Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was it a reimbursement?The only thing in evidence is the call record between Cohen and Schiller. There is no recording, only Cohen's testimony as to what the call was about.
That testimony was destroyed by Blanche under cross and the text messages before and after the call.
Steinglass is trying to rehabilitate his witness by this stunt. Every word he said in his fictitious call is made up. There is no actual record of what was really said in that call.
That tells me he is desperate- he knows how damaging Cohen's lie was to his case.
No, your contrived assessment of closing arguments.The fictitious phone call?
I haven't even read the closing arguments. I'm going by what is posted here.No, your contrived assessment of closing arguments.
news flash:And with one word Trump describes a whole day of closing argument...
I can tell from your descriptions that the prosecution knows how weak their case is. The stunt with the fictitious phone call says it all.
Doesn't matter. It's not illegal whatever label you put on it.Was it a reimbursement?
The fictitious phone call? That came from one of Prostate Stretched's "courtroom updates"
I was just noticing that the courtroom stunt shows that Steinglass knew Cohen was damaged goods.
Blanche gutted Cohen that day- the jury knows that they were lied to just two days earlier. That's pretty hard to overcome for the prosecution, hence the stunt.
In the context of the prosecution's argument it is.Doesn't matter. It's not illegal whatever label you put on it.
The NDA existed, Cohen arranged it, Cohen was paid.
And earlier when I asked if the judge interrupted when Steinglass was telling the jury the elements of the crime, you said "Wrong".Joshua Steinglass — maybe, just maybe — appears to be winding down. He tells the jurors that the judge will explain reasonable doubt to them and asks them to listen carefully. He reminds them of the concept of accessorial liability: That a person who directs someone to commit a crime is equally guilty of that crime. Steinglass brings up his preferred analogy for this, the husband who hires a hitman to kill his wife. The defense objects and the judge sustains it: It is his role to explain the law, not Steinglass’s.
other news:Doesn't matter. It's not illegal whatever label you put on it.
The NDA existed, Cohen arranged it, Cohen was paid.
I did not make that claim. Your source said it was in closing argument. The evidentiary part of the trial is over...There was no fictitious phone call entered into evidence.
Wrong. That is not all you said or inferred.And earlier when I asked if the judge interrupted when Steinglass was telling the jury the elements of the crime, you said "Wrong".
Not wrong.
I did not make that claim. Your source said it was in closing argument.
Mr. Merchan calls President Trump "Mr. Trump," so he has little regard for such protocol. I'm only honoring his wish that such formalities be ignored.It's not "Mr. Merchan" it's Judge Merchan.
It flies against reason that being found guilty of 34 felonies would not result in prison time.You misrepresent what the Judge warned the defense about. The jury is not supposed to be considering if a guilty verdict will result in prison time. That would affect their ability to focus on the evidence at hand. Sentencing is not the jury's concern or responsibility. The defense is trying to make that case, against all rules and against the instructions from the Judge.
Why not?We know it will be some form of house arrest, suspended until after the appeals run out. It's not logistically possible to put Trump in a normal prison.
Not for nonviolent offenses and a first time conviction.It flies against reason that being found guilty of 34 felonies would not result in prison time.
WrongSo did Merchan shut him down for the improper jury instruction?
The judge is the only one supposedly allowed to tell the jury what the law is. Steinglass completely omits the "intent to defraud" element that is central to the charges.
I cannot help your lack of comprehension.Wrong. That is not all you said or inferred.
Juries do not sentence people. Want to start over?Here are a few observations from the courtroom. Observations provided by reporters sitting in the courtroom itself.
And this is after the defense's closing arguments, and after a lunch break. Next to follow will be the closing arguments of teh prosecution.
Power Shifts to Jury as Closing Arguments Finish in Trump Trial
Jurors heard a meticulous recounting of five weeks of testimony in the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, in which prosecutors argued he tried to “hoodwink the American voter.” The defense said there was not “a shred of evidence.”www.nytimes.com
unlawful means: That’s not a legal explanation, just argument.Here are a few observations from the courtroom. Observations provided by reporters sitting in the courtroom itself.
And this is after the defense's closing arguments, and after a lunch break. Next to follow will be the closing arguments of teh prosecution.
Power Shifts to Jury as Closing Arguments Finish in Trump Trial
Jurors heard a meticulous recounting of five weeks of testimony in the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, in which prosecutors argued he tried to “hoodwink the American voter.” The defense said there was not “a shred of evidence.”
Yes we all know why you post on these threads, little troll.I'm mostly mocking you for the benefit of others, ya whiny little twat.
