4/15/2024 9:30 ET The People of New York State's Supreme Court vs. Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party

[Motown Bombers]

 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[romad1]

This is pretty interesting

thread

 

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, romad1 said:

This is pretty interesting

thread

 

I love how court decorum is so clear and unambiguous that they will not tolerate even the slightest breach. I'm sure judges overstep from time to time, but I'm confident that's not the case here. The point is that courts have evolved to never tolerate even the slightest contempt or else the legitimacy of the entire proceeding comes into question, which is as it should be.

[CMRivdogs]

 

[romad1]

10 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I love how court decorum is so clear and unambiguous that they will not tolerate even the slightest breach. I'm sure judges overstep from time to time, but I'm confident that's not the case here. The point is that courts have evolved to never tolerate even the slightest contempt or else the legitimacy of the entire proceeding comes into question, which is as it should be.

We sure don't want to get to the point where the Judge has to try the case whilst wearing black masks like they did in Latin America. 

[oblong]

Joe Piscopo was trending on Twitter and I thought maybe he died but it's because he was part of that fawning group.  He's a right wing radio guy there now....

What would ol' blue eyes say about that?  I can envision Phil Hartman's Sinatra making fun of him like he did Steve and Edie.

[gehringer_2]

So the defense has rested after only two witnesses. Trump will not testify.

the jury gets a week off to mull things over before summations. I think that's a horrible idea - but it is what it is.....

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Why didn't the defense end up calling presumably Trump-friendly witnesses like Allen Weisselberg to the stand? Are they worried the more he has to say the worse it gets for Trump?

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Hongbit]

18 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Why didn't the defense end up calling presumably Trump-friendly witnesses like Allen Weisselberg to the stand? Are they worried the more he has to say the worse it gets for Trump?

I believe the defense feels the prosecution didn’t make a case proving that Trump falsified business documents.  

They seem to cede that he did work to cover up the story and impacting the election which is absolutely scandalous but that is not what he’s on trial for apparently.    

I have a feeling this is another one that he’s going to slime his way out of.   

[oblong]

Will be a hung jury.  

[smr-nj]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

Will be a hung jury.  

I think they’ll be some guilty verdicts on some counts, and maybe some not…. I wonder if the judge will give instructions on some of the counts that they can find him guilty -  and a choice of a felony , or a lesser offense - a misdemeanor.  

Or NOT a choice - felony count - guilty or not guilty.
Evidently, it will depend the judge’s instructions to the jury. (I didn’t realize this)

[gehringer_2]

39 minutes ago, oblong said:

Will be a hung jury.  

If the prosecution let a true believer slip onto the jury, all bets are off of course - as they will be unassailable by logic. OTOH, it's actually a pretty good case as far as I have followed it. They is no question the payment was made, given his history with his wives and women in general it's hard to credit that he paid Daniels off for Melania, there is no question Cohen denies it was for legal services, there is no question Trump's side claims it was - but no witness who could (i.e. Trump) has testified to rebut the 1st person testimony of Cohen about what transpired between he and Trump. The black and white evidence dovetails with the story as Cohen tells it. Oddly enough the defense's big show that Cohen illicitly skimmed from Trump in another case only adds to the argument that he didn't think he was getting enough in commission for the 'legal work.' He would not have been as unhappy if that's what those 11 checks were for.

It will depend a lot on the leadership dynamic on the jury. It is always the defense strategy in hard cases to raise as many red herrings as possible - confusion is how to generate doubt when the facts are against you, which is basically how this case has gone. From my one criminal jury experience I would suggest that it ends up falling to the clear thinkers on the jury to keep explaining to the soft headed ones why those red herrings are immaterial to the facts of the case. If that dynamic is in play - the prosecution wins. If the jury has no leadership, you won't move holdouts.

Edited May 21, 2024 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

I’m feeling good

[The Ronz]

56 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

If the prosecution let a true believer slip onto the jury, all bets are off

They did.

The early reporting indicated one juror as stating that he watched both FOX and MSNBC.

IMHO no such person exists. That is an undercover Trumper.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, smr-nj said:

I think they’ll be some guilty verdicts on some counts, and maybe some not…. I wonder if the judge will give instructions on some of the counts that they can find him guilty -  and a choice of a felony , or a lesser offense - a misdemeanor.  

Or NOT a choice - felony count - guilty or not guilty.
Evidently, it will depend the judge’s instructions to the jury. (I didn’t realize this)

Maybe a legal type can comment but I've always found it strange that jurors are not instructed in the law of the case until after they have heard it. Just on 1st take it would seem to be more logical to give the jury instructions on the law of the case first so they can better weigh what they hear/see against what they understand are the legal elements of guilt or innocence. I suppose there is a theory to why we do it the way we do, there always is.....

Edited May 21, 2024 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

He's looking pretty frumpy....

[pfife]

more classified docs found at his ****hole golf club after the search

[romad1]

Take this datapoint as just that…

Listening to James Comey on Rick Wilson’s podcast this morning and Comey says:  80% conviction 20% hung jury and 0% acquitted. 

[chasfh]

20 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

So the defense has rested after only two witnesses. Trump will not testify.

Of course Trump won’t testify. After all, he did say he would.

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

Take this datapoint as just that…

Listening to James Comey on Rick Wilson’s podcast this morning and Comey says:  80% conviction 20% hung jury and 0% acquitted. 

Comey also borked Hillary, so, pound of salt with this guy’s word.

[romad1]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Comey also borked Hillary, so, pound of salt with this guy’s word.

He was present in the room when Cohen and Trump were arranging the payoff.  He probably was not privy to details because he was too busy getting his armed twisted to let Mike Flynn off the hook. 

[chasfh]

21 minutes ago, romad1 said:

He was present in the room when Cohen and Trump were arranging the payoff.  He probably was not privy to details because he was too busy getting his armed twisted to let Mike Flynn off the hook. 

I’m sorry, Comey was in the room during the payoff arrangement and heard the whole thing? I hadn’t heard this. What was the pretext for him being there?

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I’m sorry, Comey was in the room during the payoff arrangement and heard the whole thing? I hadn’t heard this. What was the pretext for him being there?

I have this wrong...it was David Pecker. 

Per court testimony Pecker was the one who was in the Oval Office on the day in Jan 2017 when Comey and others were there to discuss a shooting in Florida (so many, amirite?) and it was subsequent to that meeting that Cohen got part of his payoff

David Pecker gave prosecutors just what they were looking for in Trump hush money testimony - POLITICO