simple question for you lawfare advocates.....
(no message)
Replies to: simple question for you lawfare advocates.....
Exactly. No defense for Merchan’s behavior &cover up of exculpatory evidence.
(no message)
Merchan’s behavior was not normal but also not unusual.
Some judges feel super empowered when wearing robes behind the bench. Has nothing to do with politics.
It most certainly is here. Look at his slap down
reasonable objection over and over by Trump’s attorneys - he even threatened them with fines if they continued to object.
Then he allows unrelated Stormy testimony and has the gall to say “for the life of me, I don’t know why (Trump’s) lawyers didnt object?”
His refusal to step aside while his daughter have been specifically involved in anti-Trump activities and he has been an active Dem donor as well.
His selective gagging of Trump but not Cohen and Daniels so that he was smeared without ability to respond.
His refusal to allow Cohen’s lawyer (aDem)
testify with specific knowledge that star witness Cohen was lying again.
Here you go...btw, with virtually no effort at all, you could have found the answer to that question
and not expose your ignorance and/or sloth...
Proving Trump himself actively caused the records to be falsified was the sine qua non of the case.
Everything else was collateral embellishment.
If this is not given as a jury instruction it is reversible error.
I'm sure the prosecution will tell the jury that DJT had knowledge of the illegal scheme...
approved it...and had intent to commit the felonies...with documented and testified evidence.
A standard jury instruction warns that arguments by counsel are not evidence.
I don't recall any oral or documentary evidence that Trump had anything to do with record keeping.
No but circumstantial evidence is and if he’s convicted that will be the key.
(no message)
What circumstantial evidence? No "testimony" even inferred Trump was involved with record keeping.
This is why the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Any decent jurist would issue a directed acquittal.
Then how did they know how to book it as a retainer?
Who else with the company was involved with the cohen transactions here? Dude is a micro manager which was proven in spades here. You do try cases, right?
You have a bit of a point. Why should any payments made to Cohen be listed as "legal" expenses?
Unless he had regularly been submitting his bill for providing these services
But how would a bookkeeper know that he was a mere thief?
Even when they weren’t. Which Orange knew full well they weren’t when he submitted them to be
booked that way. Thanks, easy peasy.
That does not answer his question.
(no message)
The legal geniuses here are in full force.
(no message)
This is first year law school stuff. Guilt requires proving each element of the crime.
A valid jury instruction should enumerate each element from the statute,
But of course the law is irrelevant in this situation.
No shit Sherlock and it will be there in the instructions.
(no message)
Let's see. I would be surprised but not shocked if it is not there.
It certainly was not cited in the indictment.
Doesn’t have to be. Will be in the jury charge.
(no message)
This? "To find Trump guilty you must find (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he falsified records."
(no message)
Or caused them to be falsified which he did when he submitted hush money reimbursement as legal
expenses or a retainer. Again, easy, peasy.
You thought the Palestinian protesters were going to Rikers. You really aren’t very bright.
(no message)
You thought they would be released with just summons’. Moron.
(no message)