Cohen fell flat

[Aristides]

The jury will decide who fell flat and who didn't. They include a retired wealth manager, an investment banker and a civil litigator. It will be hard to bullshit them and other jurors will likely look to them for guidance when it comes to the legal technicalities of finance and business.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The jury will decide who fell flat and who didn't. 

I rather suspect it's going to be the appeals judges who do. 

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I rather suspect it's going to be the appeals judges who do. 

If an appeal is granted. Appeals are granted on whether the original trial involved legal errors, not whether a particular witness " fell flat".

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If an appeal is granted.

the trial is already littered with a tonne of fodder for it. Honestly it's been a bit of a crap show and i think it's more about posturing on both sides than it is actually addressing issues of justice, and that kind of thing generally leaves the door wide open. 

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Appeals are granted on whether the original trial involved legal errors, not whether a particular witness " fell flat".

not exactly. It's the court proceedings, which law was applied and how it was applied, which may or may not include errors. How testimony is handled and whether things said should be considered etc is a major factor.  For example  - The 'no condom' comment from stormy already is a potential source of a retrial whether it's a legal error or not - it shouldn't have been put out there and it may be claimed it was prejudicial later with or without claiming it was an error. 

We'll see. 

 

[taxme]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Trials aren't illegal. As the saying goes you can sue someone for eating a ham sandwich. Doesn't mean you'll win but that's why we have courts. 

It is pretty clear that the dems and their supporters have been blatantly engaged in what is called "punishment by process", where the goal is for the process to punish the "defendant" whether they're guilty or not.  But that's not really illegal, it's just beyond scummy and very banana republic. 

 

And nobody but the dems will blame him if he does. He let hillary of the hook and now he looks like a dufus for it - i suspect he'll be out for blood. We'll see how far he gets with that, the system is pretty riddled with lefties and there's only 4 years. 

But he might do some real damage which is why nobody before has ever picked this kind of fight.  It very quickly becomes tit for tat and the courts get weaponized against political oppoents.  AND the political parties become very very invested in making sure that only judges that do what they're told get put in place (more so than now even) and everyone loses faith in the gov't, in the courts, and pretty soon the country falls apart. 

It's globalist Marxism that has made the governments to become corrupt, and made the courts now become political, and the department of justice to become weaponized. This is what the demoncrat Marxists have given to America. but yet there seems to be so many buffoons out there who are still willing to vote for Bidumb. WTF is wrong with those imbeciles? Those are the imbeciles that keep hurting themselves by their willing to keep voting for their demise and slavery. 

I guess this is the main reason as to why aliens have never set up shop here on earth. They cannot find enough intelligent people to talk too. 😒

[Hodad]

On 5/14/2024 at 7:05 AM, Nationalist said:

There is no case here. This is a hail Mary to keep Trump off the campaign trail and hope New Yorkers will ignore the law and convict.

Garland, Bragg and Juan Merchan should face charges after this for trying to warp the legal system and costing the taxpayers.

Again, Garland is in no way involved in or related to this case. It's an NY DA. You apparently want to put people in jail without even understanding the basic facts of the case. Par.🙄

Edited May 15, 2024 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Again, Garland is in no way involved in or related to this case. It's an NY DA.

Matthew Colangelo

A Garland DOJ guy who's been chasing Trump for quite some time now. Oh quelled suprise...

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Matthew Colangelo

A Garland DOJ guy who's been chasing Trump for quite some time now. Oh quelled suprise...

Goodness, you've cracked it! A lawyer who used to work in NY did a tour in D.C. and then went back to NY. Scandal!

[Nationalist]

Just now, Hodad said:

Goodness, you've cracked it! A lawyer who used to work in NY did a tour in D.C. and then went back to NY. Scandal!

Yup. I don't believe unbelievable coincidence.  But then...I can actually think. So ya...there's that...

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Goodness, you've cracked it! A lawyer who used to work in NY did a tour in D.C. and then went back to NY. Scandal!

A russian meets with trumps kid for 10 minutes and the entire election was 'russian collusion'.  A known player who's been after trump talks to another person who's after trump and there's an actual result and it's a 'conspiracy' theory. 

Hypocrisy, thy name is democrat  

Edited May 15, 2024 by CdnFox

[robosmith]

22 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yup. I don't believe unbelievable coincidence.  But then...I can actually think. So ya...there's that...

It's not a coincidence to hire a lawyer with EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE about a case.

[robosmith]

The New York Trump Case Is Kind of Perfect

Quote

Strictly speaking, Daniels’s testimony wasn’t necessary—particularly the details about the sex. The case is about whether Trump caused the falsification of business records at his business, and whether that falsification was intended to cover up another crime (among other offenses, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act). Daniels has absolutely nothing to say about the Trump Organization’s business records, and the fact that she was ultimately paid the hush money isn’t in dispute. The sex strictly doesn’t matter: If Daniels and Trump didn’t have sex—as Trump maintains—but the facts alleged by the New York County District Attorney’s Office were otherwise the same and proved, Trump could still be found guilty of a Class E felony under the New York penal law.

But as we have so often seen over the past nine years, Trump’s instinctive, narcissistic mendacity came into self-defeating play once again—this time by making Daniels’s testimony more significant than it had to be. It’s hard to imagine that many sentient, honest human beings could believe Trump’s denials of having congressed with Daniels. Yet Trump continues to insist on denying it—not only in public, but in court. And not only is sex not an element of the crime, but his strongest defense—the one he could actually skate on—will be to argue that there is insufficient evidence that he knew his people were falsifying business records. This defense faces many problems—including that Trump personally signed (on the Resolute desk!) some checks (made out to Cohen) in packets with false backup attached. Still, Trump would have been best off having his lawyers focus their efforts on the question of his knowledge and intent regarding the payments.

As usual, though, this defendant just couldn’t help himself. The prosecution was entitled to put on evidence of the sex to establish Trump’s motive for the payoff and cover-up. The defendant could have had his lawyers not dispute the point, even stipulate to it. What’s the harm? His political supporters stand by him even though he’s already a civilly adjudicated sex offender, so why would they care one whit about what he did consensually for a couple of minutes with an adult-film actor once upon a time in Stateline, Nevada? Had he not insisted on contesting the point, Daniels might not have had to testify, or at least she might have been on and off the stand in a flash. Because, again, what ultimately matters in the case happened mostly in New York City in 2016.. 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

It's not a coincidence to hire a lawyer with EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE about a case.

Pfft...

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

The New York Trump Case Is Kind of Perfect

 

How is this case any different than Hillary Clinton paying a lawyer to have the dossier fabricated and delivered to the FBI knowing everything in it was a lie?

[CdnFox]

23 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

How is this case any different than Hillary Clinton paying a lawyer to have the dossier fabricated and delivered to the FBI knowing everything in it was a lie?

Well amusingly the democratic party and Hillary's campaign were both find heavily for election accounting issues just as trump is being accused of as a result of trying to hide that money. Strangely, nobody brought for middle charges against her. This is why people look at what's happening to trump as being hypocrisy