Posted on 05/03/2024 8:06:27 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
Edited on 05/03/2024 10:26:12 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The case blew up in their faces yesterday. Michael Cohen nailed for perjury by the prosecution’s own witness.
Update, some observations.
President Trump will be appealing the illegal gag order on constitutional grounds. Gag orders are normally applied to the prosecution to avoid tainting the jury pool.
It’s never intended to be used against the defendant. The prosecution by definition doesn’t need protection — the defendant does.
The case may never reach the jury. Another thing. SCOTUS’s pending ruling on immunity (June) may factor into this.
The alleged falsification of business records ALL took place AFTER Trump became president. An evidentiary hearing to sort what may have been executive vs personal actions would be in order. This another reason this trial should not have move forward before all the constitutional challenges were settled.
The statute of limitations on the alleged records falsification has already expired. So they turned an expired misdemeanor case into a felony by alleging that the falsification was in furtherance of another crime — a state election fraud law that doesn’t even apply to this case since Trump was a federal candidate.
Harvey Weinstein’s conviction was overturned for similar abuses of discretion by prosecutors in that case. They prejudiced the jury by hauling into the courtroom all kinds of stuff having no connection to the case at hand.
Hope Hicks.
She’s regurgitating stuff we already knew. Airing dirty laundry, nothing more. Still no crime. She wasn’t in the room during the supposed Pecker-Trump meeting in August, 2015. Which wouldn’t have been a crime either. This is the most laughable case I’ve ever witnessed.
Colangelo & co are making all the same mistakes the Weinstein prosecutors made. They’re trying to prejudice the jury by bringing in all this extraneous stuff to create the air of criminality.
Unless national security is involved, yeah I’ve the same question.
Accused or not, the 1A doesn’t care or have a provision for a ‘gag’ order cuz the government wants you to be quiet. The judge is government and has limited authority just like the rest of government.
Could a judge issue a gag order to stop somebody from exposing government wrongdoings?? Where’s the line here.
As Steve Bannon pointed out this morning, Democrats put Trump on trial because they still haven’t gotten over the fact that Hillary lost fair and square. This case has zero to do with a business records dispute.
SHE ALWAYS HAS AN AXE TO GRIND.
SHE THINKS SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIGHER UP IN TRUMP ADMIN.
“Siphoned”? I think you mean “subpoenaed”. And yes, she can be compelled to testify, but the court has no authority over what she says other than to compel her to tell the truth.
She’s hot yet Trump never......
The tape played yesterday and discussed today, while good for my case, was cut off at the end, in the early stages of something very positive that I was in the midst of saying. Why was it cut off???
>>>Fox News just read this new Truth from President Trump.
Another egregious mistake, which will backfire, I pray🙏
Lol yes.. damn auto correct rofl
lol
That’s what I thought.
I don’t remember seeing “national security” exceptions to the Constitution.
For the judge and the prosecutor, the case against Trump is that he stole the election from Hillary in 2016. It’s possible that all of the jurors voted for Hillary, so it may be easy to get them to find Trump guilty, no matter how flimsy the legal case is. Merchan and Bragg don’t care if the conviction is overturned on appeal and they get admonished because that may be a year or two after the election.
That may be the underlying intent but I fail to see anything about this trial that’s new. Seems to be a re-airing of dirty laundry and recycling of old news. They needed new material. A conviction here is likely to elicit a collective yawn, and nothing more.
Trump has been brilliant in shaping the overall narrative and exposing the trial as a political witch hunt. If polls are any indication, most people see it the same way.
This made me sad. I do know plenty of things but I had no idea of a Kangaroo’s lifespan. I was holding out slight hope that it could be close to a humans’. Sadly no. It’s only around six years. I would have loved to see the most famous Kangaroo ever, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo appear at this trial. I guess we’ll have to settle for just plain everyday Kangaroos.
😂😂😂
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.