Posted on 05/13/2024 5:47:44 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
Convicted perjurer Michael Cohen testifies today.
Fox News is going to play tape on air.
Couldn’t agree with you more, but this is a New York court, a New York Judge and a Trump-hating New York jury.
good!!!!!!! I hope he blows his testimony BIG TIME!!!
On cross Cohen is going to pay for taping his client.Even the jury should be able to put themselves in Trumps position.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is the worst part. Total silience of the GOP.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Cohen recorded conversation with Trump without his knowledge and the court is going to allow the tape to be played.
“On cross Cohen is going to pay for taping his client.Even the jury should be able to put themselves in Trumps position.”
You’re kidding.... right? You really think this jury wasn’t chosen to be just as anti-Trump as this judge and the DA is? I’m thinking the “guilty” verdict has been a ‘no-brainer’ from the very beginning of this fiasco.
Then this is where the "speedy trial" part of the Constitution comes into play.
If Merchan is continuing the trial knowing that the prosecution has failed to make its case, then that is simply the government using the trial to drain the resources of the defendant and illegally keeping him gagged and in the courtroom. This is what the "speedy trial" protection was meant to prevent -- the government dragging its feet in order to punish the defendant with the process.
I would think that if Merchan denies a motion to dismiss, that would be grounds for an immediate appeal before making the defendant put on a defense that is unnecessary.
-PJ
Agree. This trial is separating the wheat from the chaff, and, the sheep from the goats.
I want the Defense will use Cohen to destroy the notion that killing an attack story was somehow “election fraud” in the November 2016 election. Fantasy lines of questioning:
Do celebrities and business people want to avoid having negative stories come out about them in the media? Why? Do they benefit by killing negative stories, whether the stories are factually true or false? Did Trump have a “brand”, that he used to add value and promote his ventures? Does Trump have a wife and children? Is it possible that he would want to protect them from hearing negative stories about him?
Have you ever negotiated payments and NDAs to kill stories that you believed were not true? Why?
If Cohen believed killing the Daniels story was election fraud, why did Cohen willfully break the law? What specific “law” does Cohen think he was guilty of violating? Why hasn’t he (Cohen) been charged with that? You have been convicted of perjury and fraud in unrelated matters. Did you received reduced sentences for “cooperating” with prosecutors by providing negative information and testifying against Trump?
When did he first become aware that Trump’s accountants booked the payments to Cohen as “Legal Expenses”? How would the public know what was in Trump’s bookkeeping records? SO, how could the public know about the NDA expense before the election, no matter how it was categorized?
Did Cohen ever consider using his knowledge of the negative stories he bought and killed on Trump’s behalf to gain something from Trump? How about the payments and how they were charaterized as Legal Expenses? Did Cohen typically perform legal services for Trump?
If a person in the public eye who is not running for office buys a story to kill it, is that a crime? So if Trump does the same thing, it’s a crime; if someone else does the exact same thing it’s NOT a crime? Is that equal treatment under the law?
Did Cohen ever, even for a moment think that Stormy Daniels might have contrived her story to shake down Trump? Did he ever discuss with Daniels getting money or career opportunities out of Trump? Did Cohen have an affair or any sort of relationship with Daniels?
Doess Cohen blame Trump for ruining Cohen’s career? Does he bear ill will against Trump for this?
The LAAP-dog media made a lot of noise about two lawyers being on the jury and how they may become "super jurors" because of their knowledge of the law. The thought was that the other jurors would defer to the lawyers in a sort of "The Runaway Jury" situation.
If it is clear that there is no case here, that the law was misapplied, that Bragg failed to meet the threshold of proving his case, that there is no underlying crime that that bootstrapped the expired misdemeanors, that the legal expenses were properly booked as legals expenses, and that President Trump was not personally involved in the low-level day-to-day staff operations of their departments, and if these lawyers vote to convict President Trump anyway, can those two lawyers be brought up on ethics violations to the NY bar association? Aren't they still officers of the court? Don't they still have a duty to the law even though they are sitting on a jury?
-PJ
Notice that the “GOP” in Nebraska has yet to change the way electoral votes are apportioned in that state. They have majorities and the governorship, so there’s no excuse. They don’t want Trump to win.
That line could get very dangerous.
“.....can those two lawyers be brought up on ethics violations to the NY bar association? Aren’t they still officers of the court? Don’t they still have a duty to the law even though they are sitting on a jury?”
You know the answer to those questions already... don’t you? That being...
1) they could be but they won’t be... because they’re probably special people... ie “Democrats”... and Democrats control the NY bar association,
2) Yes, but even officers of the court can get away with violating the law if they are special people... ie “Democrats”,
3) Yes, they still have a duty to the law, but as we’ve seen time and time again... Democrats don’t give a tinkers’ damn about “the law” if it hinders or hampers their leftist agenda.
Brilliant line of questioning. Well done.
I believe yes, if Democrats in charge of such charging wish to do so. Hint: they won’t wish to here.
Tinker’s dam.
Notice that the “GOP” in Nebraska has yet to change the way electoral votes are apportioned in that state. They have majorities and the governorship, so there’s no excuse. They don’t want Trump to win.
https://governor.nebraska.gov/
Yup!
Two electoral votes may not sound like much, but that district could be decisive in a 268-268 split
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.