Trump Campaign was prepared for a guilty verdict

[frigidweirdo]

1. The appeals process will play out as it plays out. I hope before the election.

2. Missing witnesses are not the deciding factor in overturning the convictions. The more serious issues are a state court adjudicating Federal Election issues, lack of due process, improper jury instructions, etc.

Yes, there's an appeals process. Funny how Trump hasn't attacked that process yet. He will. But right now he's loving it.

Well, I asked for problems with the case. You came up with "missing witnesses" which is just ridiculous. They were "missing" because Trump's team didn't call them. You complained about no Shiller, but that was because the defense didn't call him. And you complained about no Weissenburg, because the defense didn't call him.

So, mostly the problems seem to be about Trump's defense team, and not the judge at all.

The point about whether federal laws were broken or not has not real bearing here.

Trump was tried under New York Penal Law §175.10

 

[kyzr]

Yes, there's an appeals process. Funny how Trump hasn't attacked that process yet. He will. But right now he's loving it.
Well, I asked for problems with the case. You came up with "missing witnesses" which is just ridiculous. They were "missing" because Trump's team didn't call them. You complained about no Shiller, but that was because the defense didn't call him. And you complained about no Weissenburg, because the defense didn't call him.
So, mostly the problems seem to be about Trump's defense team, and not the judge at all.
The point about whether federal laws were broken or not has not real bearing here.
Trump was tried under New York Penal Law §175.10

1. My understanding is that Trump's team called Schiller and Bradley Smith but the judge wouldn't let them testify.
2. The judge basically didn't allow Robert Costello to testify, every prosecution "objection" was upheld.
3. The judge is a political hack.
4. The "covered up crime" was a Federal Election Law. The bookkeeping error is a misdemeanor, its the bullshit coverup that was the felony.

Bragg and the Jackson Pollock School of Prosecution: Why the Trump Trial Could End With a Hung Jury

Below is my column in the Hill on the approaching closing arguments in the Trump trial. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be launching his own school of abstract legal work in the …

jonathanturley.org

 

[otto105]

1. Schiller could have confirmed that Cohen was lying when he said that he advised Trump of the Stormy payments, when the call was totally about some 14-year old prank caller. The judge denied Schiller as a witness.

2. I agree that the judge knows State Law, but this case is about Federal Election Law. Smith is the expert. The appeals courts should overturn the 34 counts eventually.

No, the case was about state election law.

And the call was to confirm payment to Stormy.


See guilty verdict

 

[Plagerist]

It was rigged from the start. They saw it coming lng ago.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. My understanding is that Trump's team called Schiller and Bradley Smith but the judge wouldn't let them testify.
2. The judge basically didn't allow Robert Costello to testify, every prosecution "objection" was upheld.
3. The judge is a political hack.
4. The "covered up crime" was a Federal Election Law. The bookkeeping error is a misdemeanor, its the bullshit coverup that was the felony.

Bragg and the Jackson Pollock School of Prosecution: Why the Trump Trial Could End With a Hung Jury

Below is my column in the Hill on the approaching closing arguments in the Trump trial. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be launching his own school of abstract legal work in the …

jonathanturley.org

1) Yes, that's the problem isn't it? People get told things, that aren't true, and then you have a whole load of supporters who claim things that Trump told them and they start believing the conspiracy because the "facts" (that were made up) support the conspiracy.

Nope, Schiller and Smith weren't called.

The judge said Smith couldn't say something which the US legal system just doesn't allow, not by law, but by precedent. It's perfectly normal.

2) Costello was one of two witnesses called by the defense.

Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"On May 20, Robert Costello also testified.[459] Merchan admonished the witness for making comments on the stand objecting to rulings, staring at the judge, and rolling his eyes.[460]"

This is the source from the wiki article [460]

Judge in Trump's hush money trial threatened to remove witness from court for behavior on stand

The landmark trial will kick back off in Manhattan with more defense cross-examination of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

apnews.com

"The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial cleared the courtroom of reporters Monday and then threatened to remove the defense’s witness from the trial altogether because of his behavior on the stand, which included making comments under his breath and rolling his eyes, a court transcript showed."

"Judge Juan M. Merchan told Robert Costello, a former federal prosecutor, that his conduct during testimony was contemptuous. Costello aggravated Merchan repeatedly in part by continuing to speak after objections were sustained — a signal to witnesses to stop talking. At one point, Costello remarked “jeez” when he was cut off by an objection. He also called the whole exercise “ridiculous.”"

Now, obviously this doesn't tell us much, other than the judge got pissed. Maybe Costello was right, maybe not. Here's the court transcript:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

It starts with Costello on page 236

The first objection is pg 238

Questions are from Trump's team:

"Q Now, did you consider your conversation at the Regency Hotel that day to be subject of the attorney-client privilege?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
A Absolutely.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. HOFFINGER: Can the answer be stricken?
THE COURT: And the answer is stricken."

Second objection pg 240

"Q What did you tell Mr. Cohen that day?
A I explained to Mr. Cohen that when he described the search warrants, I pointed out that a search warrant of a law office is much more difficult to get than a search warrant of any other place.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q What was your view that day about whether or not Michael Cohen should cooperate?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q What instructions did you give Mr. Cohen with respect to cooperation?
A Okay. I explained -- I explained to Mr. Cohen that it was obvious that he was not the target of the search by the Southern District of New York, that they thought that he had committed some crimes --
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained."

Pg 241

"Q What, if anything, did Cohen say about Stormy Daniels during the meeting?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.
A He began by saying: "I don't understand why they're trying to put me in jail for some F'ing NDAs," which is a Non-Disclosure Agreement. He then said, "I did an NDA with Stormy Daniels." So, I asked him to tell me about what the circumstances were, how was he involved.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. HOFFINGER: Can you strike the answer?
THE COURT: The last answer is stricken, yes."

Pg 242

"Q Did Mr. Cohen say anything about President Trump in connection with the Stormy Daniels part of the conversation?
A He did.
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BOVE: May I be heard, Judge?
THE COURT: No.
Q Did President Trump's family come up?
A Yes, it did.
Q What did Mr. Cohen say about President Trump's family?
MS. HOFFINGER: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained."

Why?

"Please approach. (At Sidebar ******
MS. HOFFINGER: Mr. Steinglass would like to be heard.
MR. STEINGLASS: Thank you. Respectfully, this is exactly what you just told him not to do. If he's going to be impeaching Mr. Cohen by prior inconsistent statement, the law is extraordinarily clear on this. The witness' attention has to be specifically called to the prior inconsistency, and he has to be given a chance to explain it. Only if he maintains the inconsistency or he says he doesn't remember is impeachment by a prior inconsistent statement by a collateral witness permitted. There were two instances where that happened. One, Mr. Bove just covered. We are going way far afield of that. This is not a general: Everything that Mr. Cohen testified, did he tell you something different, did he tell you something different, did he tell you something different. He would have had to confront Mr. Cohen with those inconsistencies and say: Did you tell Mr. Costello, X, Y and Z on this date, and then Cohen would have had to have denied it; and then it would be permissible. It is not permissible to have a wholesale of everything that Mr. Cohen said --"

You can look for more of these. I don't see anything that suggests the judge was being biased. He sustained some, he allowed others.

Here you've got a reasoning for why they were sustained. They're leading Costello off and talking about things that are not part of the trial. Of "stories" as it's put on the next page.

If you find anything you think makes the judge looked biased there, tell me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It was rigged from the start. They saw it coming lng ago.

Are you willing to actually write down which parts of the trial were rigged? Or you just say "it's rigged" and feel happy about yourself?

 

[Plagerist]

Are you willing to actually write down which parts of the trial were rigged? Or you just say "it's rigged" and feel happy about yourself?

LOL. Sure, I'll turn in my paper tomorrow, professor.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. My understanding is that Trump's team called Schiller and Bradley Smith but the judge wouldn't let them testify.
2. The judge basically didn't allow Robert Costello to testify, every prosecution "objection" was upheld.
3. The judge is a political hack.
4. The "covered up crime" was a Federal Election Law. The bookkeeping error is a misdemeanor, its the bullshit coverup that was the felony.

Bragg and the Jackson Pollock School of Prosecution: Why the Trump Trial Could End With a Hung Jury

Below is my column in the Hill on the approaching closing arguments in the Trump trial. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be launching his own school of abstract legal work in the …

jonathanturley.org

3) No, the judge doesn't seem to be a political hack, but you are allowed to make your case.

4) Trump broke NY law. That's how it works. Yes, had he not been running for president he might not have every been convicted. Or maybe had he not done the 6th Jan nonsense, he might not have been convicted. But he did, and people went after him. That's how the law works.

Rich people get away with stuff all the time, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they get done for the small things, and not the huge things. Think Al Capone...

 

[frigidweirdo]

LOL. Sure, I'll turn in my paper tomorrow, professor.

There we go, another bullshit who is ignorant of most things, but decides they "know" everything but will look up nothing.

 

[otto105]

It was rigged from the start. They saw it coming lng ago.

Bah Ha Ha Ha Ha


Guilty pussy felon boi

 

[ElmerMudd]

1. Schiller could have confirmed that Cohen was lying when he said that he advised Trump of the Stormy payments, when the call was totally about some 14-year old prank caller. The judge denied Schiller as a witness.

2. I agree that the judge knows State Law, but this case is about Federal Election Law. Smith is the expert. The appeals courts should overturn the 34 counts eventually.

Why didn't Trump take the stand himself, as he said he would do, and look the jury in the eye and deny all of the accusations against him. There is no better witness than an innocent person, passionate to get the truth out.

 

[Plagerist]

Bah Ha Ha Ha Ha


Guilty pussy felon boi

Don't cry too much!

 

[otto105]

Don't cry too much!

Awwwwww, poor small hands baby.

 

[Plagerist]

Awwwwww, poor small hands baby.

Still crying!

 

[otto105]

Still crying!

Yes, yes you are.

Tell us all how the 2020 election was stolen or how the deep state made the felon commit adultery…three times.

 

[Plagerist]

Yes, yes you are.

Tell us all how the 2020 election was stolen or how the deep state made the felon commit adultery…three times.

I couldn't care less. But you do!

 

[otto105]

I couldn't care less. But you do!

Surely you care about how the deep state forced the felon to get Impeached twice.

Lose 100 million on E Jean Carroll.

 

[hadit]

Agreed. I will say that Trump's campaign was prepared but they are not intelligent.

They're as intelligent as any other campaign.

 

[Plagerist]

Surely you care about how the deep state forced the felon to get Impeached twice.

Lose 100 million on E Jean Carroll.

Not really. but don't let that stop ur tds!

 

[otto105]

They're as intelligent as any other campaign.

Any ran by a orange felon isn’t intelligent.