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

[Fuzzy1975]

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.

Nice try...the paints still wet, maybe it'll be dry in an hour or so and you can leave without making footprints.

 

[LLCox]

The fix is in. A hung jury

 

[dmallord]

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.

So the defense saw Brad's limited input and still failed to call their expert as a witness—I got that part. According to your analysis, his role would still support Trump's position, but Trump's team didn't call him to speak, even in a limited set of parameters; he could have been valuable, according to your statement.

Trump's team called ONE witness, who became, for all intents and purposes, a witness for the defense [edit: prosecutor] by legal professional opinions hearing his testimony.

Circling back, Trump's defense could have called Weisselberg, right? No one blocked or limited their access to this so-called crucial witness to prove Trump's claims.

Why are you avoiding answering why Trump didn't call Weisselberg? We know that answer and so do you.

Do you know who else could have cleared his name by taking the stand? Yes, the one key player in the trial sitting at the defense table, unable to get out on the campaign trail: Donald Trump. He has full knowledge of the matters at hand. He claims he is innocent. He declared that if a person is innocent, they shouldn't take the fifth. He missed two opportunities to shred the prosecutor's claims by my count and yours as well.

 

[LLCox]

lmao

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fox-news-host-shannon-bream-habba-1906114?piano_t=1

 

[RoryN]

In the trial, like the election, Trump’s base is inoculated against loss

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...s-base-is-inoculated-against-loss/ar-BB1nhtKO

 

[icanhelp1]

So the defense saw Brad's limited input and still failed to call their expert as a witness—I got that part. According to your analysis, his role would still support Trump's position, but Trump's team didn't call him to speak, even in a limited set of parameters; he could have been valuable, according to your statement.

Trump's team called ONE witness, who became, for all intents and purposes, a witness for the defense by legal professional opinions hearing his testimony.

Circling back, Trump's defense could have called Weisselberg, right? No one blocked or limited their access to this so-called crucial witness to prove Trump's claims.

Why are you avoiding answering why Trump didn't call Weisselberg? We know that answer and so do you.

Do you know who else could have cleared his name by taking the stand? Yes, the one key player in the trial sitting at the defense table, unable to get out on the campaign trail: Donald Trump. He has full knowledge of the matters at hand. He claims he is innocent. He declared that if a person is innocent, they shouldn't take the fifth. He missed two opportunities to shred the prosecutor's claims by my count and yours as well.

I explained why the defense didn't call Weisselberg.

There was, up to the final summation, no reason to have Trump testify. You know as well as I that Judge Merchan would not limit the range and scope of questioning *BY THE PROSECUTION* which could lead to Trump self incriminating himself by forcing Trump to testify on matters not relevant to the trial.. No defense team would allow that.

 

[dmallord]

You just keep on up with the whole wishing execution and death on people you disagree with. It's useful to know where people really stand.

Execution = death in most realms, Tasty. So executing someone and then adding death to the corpse is a bit overkill, don't you think?

Trump could face jail time, but the death penalty is NOT on the table.

Your last sentence is valid for any situation. Nice truism.

#iykyk

 

[KeithD]

Trump's team called ONE witness, who became, for all intents and purposes, a witness for the defense by legal professional opinions hearing his testimony.

Do you mean "witness for the prosecution" instead?

 

[dmallord]

Cite!! Without testimony from Weisselbeg kind of hard to prove.

Now ain't that interesting! Why isn't Weisselberg on the stand? Neither side called him.

Why?

Weisselberg's silence is not a mere coincidence. He signed an NDA with Trump, a pact that bars him from testifying against Trump in any criminal cases and from disclosing his role working for Trump. This agreement was sealed with a hefty two million dollar severance pay. Testifying would result in the loss of that nice bank account.

That two million was a potent motivation, and we know this because Weisselberg is in jail and still won't give anything regarding the case. Merchan asked the DA if he would testify. The DA responded he wasn't willing to provide information in exchange for a plea bargain deal and would likely assert his Fifth Amendment rights. Merchan's response was that it didn't make sense to call an inmate to the trial simply to spout, "On the advice of counsel, your honor, I plead the Fifth."

So, the DA used Weisselberg's handwritten notes and all those checks with invoices that Trump signed in the White House instead.

Not so hard to prove after all. Now, will the jury find that proof enough as well?

 

[dmallord]

Do you mean "witness for the prosecution" instead?

Yep! Still on my first cup of coffee

 

[dmallord]

This trial is not a usual trial. The indictment is flawed right from its inception.

The first half of this is true; the second half is supposition.

 

[adrina]

The first half of this is true; the second half is supposition.

And opinion.

 

[dmallord]

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. 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.

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

You seem upset.

You know these are New York laws you are crying about that Trump allegedly violated in a very unique and unprecedented way. Judge Merchan, I gather, has a few trials under his belt and is probably confident in his case management. Of course, there will be appeals–it's Donald Trump, after all.

By the way, I don't accept that you have a humble opinion. It's really not in your nature to have one. There is ample evidence in your statements that your opinion is anything but humble.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Execution = death in most realms, Tasty. So executing someone and then adding death to the corpse is a bit overkill, don't you think?

Execution is a sentence, death is the result. Try to keep up.

 

[icanhelp1]

You seem upset.

You know these are New York laws you are crying about that Trump allegedly violated in a very unique and unprecedented way. Judge Merchan, I gather, has a few trials under his belt and is probably confident in his case management. Of course, there will be appeals–it's Donald Trump, after all.

By the way, I don't accept that you have a humble opinion. It's really not in your nature to have one. There is ample evidence in your statements that your opinion is anything but humble.

Which have outrun their statutes of limitations. The whole trial is fundamentally flawed and a shameful representation of the DA’s prosecutorial discretion and a waste of taxpayer time and resources while violent criminals are left to their own devices.

What’s more shocking is that jurors have to interpret and determine a crime committed without a relevant statute to tether it to. Doesn’t even require unanimity of conviction.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Which have outrun their statutes of limitations.

And yet here we are...

The whole trial is fundamentally flawed and a shameful representation of the DA’s prosecutorial discretion and a waste of taxpayer time and resources while violent criminals are left to their own devices.

and yet here we are...

What’s more shocking is that jurors have to interpret and determine a crime committed without a relevant statute to tether it to.

No there is a statute and you claim you're reading the public transcript, in which the Judge read that statute to the Jury.

Doesn’t even require unanimity of conviction.

Would you be happier with a "directed verdict"?

 

[KeithD]

Now ain't that interesting! Why isn't Weisselberg on the stand? Neither side called him.

Why?

Weisselberg's silence is not a mere coincidence. He signed an NDA with Trump, a pact that bars him from testifying against Trump in any criminal cases and from disclosing his role working for Trump. This agreement was sealed with a hefty two million dollar severance pay. Testifying would result in the loss of that nice bank account.

That two million was a potent motivation, and we know this because Weisselberg is in jail and still won't give anything regarding the case. Merchan asked the DA if he would testify. The DA responded he wasn't willing to provide information in exchange for a plea bargain deal and would likely assert his Fifth Amendment rights. Merchan's response was that it didn't make sense to call an inmate to the trial simply to spout, "On the advice of counsel, your honor, I plead the Fifth."

So, the DA used Weisselberg's handwritten notes and all those checks with invoices that Trump signed in the White House instead.

Not so hard to prove after all. Now, will the jury find that proof enough as well?

Anyone challenging the prosecution for not calling this or that witness can be shut down with asking them why they didn't call them. They were Trump supporter witnesses who could instantly bolster the "reasonable doubt" defense, even if they lied to do so--and they'd already done a lot of that. The defense didn't call them for the same reason they didn't put Trump on the stand--because they were then open to a blistering prosecution counter interrogation that would reveal truths.

 

[jaF0]

The Weasel had already been charged with perjury twice, so what would be gained by allowing another chance?

 

[icanhelp1]

And yet here we are...

and yet here we are...

No there is a statute and you claim you're reading the public transcript, in which the Judge read that statute to the Jury.

Would you be happier with a "directed verdict"?

Cite the relevant statute for tax fraud? Cite the relevant statutes for campaign finance violations. Explain how the SDNY, DOJ and FEC refused to take up these federal charges and yet a district DA who is outside of his jurisdiction takes up federal cases to bootstrap and resurrect a dead misdemeanor charge. It’s all smoking mirrors designed to confuse not just legal beagles but the jurors themselves. Merchan is running a kangaroo court.

 

[Bn2f]

Cite the relevant statute for tax fraud? Cite the relevant statutes for campaign finance violations. Explain how the SDNY, DOJ and FEC refused to take up these federal charges and yet a district DA who is outside of his jurisdiction takes up federal cases to bootstrap and resurrect a dead misdemeanor charge. It’s all smoking mirrors designed to confuse not just legal beagles but the jurors themselves. Merchan is running a kangaroo court.

Yeah, yeah, yeah different day, same argument.
You left out that this was a victimless crime. There, fixed it for you.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Cite the relevant statute for tax fraud? Cite the relevant statutes for campaign finance violations. Explain how the SDNY, DOJ and FEC refused to take up these federal charges and yet a district DA who is outside of his jurisdiction takes up federal cases to bootstrap and resurrect a dead misdemeanor charge. It’s all smoking mirrors designed to confuse not just legal beagles but the jurors themselves. Merchan is running a kangaroo court.

lol, it was cited in the transcript, it has been posted on here a number of times by myself. Don't believe it, I don't care, sucks to be as stupid as you. I pity your wife and children and grandchildren.

 

[LLCox]

I am a Get trump kinda guy so whatever it takes. Klowns like him deserve their comeuppance. See how easy it is to have common sense. Karma

 

[SmokingFap]

lmao

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fox-news-host-shannon-bream-habba-1906114?piano_t=1

I saw that clip on a political commentary YouTube channel. Shannon seems to be one of their few remaining straight news personalities. She wasn't as aggressive as I would have liked, but considering her employer, I was glad to see her at least push back a bit on Alina's delusional rant.

 

[Rightguide]

Legal Experts: The Trump Trial Jury Instructions Are Not Normal​

Katie Pavlich | May 29, 2024 11:15 AM

Closing arguments in the trial of former President Donald Trump in New York City, where he is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, have concluded and Judge Juan Merchan has given the jury their instructions. The instructions were given verbally and jurors won't receive printed copies, although they can ask questions.

According to legal experts, Merchan's standards for a conviction are abnormal and do not require jurors to reach a unanimous decision on the charges. Further, jurors don't have to determine what crime was committed.

"Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict," George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who has been inside the courtroom, writes. "The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime."

More here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...ial-jury-instructions-are-not-normal-n2639670

The above proves that Merchan is a corrupt Judge unfit for the bench. This is a total corruption of American law and judicial process.

 

[ll74]

"Legal experts"

I.e.

Some guy in the newsroom who reads more than everyone else.