Orange Duce

[njbill]

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

[jhu72]

... the age of Trump. Such a great example for the people of the country.

[MDlaxfan76]

Bannon stay on prison time lifted.
He's scheduled to begin his 4 months July 1.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/politics ... index.html

[jhu72]

Bannon stay on prison time lifted.
He's scheduled to begin his 4 months July 1.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/politics ... index.html

... about time.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

Perhaps get it to x should read the trial transcript rather than 'ask questions' fed by hard right media sources and online feeds.

Or read analyses from sources he thinks he doesn't 'trust' like CNN, PBS, WaPO, NYT, etc.
Perhaps it will be surprising to him, but they actually tell the truth about what happened in the trial.

Bottomline, 12 regular folks from a variety of walks of life, ordinary Americans, all approved by the defense (they didn't use all their peremptory challenges) unanimously found Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all 34 counts. Fact.

Less 'factual', but interesting, they did so rather swiftly as the unanimous guilty verdict came faster than sometimes occurs with a trial of this length and supposed complexity. Apparently it was clear to them.

Personally, though my sense of the tick tock of the trial and evidence presented by both sides was that the case was overwhelming, much stronger than what many pundits had suggested would be presented, I thought it would nevertheless likely result in a hung jury, with one or two jurors agreeable to jury nullification regardless of evidence. Happens in contentious cases, so pretty reasonable prediction.

We'll probably never know what led to the jury being so convinced and unanimous so quickly, however I think the Trump strategy of denying everything, even matters unimportant to achieving reasonable doubt, including things so easily refuted by witnesses 'friendly' to the defendant, were major issues for him. As well as having the only significant, and last, witness on his behalf being a clearly lying, unsavory character, this all served him poorly, as Trump came across as liar who surrounds himself with liars and reprobates. Terrible defense, but then again it was undoubtedly Trump himself who insisted on this strategy and of course when you're fundamentally guilty as sin, it makes any defense harder to mount.

The documents were pretty darn overwhelming on their own, but arguing things that didn't need to be argued, with claims that were pretty darn unbelievable, made any argument about what the documents meant only more suspect. Lots of lies, so why believe the defense that he didn't realize he was causing false documents to be done in cover up of an effort to avoid detection of a campaign finance violation, the excessive and unreported payment of monies on behalf of Trump's campaign interests and/or the falsification of records that were used in tax filings?

But there'd been a reasonable chance that some of the jurors would have been unwilling to convict, if they'd been given more of a path to do so through even a modicum of evidence and testimony that could justify such reasonable doubt as to intent.

My guess.

[get it to x]

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

Correct. 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.

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.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Bannon stay on prison time lifted.
He's scheduled to begin his 4 months July 1.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/politics ... index.html

May he slip in the shower.

[Typical Lax Dad]

... the age of Trump. Such a great example for the people of the country.

Yep. I hope he wins again. It’s going to be quite a ride.

[Seacoaster(1)]

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

Correct. 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.

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.

I'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]

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

Perhaps get it to x should read the trial transcript rather than 'ask questions' fed by hard right media sources and online feeds.

Or read analyses from sources he thinks he doesn't 'trust' like CNN, PBS, WaPO, NYT, etc.
Perhaps it will be surprising to him, but they actually tell the truth about what happened in the trial.

Bottomline, 12 regular folks from a variety of walks of life, ordinary Americans, all approved by the defense (they didn't use all their peremptory challenges) unanimously found Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all 34 counts. Fact.

Less 'factual', but interesting, they did so rather swiftly as the unanimous guilty verdict came faster than sometimes occurs with a trial of this length and supposed complexity. Apparently it was clear to them.

Personally, though my sense of the tick tock of the trial and evidence presented by both sides was that the case was overwhelming, much stronger than what many pundits had suggested would be presented, I thought it would nevertheless likely result in a hung jury, with one or two jurors agreeable to jury nullification regardless of evidence. Happens in contentious cases, so pretty reasonable prediction.

We'll probably never know what led to the jury being so convinced and unanimous so quickly, however I think the Trump strategy of denying everything, even matters unimportant to achieving reasonable doubt, including things so easily refuted by witnesses 'friendly' to the defendant, were major issues for him. As well as having the only significant, and last, witness on his behalf being a clearly lying, unsavory character, this all served him poorly, as Trump came across as liar who surrounds himself with liars and reprobates. Terrible defense, but then again it was undoubtedly Trump himself who insisted on this strategy and of course when you're fundamentally guilty as sin, it makes any defense harder to mount.

The documents were pretty darn overwhelming on their own, but arguing things that didn't need to be argued, with claims that were pretty darn unbelievable, made any argument about what the documents meant only more suspect. Lots of lies, so why believe the defense that he didn't realize he was causing false documents to be done in cover up of an effort to avoid detection of a campaign finance violation, the excessive and unreported payment of monies on behalf of Trump's campaign interests and/or the falsification of records that were used in tax filings?

But there'd been a reasonable chance that some of the jurors would have been unwilling to convict, if they'd been given more of a path to do so through even a modicum of evidence and testimony that could justify such reasonable doubt as to intent.

My guess.

At least two Constitutional law professors agree with me. Turley and Dershowitz. Pretty sure they aren't MAGA professors. It appears you are more invested in the outcome than justice. How Swampy.

[Seacoaster(1)]

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

Perhaps get it to x should read the trial transcript rather than 'ask questions' fed by hard right media sources and online feeds.

Or read analyses from sources he thinks he doesn't 'trust' like CNN, PBS, WaPO, NYT, etc.
Perhaps it will be surprising to him, but they actually tell the truth about what happened in the trial.

Bottomline, 12 regular folks from a variety of walks of life, ordinary Americans, all approved by the defense (they didn't use all their peremptory challenges) unanimously found Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all 34 counts. Fact.

Less 'factual', but interesting, they did so rather swiftly as the unanimous guilty verdict came faster than sometimes occurs with a trial of this length and supposed complexity. Apparently it was clear to them.

Personally, though my sense of the tick tock of the trial and evidence presented by both sides was that the case was overwhelming, much stronger than what many pundits had suggested would be presented, I thought it would nevertheless likely result in a hung jury, with one or two jurors agreeable to jury nullification regardless of evidence. Happens in contentious cases, so pretty reasonable prediction.

We'll probably never know what led to the jury being so convinced and unanimous so quickly, however I think the Trump strategy of denying everything, even matters unimportant to achieving reasonable doubt, including things so easily refuted by witnesses 'friendly' to the defendant, were major issues for him. As well as having the only significant, and last, witness on his behalf being a clearly lying, unsavory character, this all served him poorly, as Trump came across as liar who surrounds himself with liars and reprobates. Terrible defense, but then again it was undoubtedly Trump himself who insisted on this strategy and of course when you're fundamentally guilty as sin, it makes any defense harder to mount.

The documents were pretty darn overwhelming on their own, but arguing things that didn't need to be argued, with claims that were pretty darn unbelievable, made any argument about what the documents meant only more suspect. Lots of lies, so why believe the defense that he didn't realize he was causing false documents to be done in cover up of an effort to avoid detection of a campaign finance violation, the excessive and unreported payment of monies on behalf of Trump's campaign interests and/or the falsification of records that were used in tax filings?

But there'd been a reasonable chance that some of the jurors would have been unwilling to convict, if they'd been given more of a path to do so through even a modicum of evidence and testimony that could justify such reasonable doubt as to intent.

My guess.

At least two Constitutional law professors agree with me. Turley and Dershowitz. Pretty sure they aren't MAGA professors. It appears you are more invested in the outcome than justice. How Swampy.

Jesus, both of these guys -- Turley and Dersh -- are completely in the bag for Trump. Turley has been auditioning for something for a few years at least. I think this verdict may well have some infirmities for appellate purposes, but these two guys are well-known apologists for the former President.

[get it to x]

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

Correct. 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.

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.

I'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.

I 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".

[MDlaxfan76]

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

Correct. 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.

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.

Did you read the indictment?

How about the prosecution's opening statement?

They did NOT wait until the end.

Defendant, now convicted criminal Trump, received the same due process as ANY defendant is due to receive in New York State. What? you may ask, why is this not what I see on TV trials? Do other states have the prosecution getting the last word?

Try google. Whole lot of states. Because it's the prosecution that has the heavy burden of proof, many states have the prosecution close, then defense, then prosecution.

As to the 'witness', he could have only testified as to his knowledge of the law and operation of the FEC, as he didn't have any direct knowledge of the specifics of the crime. He could have testified more generally about what the FEC would consider actionable and how they go about making that determination. Witnesses can't testify to matters beyond their direct knowledge. He had plenty of knowledge about the FEC and how it works, but the Trump team wanted someone to tell the jury not to convict and that's out of bounds in any trial.

Which is a good thing, as it protects defendants from prosecutors bringing in testimony that could bias against the defendant merely by being of high authority, yet no direct knowledge.

Prosecutors could bring in all sorts of authority figures offering their opinions as to criminality, but unless they are directly testifying as to evidence they have examined, they have no role. Indeed, a forensics expert testifies as to the probability of say a fingerprint being a match to a person's actual finger, but they don't say that means the defendant is therefore guilty...or innocent...that's the job of the jury, not a witness. And the sole advisor of the jury as to the law is the judge, whose rulings are subject to appeal. But that one was by the books. For sound reason.

[JoeMauer89]

... the age of Trump. Such a great example for the people of the country.

Yep. I hope he wins again. It’s going to be quite a ride.

Why do you want him to win? There has to be some sort of ulterior motive on your part. Thanks!

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

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

Correct. 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.

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.

I'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.

I 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".

Since when were those two not entirely in the bag for Trump??? "Never Trumpers"???!

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.

[MDlaxfan76]

... the age of Trump. Such a great example for the people of the country.

Yep. I hope he wins again. It’s going to be quite a ride.

Why do you want him to win? There has to be some sort of ulterior motive on your part. Thanks!

Joe

You may recall that TLD employs irony and sarcasm rather prolifically.

He's previously said he'd vote for a manhole cover over Trump, a posture with which I wholeheartedly agree.

[Seacoaster(1)]

"both classic liberals and "Never Trumpers"

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. I mean truly batsh*t.

[JoeMauer89]

... the age of Trump. Such a great example for the people of the country.

Yep. I hope he wins again. It’s going to be quite a ride.

Why do you want him to win? There has to be some sort of ulterior motive on your part. Thanks!

Joe

You may recall that TLD employs irony and sarcasm rather prolifically.

He's previously said he'd vote for a manhole cover over Trump, a posture with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Am I aware, I am playing to that notion. I wanted to hear his sardonic answer.

Joe

[get it to x]

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

Correct. 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.

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.

I'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.

I 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".

Since when were those two not entirely in the bag for Trump??? "Never Trumpers"???!

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.

Really? Dershowitz voted for HRC and JRB.

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.

[Typical Lax Dad]

... the age of Trump. Such a great example for the people of the country.

Yep. I hope he wins again. It’s going to be quite a ride.

Why do you want him to win? There has to be some sort of ulterior motive on your part. Thanks!

Joe

Just want to see these poor people that think he is on their side get left further behind as the country slides into even more political dysfunction and maybe even more supreme court packing to tilt the country even more to the benefit of the minority of view on all kinds of issues. I want people that support him to catch even more hell. I will be fine.