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

The three underlying charges were not available to the defense till after the final summation by the prosecution. The defense cannot properly cross examine the charges if the charges are kept from the defense.
Thanks for the link supporting this claim.

Another reverse error, another reason for a directed verdict and another reason reason the appellate court will overturn the trial on a violation of the sixth amendment . This judge is making shit up as he goes.
If so, let the truth and the law stand.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. IMHO
Calm down, would hate to see you stroke out! Your boy was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in relation to a $130,000 hush-money payment that his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the final weeks of the 2016 election. Anyway, the defense did their due diligence so I’m pretty sure they knew exactly what they were facing, trump being trump and all, even if those of us outside the inner circle were left to wonder.
 
Last edited:
I couldn't have made myself plainer than a Quaker on his day off. I've never hidden my true feelings on here. I despise all of you MAGAt retards. The world would be a better place if Covid had been genetically engineered to only kill conservative conspiracy theorist Trump ball-gargling pieces of shit like you, harpy, vietater, and RG. Not sorry if I've hurt your fee-fees.
I doubt you hurt any feelings, you're dealing with better men who understand the uplifting agony of the "Gluteus Maximus Distensio Agonis" they've inflicted on you.
 
I doubt you hurt any feelings, you're dealing with better men who understand the uplifting agony of the "Gluteus Maximus Distensio Agonis" they've inflicted on you.
Whether you had to look that Latin up, or you just know that phrase by heart, it's still pathetic.
 
A decrepit Harvey Weinstein was just wheeled into the same courthouse.

Fitting.
A crippled Hollywood midget was outside the courthouse getting car alarmed, humiliated, and disrespected, by hundreds of people, as he spewed his OMB insanity. The little pussy, showcasing his lack of real life manhood, showed up surrounded by bodyguards and wearing a face diaper.:rolleyes:
 
A crippled Hollywood midget was outside the courthouse getting car alarmed, humiliated, and disrespected, by hundreds of people, as he spewed his OMB insanity. The little pussy, showcasing his lack of real life manhood, showed up surrounded by bodyguards and wearing a face diaper.:rolleyes:
Lol

I'm sure Scott Baio can come out ..

Or maybe Hercules...

Or Jon Voight

Hollywood winners...
 
You're intimating a juror would be afraid to render a guilty decision for fear of being harmed in return. You must finish that conjecture to be fair and unbiased in your statement.
In New York a juror could have the opposite fear. The fear of finding him not guilty. The left is going to leak the names and addresses of every juror if that happens.
 
You didn't understand my Latin so I had to dip back down into the vernacular of common folk so you could understand. :rolleyes:
I understood the "gluteus maximus" part and realized I was chatting with a pretentious seventh-grader who'd looked up a few naughty Latin terms. Do you still spell out "boobless" on your pocket calculator, too?
 
I understood the "gluteus maximus" part and realized I was chatting with a pretentious seventh-grader who'd looked up a few naughty Latin terms. Do you still spell out "boobless" on your pocket calculator, too?
Your boobs aren't that impressive. I'd have no interest in the mathematics behind their curvature and volume.
 
Why didn't Trump call Weisselberg or the others to testify? Didn't he whine about them this afternoon out front of the courthouse? He had a right to call them in his defense.

So...?
If the prosecution wanted to prove its case for falsifying business records then the key witness should’ve been Weisselberg. Proving criminal behavior falls into the realm of the prosecution not the defense.

The defense wanted to call Brad Smith, an expert in campaign finance law, to testify in Trump’s defense willing to explain to the jury in simple terms how Trump’s financial transactions did not equate to campaign finance statutory violations. Smith would’ve broken down the law into easy to understand bits and pieces and prove how federal law was not violated by the Trump team. Merchan would allow testimony by Smith but limited to a watered down explanation FEC rules and how the FEC operates but ruled out any explanation of the law that specifically targeted Trumps team. Merchan took the expert explanation of the law out of the hands of an expert who could provide exculpatory evidence that would explained away a critical charge by Bragg’s prosecution. Once again Merchan putting his thumb on the scale running interference for the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense.

Bragg also withheld exculpatory evidence from the grand jury which could have forced Bragg to drop the charges in this sham indictment.

If Trump wins in 2024 a new AG may open an investigation into Bragg’s underhanded use of the grand jury to include *subornation of perjury* by Bragg and his teams. Bragg put Cohen in an untenable situation as a chief witness to the prosecution.
 
If the prosecution wanted to prove its case for falsifying business records then the key witness should’ve been Weisselberg. Proving criminal behavior falls into the realm of the prosecution not the defense.
So you think Weisselberg is the key to the illegal action, and the Prosecution fucked up by not calling him. . Otherwise why not call him as a Defence witness since he can obviously show that Trump didn't have a criminal intent. Right? ( see dummy you just painted yourself into a corner again)
 
So you think Weisselberg is the key to the illegal action, and the Prosecution fucked up by not calling him. . Otherwise why not call him as a Defence witness since he can obviously show that Trump didn't have a criminal intent. Right? ( see dummy you just painted yourself into a corner again)
Because up till the final summation by the prosecution the defense felt the prosecution failed to prove intent and didn't want to complicate the issue for the jury. The defense also did not want to expose Wiesselberg to unnecessary cross examination by the prosecution. Why you ask? well, because Merchan gave broad latitude and scope to the prosecution to meander all over God's creation with its direct examination while unfairly restricting the defense to a much narrower scope of lines of questioning. Also, Mechan over ruled defense objections more frequently than the prosecution. According to expert commentary by Turley and McCarthy the prosecution realized they were defending a case were the advantage rested with the prosecution.
 
Back
Top