Posted on 05/30/2024 6:51:54 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
Edited on 05/30/2024 6:53:08 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Deliberations resume this morning, after Merchan rereads instructions back to the jurors. Thoughts?
I think the main thing is to tie up President Trump time wise so that he can’t campaign and to dirty his name and reputation
I presume they said Trump did not tell them how to classify the payments.
If so, then how the heck does Alvin Bragg think he can just dismiss their testimony - with nobody to contradict them?
(I wonder why the defense didn’t call him to testify.)
Here’s why: Weisselberg is entitled to three instalments of $250,000 from the Trump Organisation, which are due in June, September, and December of this year. But only if he refuses to “cooperate” with the authorities.
The contract, read out loud in court, says Weisselberg promises “not to verbally or in writing disparage, criticize, denigrate” the company or any of its executives. Another section says “he will not communicate with” and “otherwise will not cooperate with” any entity seeking “adverse claims” against the company.
The severance agreement was then shown to the jurors
It’s essentially an explanation for Weisselberg’s absence
The judge limited the Election Law testimony. I believe to his own background not the actual laws being questioned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And yet it just seems to make his poll numbers go UP.. thank You GOD!
preposterous!
The fact Pecker said Trump said he doesn’t buy stories also implies in a fair way it is not unreasonable to believe Cohen did this on himself regarding Stormy because Trump would not pay because it would come out anyway.
I don't think that's true, but a lawyer will have to answer definitively.
It would be a brand new trial, with brand new pre-trial motions. There is no way that Bragg could get a new jury seated before the election.
Nothing carries forward to a retrial except perhaps the judge, unless the defense argues that the judge's behavior showed excessive bias and asks for the judge to recuse or be removed.
-PJ
Yes...I wrote the quote and then what you are saying. Cohen was doing his boss a favor...He wanted a White House job.
The contract doesn’t require him to lie, and simply reporting factually on a conversation he witnessed is not “disparaging, criticizing, or denigrating” Trump.
I got that info listening to Judge Jeannine Pirro. You can probably find it googling.
Cohen did it because he thought it would help him get back in Trump’s good graces..he did it so that Melania wouldn’t be embarrassed by the BS story..he wanted to tell Trump after wards “Boss there was this story and I killed it to help you, aren’t you proud of me”
It makes me think of the Scripture, “To obey is better than sacrifice.”
Trump told Pecker he didn’t believe in paying people off because it comes back to bite you in the rear anyway.
And Cohen did his own thing and sure enough it’s come back to bite Trump in the rear.
Exactly. An invoice from an attorney would be reasonably classified as legal fees, the same way as the water bill would be a utility classification, etc. Even in your most basic home finance software that tracks your expenses/budget, you would list your grocery bill in the grocery category, not the utility category
And I'll bet if Trump gave him the whole amount in one check...he'd cash it...and it would not be on Cohen's books. It's the reason he wound up in jail.
President Trump is in God’s hands
Putting aside that it looks like the judge is encouraging the jury to convict on circumstantial evidence, it’s a really stupid metaphor. For one, it assumes that you have several hints that it rained including wet ground, people walking around with umbrellas and raincoats, cloudy conditions etc., when all they actually have is a metaphorical damp sidewalk.
There could be lots of reasons to explain that. It could have just been a dewy morning with rain expected, someone’s sprinklers could have malfunctioned, a fire hydrant could have been damaged, street cleaners could have come by. He just introduced a bunch of reasonable doubt into the case.
Really, if you woke up in the morning and it looked like it rained, and then you heard a news report that said a fire hydrant was hit by a car would you say, “Oh my goodness, that has never happened in the world before and it couldn’t possibly be true.”?
My 2 cents,
Love,
O2
P.S.
tagline tagline tagline
the little thief went to jail..in part...because of $3 million in undeclared income.
I'd think the first pre-trial motion by the defense is for the judge to recuse or be removed.
The second pre-trial motion would be for a change of venue due to the negative publicity from the first trial.
The third pre-trial motion would be around election interference having a trial so close to the election.
The fourth pre-trial motion would be a motion to dismiss for political persecution and prosecutorial misconduct.
And on and on.
There would be a long way to go before getting to jury selection.
-PJ
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.