA expert admit some twenty people in the Los Angeles Basin would have the same DNA profile as OJ.

By contrast the Trump defense has asked some decent questions. But not offering any alternative view of the evidence. Just that the witness was awful. They opposed Trump.

That is what Litman is referencing with the scattershot defense.

Trump’s defense appears to be I did it. So what? The witnesses against me are awful.

The best defenses offer their own narrative of the evidence. They are more successful than anything other than misconduct on the Prosecutions side. An example of that is the Bundy Ranch FBI agent caught lying under oath.

Trump’s team hasn’t offered a narrative. They have only said that the witnesses are awful, and possibly lying. But the audio files make that claim really weak. It’s hard to say the witnesses are lying when the tape backs up their statements.

Rittenhouse offered a narrative that explained the evidence. And he was found not guilty. The McMichaels offered a narrative that was weak, and they were found guilty. That was because their narrative was that Blacks are criminals and dangerous. It didn’t fly.

Trump’s narrative is they’re all out to get me. And so what if I really did it?

Trump's defense is that not only have they not proven the "crime" that they bootstrapped the expired misdemeanors to to turn them into a felony...they haven't even NAMED the crime!

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

That isn't what the judge ruled.

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

Yes it was made by the defense, the approved his testimony as to the what the law said, history, and function of the FEC.

The defense decided to not call him within the scope of allowed testimony.

WW

 

[Man With A Plan]

Justice Merchan ruled he could testify about the law, however he was not allowed to testify about the application of the text of the law to this case.

So while the judge cleared him to testify, the defense choose not to call him.

WW

And yet Merchan allowed Michael Cohen to explain to the jury why what took place was a violation of campaign finance law? How is that fair?

 

[Man With A Plan]

That isn't what the judge ruled.



Yes it was made by the defense, the approved his testimony as to the what the law said, history, and function of the FEC.

The defense decided to not call him within the scope of allowed testimony.

WW

If the judge allowed Michael Cohen to give his opinion on why Trump broke campaign finance laws why wouldn't he have allowed the defense to counter that with their own witness?