get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 5:20 pmReally? Dershowitz voted for HRC and JRB.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 4:42 pmSince when were those two not entirely in the bag for Trump??? "Never Trumpers"???!get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 4:34 pmI will grant you that the court decides legal issues, but the case was built on the hush money payment being the vehicle for some election crime. The one exculpatory witness who could have said the payment itself was not a campaign violation was prevented from saying so. Bragg wasn't saying the payment was the crime, but was in furtherance of some other NY state crime (which used to be a misdemeanor until 5 minutes ago). It was of as much value to the defense as Cohen testifying he plead to campaign violations. Cohen pleading gave it the color of Trump being involved in his "crime", whether he was or not. Many reversible errors by this judge according to legal scholars like Turley and Dershowitz, both classic liberals and "Never Trumpers".Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 4:21 pmI'm not sure the testimony was excluded because it was "of little to no value for the defense." I might be wrong, but courts generally do not allow "expert testimony" on legal issues, or specific conclusions of law, because this is exactly what the Courts are charged with doing. This kind of expert testimony invades the province of the judge in a trial, to tell the jury (who are the exclusive deciders of what the facts are) what the law is.get it to x wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 4:12 pmCorrect. The limited scope included not being allowed to testify as to whether it was a violation of federal campaign finance law. He was limited in scope to the purpose and operation of the FEC in general. Therefore, his testimony was rendered to be of little to no value for the defense.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:31 pm The judge did not rule that the FEC expert could not testify. Rather, he limited the scope about what he would be permitted to testify (very common with expert witnesses). The defense chose not to call him.
One of the many untruths circulating about this trial.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-m ... 4de62d9032
This is just one of many sketchy procedures that will result in a reversal of the verdict on appeal. Never laying out the crime until closing arguments is another. The 6th Amendment guarantees the charge must be enumerated so the client can defend. Not sure why the state get's to go last in NY, but defendant never got the chance to respond.
If I was Trump, I would turn down any pardon and let this run it's course.
Yup, the election crime was a donation that was large and unreported, a thing of significant value, and the false records were to hide that intent. It's not really that complicated.
Jury wasn't confused, though Turley and Dershowitz want to pretend they were bamboozled and there's a whole lot of cult members buying it. And they're getting paid very well for those eyeballs they participate in BS'ng. They and Andy McCarthy...
I don't see this losing on appeal at the State level, unless SCOTUS is even more in the bag for Trump than I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8UWjyoEA7Y
Turley voted against Trump.
https://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse45/v ... cale=ms_MY
You mistook their fervor for blind justice as fealty to Trump. Just like you mistake your fevered dream of Trump in a jumpsuit at any cost as blind justice.
Yeah….that guy.