Trump Guilty!

[Faun]

The expert witness knew that what Trump was accused of doing was not illegal. So that means he didn’t have to know if Trump did it or not.

Ex: Lisa is accused of making a hamburger for dinner. The prosecutor is trying her for that and trying to prove it to the jury. An expert witness testifies that making hamburger is not illegal. End of case.

As far as the defense stopping the expert witness, that was because the judge refused to grant immunity. It was the judge’s way of blocking the testimony.

You libs are evil. This was a nothing case about a misdemeanor - if THAT - and used by the Dems to stop their #1 political rival for preventing the continued transformation of America. That they even got this far with a sham charge shows just how far into that transformation we have sunk.

You're fucked in the head, Lisa. Trump wasn't accused of making a hamburger. He was accused, AND convicted of committing a felony. At max, he's facing 136 years in prison. That ain't no burger.

 

[Faun]

They didn't
They Judge told them that they didn't have to.

LOL

Your ignorance of the case is amusing.

 

[postman]

The expert witness knew that what Trump was accused of doing was not illegal. So that means he didn’t have to know if Trump did it or not.

Ex: Lisa is accused of making a hamburger for dinner. The prosecutor is trying her for that and trying to prove it to the jury. An expert witness testifies that making hamburger is not illegal. End of case.

As far as the defense stopping the expert witness, that was because the judge refused to grant immunity. It was the judge’s way of blocking the testimony.

You libs are evil. This was a nothing case about a misdemeanor - if THAT - and used by the Dems to stop their #1 political rival for preventing the continued transformation of America. That they even got this far with a sham charge shows just how far into that transformation we have sunk.

Let me put it to you simply. The judge is the legal expert in his courtroom. They don't need to bring in experts to bamboozle the jury. If they allowed that, trials would be months longer, with "legal experts"

 

[Lisa558]

Let me put it to you simply. The judge is the legal expert in his courtroom. They don't need to bring in experts to bamboozle the jury. If they allowed that, trials would be months longer, with "legal experts"

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all? The judge in all cases is apparently a legal expert on every single thing.

You libs are unbelievable. Isn’t your back hurting from all the pretzel-twisting?

 

[Faun]

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all? The judge in all cases is apparently a legal expert on every single thing.

You libs are unbelievable. Isn’t your back hurting from all the pretzel-twisting?

 

[postman]

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all? The judge in all cases is apparently a legal expert on every single thing.

When it comes to law, the judge is the legal expert. That's how judges get chosen, because they are the experts. And if not, they follow judicial canon Canon 3 B(7)(c) of the Code of Judicial Conduct makes it clear that judges have the freedom to consult with other judges.

 

[Lisa558]

When it comes to law, the judge is the legal expert. That's how judges get chosen, because they are the experts. And if not, they follow judicial canon Canon 3 B(7)(c) of the Code of Judicial Conduct makes it clear that judges have the freedom to consult with other judges.

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all, INCLUDING legal experts? There should be no need for them since the judge is the legal expert.

 

[Billiejeens]

LOL

Your ignorance of the case is amusing.

Poor fawny

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all? The judge in all cases is apparently a legal expert on every single thing.

You libs are unbelievable. Isn’t your back hurting from all the pretzel-twisting?

His so called expert could not testify to whether Trump broke the law or not.

 

[postman]

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all, INCLUDING legal experts? There should be no need for them since the judge is the legal expert.

The "legal experts" are just like "political experts", giving their opinion, which usually means very little. It's the people, not the political experts who decide an election.
And it's ultimately the judges (all the way to the SCOTUS) that decide the law, not the "legal experts".

As far as experts in other fields, like medicine, science, psychology etc. They are necessary, because the judge is only expert in law.

 

[postman]

His so called expert could not testify to whether Trump broke the law or not.

In our system of law, it's the judge who decides points of law, and the jury that decides points of fact.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all, INCLUDING legal experts? There should be no need for them since the judge is the legal expert.

Why didn't Trump testify?

 

[postman]

Why didn't Trump testify?

Do you really have to ask?
Trump testified in his E. Jean Carroll case - and lost
Trump testified in his business fraud case - and lost

 

[Billiejeens]

In our system of law, it's the judge who decides points of law, and the jury that decides points of fact.

You understand that the judge does not make infallible decisions, yes?

 

[Chillicothe]

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all?

Then why do we have expert witnesses at all,

----------------------------------------------------

Poster, the courts allow expert witnesses.....on evidence.
Not law.
Who is qualified to be an expert witness is usually, as far as I know, determined in the the pre-trial hearings.

 

[postman]

You understand that the judge does not make infallible decisions, yes?

Which is why they can be corrected by the judges above them, going all the way to the USSC.

But, even then, it's ultimately a judge, and not a "legal expert" who decides what the law means.

 

[Billiejeens]

Which is why they can be corrected by the judges above them, going all the way to the USSC.

But, even then, it's ultimately a judge, and not a "legal expert" who decides what the law means.

You are really counting on it being a political expert and not a legal expert.
I get it.

 

[postman]

You are really counting on it being a political expert and not a legal expert.
I get it.

Unless Trump brings in 5 SCOTUS justices as his legal expert, all he has is another person with an "opinion", with no legal weight behind it.

And a judge, who is the actual legal expert on the law.

 

[Billiejeens]

Unless Trump brings in 5 SCOTUS justices as his legal expert, all he has is another person with an "opinion", with no legal weight behind it.

And a judge, who is the actual legal expert on the law.

Because a politician put them there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'll be curious to see how you two explain this all being overturned on appeal.

Yet you couldn't say why if your life depended on it.