Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[Bray123]

Whether he fucked Stormy Daniel is irrelevant to the case. E Jean Carroll is immaterial. Hatred for Trump is not a qualifier for prosecution.

Who’s your legal expert? Lawrence O’Donnell

Whether Schitzinpants fucked Stormy is possibly relevant in a trial over whether he paid her off for fucking her.

If he hadn't fucked her he wouldn't have paid her for fucking her and the case would be moot. He laundered the payments to hide the payments from the electorate as even the least-toothed mouth-breather might understand that fucking a porn star whilst his third wife was giving birth might not align with Christian/Family Values.

 

[dmallord]

Whether he fucked Stormy Daniel is irrelevant to the case. E Jean Carroll is immaterial. Hatred for Trump is not a qualifier for prosecution.

Who’s your legal expert? Lawrence O’Donnell

It will be in the minds of the jurors, even so. You can't erase the fact that his moral behavior isn't common knowledge.

Don’t need a complaint when you have admission of guilt.

Your legal prowess doesn’t even equate to a shithouse lawyer.

Likewise, fellow, shithouse lawyer.

ChatGPT 4.0 says:
The role of a prosecutor in the criminal justice system is to enforce the law and pursue justice. When someone admits to a theft, several factors come into play in determining whether the prosecutor must take action, even if there are no complaints from the victim. Here's a breakdown of the considerations:

1. Legal Obligation: Prosecutors have a duty to uphold the law. If someone admits to committing a crime, the prosecutor typically has a legal obligation to investigate and potentially prosecute the case. This duty is not contingent upon whether a victim has complained or reported the crime.
2. Discretion: Prosecutors also have a degree of discretion in deciding which cases to pursue. They consider various factors, such as the severity of the offense, the evidence available, the circumstances of the crime, and the interests of justice. If a theft involves a minor amount of money and no victim is pressing charges, the prosecutor might decide that pursuing the case is not a priority.
3. Public Interest: Even if there is no complaint, the prosecutor must consider the public interest. Theft is a crime against property and society, and allowing it to go unpunished could undermine the rule of law. Prosecutors might choose to pursue charges to deter future crimes and maintain public confidence in the legal system.
4. Restitution and Alternative Resolutions: In some cases, especially for minor offenses or first-time offenders, prosecutors might seek alternative resolutions such as restitution (paying back the stolen money) or diversion programs rather than pursuing incarceration. These alternatives focus on rehabilitation and making amends rather than punishment.

In summary, while a prosecutor does not necessarily have to lock up someone who admits to theft if there is no complaint, they are still obligated to consider the admission seriously. They may choose to investigate and prosecute based on the merits of the case and the broader interests of justice, possibly exploring alternative resolutions depending on the circumstances.

 

[jomar]

It was salacious and irrelevant testimony that cannot be unheard. It could steer the jury in the wrong direction. He consistently sustained objections from the prosecution while overruling objections from the defense.

You keep saying without any evidence that any sustained or overruled objections weren’t fair.

The case is already convoluted and confusing. Can’t believe the jury won’t be back till next Wednesday.

That is true. The judge gave his reasoning and I think it’s Tuesday, not Wednesday, though I could have misheard.

 

[icanhelp1]

It was 45 knowingly lying on an fec filing.

Why would Trump even be involved with FEC filings. Merchan refusing to allow a campaign finance expert to testify or to strictly narrow his testimony to anything other than campaign finance law doesn’t inform the jury. The jury still has no idea what the underlying crime is. Lying on FEC filings is a federal jurisdiction. The prosecution has failed to even associate Trump with day to day business transactions. Conspiring to willfully interfere with an election campaign using a state statute to bootstrap a federal charge to. A charge the FTC refused to charge. A state bookkeeping rule that outran the statute of limitations. A lot depends on final instructions.

 

[ll74]

Why would Trump even be involved with FEC filings. Merchan refusing to allow a campaign finance expert to testify or to strictly narrow his testimony to anything other than campaign finance law doesn’t inform the jury. The jury still has no idea what the underlying crime is. Lying on FEC filings is a federal jurisdiction. The prosecution has failed to even associate Trump with day to day business transactions. Conspiring to willfully interfere with an election campaign using a state statute to bootstrap a federal charge to. A charge the FTC refused to charge. A state bookkeeping rule that outran the statute of limitations. A lot depends on final instructions.

You're ignoring what has already been stated

“The defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the defendant’s electoral prospects,” Bragg’s office wrote in a statement of facts accompanying the bare bones indictment.

Hush money payments are not illegal, but when Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payoff, the funds were characterized as legal expenses.

Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor under New York law, one that can be bumped to a felony when done to obscure another crime.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...aws-bragg-eyes-a-backup-plan/?nxs-test=mobile

 

[icanhelp1]

It will be in the minds of the jurors, even so. You can't erase the fact that his moral behavior isn't common knowledge.

Likewise, fellow, shithouse lawyer.

ChatGPT 4.0 says:
The role of a prosecutor in the criminal justice system is to enforce the law and pursue justice. When someone admits to a theft, several factors come into play in determining whether the prosecutor must take action, even if there are no complaints from the victim. Here's a breakdown of the considerations:

1. Legal Obligation: Prosecutors have a duty to uphold the law. If someone admits to committing a crime, the prosecutor typically has a legal obligation to investigate and potentially prosecute the case. This duty is not contingent upon whether a victim has complained or reported the crime.
2. Discretion: Prosecutors also have a degree of discretion in deciding which cases to pursue. They consider various factors, such as the severity of the offense, the evidence available, the circumstances of the crime, and the interests of justice. If a theft involves a minor amount of money and no victim is pressing charges, the prosecutor might decide that pursuing the case is not a priority.
3. Public Interest: Even if there is no complaint, the prosecutor must consider the public interest. Theft is a crime against property and society, and allowing it to go unpunished could undermine the rule of law. Prosecutors might choose to pursue charges to deter future crimes and maintain public confidence in the legal system.
4. Restitution and Alternative Resolutions: In some cases, especially for minor offenses or first-time offenders, prosecutors might seek alternative resolutions such as restitution (paying back the stolen money) or diversion programs rather than pursuing incarceration. These alternatives focus on rehabilitation and making amends rather than punishment.

In summary, while a prosecutor does not necessarily have to lock up someone who admits to theft if there is no complaint, they are still obligated to consider the admission seriously. They may choose to investigate and prosecute based on the merits of the case and the broader interests of justice, possibly exploring alternative resolutions depending on the circumstances.

This admission happened right in front of a judge.

What happens if another crime that someone other than the current defendant committed, comes to light during a trial?

First, the prosecutor may decide that the issue needs investigation and she or he may ask the relevant police agency to do so.

Next, if the possible criminal conduct took place on the prosecution side of the case ( by either a police or civilian witness) the presiding Judge may instruct the prosecutor to refer the issue to a competent police investigative agency to investigate.

 

[dmallord]

This admission happened right in front of a judge. [Yep, it did. Everybody knows that.]

What happens if another crime that someone other than the current defendant committed, comes to light during a trial? [So! WOW! You acknowledge the DEFENDENT, Donald J. Trump, committed a crime(s)! You've expressed just here what many have said all along. So, do you want justice? Then, Lock Him UP!]

First, the prosecutor may decide that the issue needs investigation and she or he may ask the relevant police agency to do so. [I pointed that out already. May is not the same as SHALL in legal-beagle talk. Or the prosecutor may not take up the issue.]

Next, if the possible criminal conduct took place on the prosecution side of the case ( by either a police or civilian witness) the presiding Judge may instruct the prosecutor to refer the issue to a competent police investigative agency to investigate. [I pointed that out already. May is not the same as SHALL in legal-beagle talk. Or the judge may not take up the issue.]

Consider this, the DA's representative was in court, right? It's possible that the DA is already considering taking this up. Maybe there's a pre-existing arrangement between Cohen and the DA regarding this element, in exchange for his testimony. It's all part of the legal chess game. That 'wish' on your part may come later than sooner or even, not at all.

Besides Cohen is a small fish in the pond of crime ... the whale is the orange-haired guy wearing Depends under four Federal Indictments. He is the one you should be concerned about putting in jail. He's skirting the law and under protection by the US Secret Services team. How ironic is that?

 

[Bn2f]

As a trump supporter keeping abreast of this trial from my couch with in-depth analysis from OAN, I would have very much liked my cult leader to have taken the stand and showed Bragg and his parade of liars the honest, straight from the horse’s mouth, trump truth.

 

[coati]

The prosecution took defense witness Costello apart today. The defense case hit the skids. It was clear that Costello had unsuccessfully pressured Cohen.

You never know if the jury will have one holdout, but Trump's defense is shit. If the jury can be unanimous, I hope Trump gets some hard time. He deserves it in this case, because he will continue to lie about what took place.

 

[KeithD]

I'm afraid the prosecution may not have gotten this pinned down beyond a doubt on Trump, especially with there being two lawyers on the jury. At the same time, we all know he's guilty of this and so much more. He's suffering. The accounting has already been in process. He will continue to suffer.

 

[butters]

The prosecution took defense witness Costello apart today. The defense case hit the skids. It was clear that Costello had unsuccessfully pressured Cohen.

You never know if the jury will have one holdout, but Trump's defense is shit. If the jury can be unanimous, I hope Trump gets some hard time. He deserves it in this case, because he will continue to lie about what took place.

i missed it today... got a link to the reports coming out of the court?

 

[coati]

i missed it today... got a link to the reports coming out of the court?

I saw Andrea Mitchell's report on TV today ("An extraordinary collapse"). She was in the courtroom. She said Costello had to admit he sent emails that put pressure on Cohen to be a team player with "the most powerful man in the world." He called Cohen crazy for not doing so. Costello's pressure on Cohen even continued to a recent incident that bordered on witness tampering.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

JKind of sick of the argumentative saps like FUZZYNUTS and 77 who do nothing more than sling ad-hom.

Show me where I've done what you claim...or as I said in another thread, you're just a fucking liar....

I studied this case even before trial and found it not to be a credible case.

Now you're claiming to be a Lawyer, just like Derpy....

Pure political theatrics and abuse of the judiciary. Just an extension of Letitia Jame’s fraud case. N Yorkers should be embarrassed of their judicial system. Hatred for Trump doesn’t qualify for criminal prosecution. Sad!

It how your legal system works, there was nothing nefarious about the legal mechanisms. If the GJ had not brought down a recommendation to charge,Trump would not be in court.

 

[coati]

i missed it today... got a link to the reports coming out of the court?

Here is the link to the report by Mitchell.

Costello turned out to be an excellent witness for the prosecution. His emails revealed that Cohen was being pressured to take the fall for Trump.

 

[icanhelp1]

Show me where I've done what you claim...or as I said in another thread, you're just a fucking liar....

Now you're claiming to be a Lawyer, just like Derpy....

It how your legal system works, there was nothing nefarious about the legal mechanisms. If the GJ had not brought down a recommendation to charge,Trump would not be in court.

No it’s or how our justice system is supposed to work!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No it’s or how our justice system is supposed to work!

what? Try English.

 

[Bn2f]

No it’s or how our justice system is supposed to work!

I agree! It’s not supposed to work like this.

For years this corrupt wannabe mobster swindled contractors and local governments, discriminated against tenants in his apartments, and was sued over a thousand times. He skated freely through our judicial system. And he would’ve gotten away with it too except for, ruh-roh, his meddling, ambitious egomania and being able to con single cell organisms like yourself into thinking he’s looking out for your white privilege.

 

[SmokingFap]

So this is how it went for Trump's sole witness for the defense...

 

[Rightguide]

It will be in the minds of the jurors, even so. You can't erase the fact that his moral behavior isn't common knowledge.

Likewise, fellow, shithouse lawyer.

says:
The role of a prosecutor in the criminal justice system is to enforce the law and pursue justice.

ChatGPT 4.0 is often full of shit.

The moral obligation of a prosecutor to the accused is to ensure that justice is served by upholding the law and ethical standards. This includes refraining from prosecuting without probable cause, advising the accused of their rights, making timely disclosure of evidence that negates guilt or mitigates the offense, and seeking to remedy convictions when clear evidence of innocence arises. Prosecutors must balance their role as advocates for the state with their duty to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the legal system.

a prosecutor has an ethical and legal obligation not to bring punitive prosecutions without clear evidence. According to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a prosecutor must refrain from prosecuting a charge that they know is not supported by probable cause. They are also required to make timely disclosure of all evidence or information known to them that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense. This ensures that innocent persons are not unfairly charged and that the evidence against a suspect is sufficient to support a specific charge

The moral obligations of a judge to the accused include ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially. Judges are expected to uphold the law, respect due process, and be free from external pressures or influences. They must also be proficient in ascertaining facts and firmly enforce the rules of court during trials. Ethical principles dictate that judges should understand the effects of their decisions, especially in sentencing, to ensure fair treatment of defendants.

In the case, against Donald Trump we've seen violations by both the prosecutor and by the judge.

 

[HisArpy]

ChatGPT 4.0 is often full of shit.

The moral obligation of a prosecutor to the accused is to ensure that justice is served by upholding the law and ethical standards. This includes refraining from prosecuting without probable cause, advising the accused of their rights, making timely disclosure of evidence that negates guilt or mitigates the offense, and seeking to remedy convictions when clear evidence of innocence arises. Prosecutors must balance their role as advocates for the state with their duty to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the legal system.

a prosecutor has an ethical and legal obligation not to bring punitive prosecutions without clear evidence. According to the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a prosecutor must refrain from prosecuting a charge that they know is not supported by probable cause. They are also required to make timely disclosure of all evidence or information known to them that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense. This ensures that innocent persons are not unfairly charged and that the evidence against a suspect is sufficient to support a specific charge

The moral obligations of a judge to the accused include ensuring that justice is served fairly and impartially. Judges are expected to uphold the law, respect due process, and be free from external pressures or influences. They must also be proficient in ascertaining facts and firmly enforce the rules of court during trials. Ethical principles dictate that judges should understand the effects of their decisions, especially in sentencing, to ensure fair treatment of defendants.
In the case, against Donald Trump we've violations by both the prosecutor and by the judge.

You know this, I know this, even the TDS afflicted trolls know this.

The difference is that you and I respect the rules and they don't.

 

[Rightguide]

You know this, I know this, even the TDS afflicted trolls know this.

The difference is that you and I respect the rules and they don't.

I don't think I have ever seen a more incompetent prosecutor or a more biased judge in the same courtroom. Both should be forced from the profession to protect it's integrity.

 

[Bray123]

You know this, I know this, even the TDS afflicted trolls know this.

The difference is that you and I respect the rules and they don't.

Is there any evidence that Trump respects the rules or his TDS supporters either?

Considering he showed up to give his daily 'witch-hunt and scam' rant on the court steps backed up by the ex-head of the Hells Angels?

 

[HisArpy]

I don't think I have ever seen a more incompetent prosecutor or a more biased judge in the same courtroom. Both should be forced from the profession to protect it's integrity.

100 years ago they would have been. Today's protected children lack the spine to do what their ancestors would have done without a second thought.

 

[icanhelp1]

I don't think I have ever seen a more incompetent prosecutor or a more biased judge in the same courtroom. Both should be forced from the profession to protect it's integrity.

I would suggest a good comparison to judge Sullivan presiding over the Flynn case.

 

[Rightguide]

I would suggest a good comparison to judge Sullivan presiding over the Flynn case.

Him too. If you've been following the Senate confirmation hearings you will know that we are going to see a lot more of these crazed judges. The Democrats are confirming people who have little to no knowledge of the Constitution.