The biggest problem with the Hush money trial

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

What was that about?

Defense argues that Brad Smith will be able to legally define the meaning of "influencing the election"...and what a campaign finance violation legally is.

Bragg and prosecution are using their own definitions.

We need another person to define "influencing an election"?

Sounds like a waste of time to me.

It'll flush the case right down the drain 🤣🤣 Judge sweating bullets

Oh, yes -- tell me again that he is a crooked bias judge because he is not pro-Trump.

lol lol lol even the slightest hint of bias or prejudice is grounds for recusal. Merchan has ignored all that 🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

What was that about?

Defense argues that Brad Smith will be able to legally define the meaning of "influencing the election"...and what a campaign finance violation legally is.

Bragg and prosecution are using their own definitions.

We need another person to define "influencing an election"?

Sounds like a waste of time to me.

It'll flush the case right down the drain 🤣🤣 Judge sweating bullets

Oh, yes -- tell me again that he is a crooked bias judge because he is not pro-Trump.

he is a crooked bias judge because he is Trump.

Tweeked.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

What was that about?

Defense argues that Brad Smith will be able to legally define the meaning of "influencing the election"...and what a campaign finance violation legally is.

Bragg and prosecution are using their own definitions.

We need another person to define "influencing an election"?

Sounds like a waste of time to me.

It'll flush the case right down the drain 🤣🤣 Judge sweating bullets

Oh, yes -- tell me again that he is a crooked bias judge because he is not pro-Trump.

lol lol lol even the slightest hint of bias or prejudice is grounds for recusal. Merchan has ignored all that 🤣🤣🤣

Your bias is prevalent in every post.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

What was that about?

Defense argues that Brad Smith will be able to legally define the meaning of "influencing the election"...and what a campaign finance violation legally is.

Bragg and prosecution are using their own definitions.

We need another person to define "influencing an election"?

Sounds like a waste of time to me.

It'll flush the case right down the drain 🤣🤣 Judge sweating bullets

Oh, yes -- tell me again that he is a crooked bias judge because he is not pro-Trump.

lol lol lol even the slightest hint of bias or prejudice is grounds for recusal. Merchan has ignored all that 🤣🤣🤣

Your bias is prevalent in every post.

Do you even listen to yourself?
Seriously...POT-KETTLE!

a reply to: Annee

Nothing wrong with posters on a forum being biased. Problem occurs when a Judge in a criminal trial is biased.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
I am anti Trump but pro justice.

This ain't justice.

Exactly.

Trump is a scummy bloviating mess, but it's not illegal to be so.
The prosecution has failed to provide any evidence to back their allegations.
And the defense has shredded the prosecutions 'star witness'.
This is clearly a case of the Democrats weaponizing the legal system in order
to shut down a politician who they see as the enemy. Total election interference.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Annee

Nothing wrong with posters on a forum being biased. Problem occurs when a Judge in a criminal trial is biased.

I know.

You probably know I know that

Defense 'Expert Witness' on election law, Brad Smith, is the former FEC Chairman.

Cohen just admitted under oath to stealing $30,000 from the Trump organization.

www.thedailybeast.com...

Cohen also just admitted under oath that he had a "financial interest" in the Trump case.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
Cohen also just admitted under oath that he had a "financial interest" in the Trump case.

Reasons why?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
Cohen also just admitted under oath that he had a "financial interest" in the Trump case.

Reasons why?

Working on a new book.
Running for congress.
Podcast
Merch.

Under redirect by prosecution...Cohen just stated that stealing the $30k "felt like self help".
BWHAHAHAHA...

STAR WITNESS, everybody!

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Oh dear.

I had a trial where the Claimant's lawyer put him in the stand:

"Please turn to page xx of the bundle. Is this your statement?"

"No. My solicitor wrote it and told me to sign it. I haven't read it".

Oh dear moment, indeed.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
Cohen also just admitted under oath that he had a "financial interest" in the Trump case.

Reasons why?

Working on a new book.
Running for congress.
Podcast
Merch.

He also said it is more beneficial to him financially if Trump is not found guilty. It gives him more to talk about in the future.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
Cohen also just admitted under oath that he had a "financial interest" in the Trump case.

Reasons why?

Working on a new book.
Running for congress.
Podcast
Merch.

He also said it is more beneficial to him financially if Trump is not found guilty. It gives him more to talk about in the future.

Interested in buying a bridge, Annee?

This. This is what the judge told his lawyers....

Critics have said that New York prosecutors shouldn't be able to use federal law violations to prove another crime. And others have said that without even charging a New York state law violation, they have failed on that front.

But Merchan just made clear that it's not that cut and dry.

Merchan said that prosecutors aren't required to prove the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt — which could be a key distinction when he writes the jury instructions.

This is insanity.

Correction:
Cohen admitted under oath to stealing $60,000 (not $30k) from the Trump organization.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
Cohen also just admitted under oath that he had a "financial interest" in the Trump case.

Reasons why?

Working on a new book.
Running for congress.
Podcast
Merch.

He also said it is more beneficial to him financially if Trump is not found guilty. It gives him more to talk about in the future.

Interested in buying a bridge, Annee?

Been to the London Bridge in Lake Havasu.

What he said he said. What he meant only he knows.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
Correction:
Cohen admitted under oath to stealing $60,000 (not $30k) from the Trump organization.

Interesting how these stories change depending on what/who you read.