Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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?
Why would the judge allow someone as unqualified as Michael Cohen is to testify about campaign finance law period? If he's going to not allow an expert in that subject to testify...why didn't he shut down Cohen's testimony about the same thing when the defense objected?Cohen didn't testify about the meaning and applicaition of the law as an "expert witness".
Cohen testified as a "Fact Witness"
Those are two different things. Cohen was recounting his actions and the results (Fact Witness), not attempting to explain the law to the jury (Expert Witness).
WW
Why would the judge allow someone as unqualified as Michael Cohen is to testify about campaign finance law period? If he's going to not allow an expert in that subject to testify...why didn't he shut down Cohen's testimony about the same thing when the defense objected?
Sorry but your linked article is pay walled.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.
It did do good for OJ’s defense. Not guilty with only 4 hours deliberation.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.
Are you serious? How did they do that? Who testified they saw Trump entering entries in corporate records?The Prosecution has pretty well proven that Trump falsified the entries on the corporate books.
Calling payments to a lawyer “legal fees” isn’t false.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.
So he was afraid of the truth.Because Judge Merchan informed the defense that if Trump DID take the stand that he would allow questions about multiple things that have nothing to do with this case?
Typhoid Sue, your trolling is low grade. And kind of stupid. "Nuh uh" is not a good defense.He committed no crime.
Bronx rally.
Tough times for you eh?
NopeBragg refused to name the "crime" in his indictment. Get your facts straight.
Good luck with that Google search.
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!
Sorry but your linked article is pay walled.
Who were the witnesses and what did they verify?
It did do good for OJ’s defense. Not guilty with only 4 hours deliberation.
Are you serious? How did they do that? Who testified they saw Trump entering entries in corporate records?
Calling payments to a lawyer “legal fees” isn’t false.
People several layers below Trump make entries into business ledgers.
It is plain that the charges were ginned up to a felony to get around the S of L.
That's a misdemeanor charge on which the statute of limitations had long ago expired. What is the crime that Bragg promised he would produce...the crime that the other misdemeanor crimes were bootstrapped to in order to make them into a felony?Nope
The indictment listed the crimes he committed, falsified business records. That is what he is being charged with....he is not being charged with the accompanying crime to make it a felony.... Bragg only had to show the records were falsified to cover up, another crime, whether that other crime was a misdemeanor, civil, or a felony, whether the accompanying crime was actually achieved or not, is not needed.... Just the attempt to cover up another wrong doing (crime) is all that is needed for the falsifying business records to be a felony.
They can't even narrow it down to one, Savannah. Talk about a "shot gun" approach to jurisprudence! What Bragg is doing is akin to shoveling a bunch of manure against a wall and hoping something sticks!They provided three qualifying crimes for the jury. If you haven’t heard that, then you should stop reading radical RW sites in lieu of news.
Do not spoonfeed this sealion.That's a misdemeanor charge on which the statute of limitations had long ago expired. What is the crime that Bragg promised he would produce...the crime that the other misdemeanor crimes were bootstrapped to in order to make them into a felony?
Produce that for us, Fort...Do not spoonfeed this sealion.
The crime was specified in a court filing. Read up.
It has been posted directly to you. More than once, I believe. Your act is getting old.Produce that for us, Fort...
They can't even narrow it down to one, Savannah. Talk about a "shot gun" approach to jurisprudence! What Bragg is doing is akin to shoveling a bunch of manure against a wall and hoping something sticks!
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!
lsificaiton o
The law makes perfect sense if applied as intended. As you know, since you've done the research, 99.999999999999% of the cases are for criminal fraud. Vast, vast majority are for insurance fraud - defendant burns down his warehouse (crime) and submits a false claim to his insurance company (business record). The prosecution explains to the jury how the defendant falsified the business record (the claim). Prosecution tells the jury how the defendant committed the crime - arson.
What isconfusing and frankly absurd is how Bragg is trying to shoehorn Trump into this statute. His accountants recorded a payment to his lawyer as a legal expense in their internal database (which would have never seen the light of day). THere's no explination or evidence how this record was falsified. The defense, the jury and the public still have no clue as to what the prosecution considers to be a crime, and the defense was never offered the opportunity to rebut this phantom crime. Slam dunk unconstitutional. Not even a close question.
Why you are refusing to see or acknowledge this is odd. You don't seem like the typical Trump hating loon here.
Bullshit. You've posted the misdemeanors that Bragg shoehorned onto an alleged "crime" that he wouldn't name in the indictments...stating that he didn't need to name it! Now the trial is almost over and we STILL don't know what the crime is!It has been posted directly to you. More than once, I believe. Your act is getting old.
Somehow Bragg wants the public to believe that Trump committed the crime of election interference because he was claiming the money he paid to Cohen as a legal expense on books that the general public would have never seen and even the IRS wouldn't have seen until the next tax filing which wouldn't have been until months AFTER the election! It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen and any competent judge would have tossed Bragg's case right from the onset of the trial!lsificaiton o
The law makes perfect sense if applied as intended. As you know, since you've done the research, 99.999999999999% of the cases are for criminal fraud. Vast, vast majority are for insurance fraud - defendant burns down his warehouse (crime) and submits a false claim to his insurance company (business record). The prosecution explains to the jury how the defendant falsified the business record (the claim). Prosecution tells the jury how the defendant committed the crime - arson.
What isconfusing and frankly absurd is how Bragg is trying to shoehorn Trump into this statute. His accountants recorded a payment to his lawyer as a legal expense in their internal database (which would have never seen the light of day). THere's no explination or evidence how this record was falsified. The defense, the jury and the public still have no clue as to what the prosecution considers to be a crime, and the defense was never offered the opportunity to rebut this phantom crime. Slam dunk unconstitutional. Not even a close question.
Why you are refusing to see or acknowledge this is odd. You don't seem like the typical Trump hating loon here.
