Posted on 05/17/2024 2:09:30 PM PDT by Signalman
"Michael Cohen's testimony was the "sinking Titanic" of testimonies. It was the "Hindenburg of hearings". It was a nightmare for the prosecution".
"Michael Cohen completely fell apart upon cross-examination"
It all came down to a single phone call that Cohen said took place between him and Trump and that purportedly established that Trump directed Cohen to issue the payment to pay off Stormy Daniels. But phone records obtained by the defense proved that the call, as described by Cohen, did not happen.
Ease off the edibles.
Your position is they intentionally put Cohen on the stand because they wanted him to make fools of the prosecutors.
Maybe they were wrong this time. Or maybe you mean they can't "fail" because the credibility of the witnesses doesn't matter to this jury.
Of course they were wrong this time!
That’s why the deep state posters above are covering for them.
If I predicted what the jury is going to do, I would be guessing. We would probably agree on what they should do, but that is not the same.
It's like with my online banking system. Their budget tool lets me mark a particular transaction as a particular expense (like my gasoline card is marked "Gasoline") and then all future transactions from that card are automatically marked as "Gasoline."
It might not even be a transaction by transaction decision by anyone, making repetitions of the same charge moot.
-PJ
That's why I wonder about the two lawyers on the jury.
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?
The thought that these two lawyers would concoct a "Runaway Jury" against Trump is quite worrisome if there is no liability for ignoring their duty as officers of the court.
-PJ
AndyJackson Counsel for the Defense: “Were you lying when you said that that Trump knew that you were lying about the fact that Trump was lying that you knew that he knew that you were lying?”
Michael Cohen: “Maybe.”
“You people probably don’t realize it, but you’re being mind controlled to spread propaganda”
“We people” are so fortunate to have someone as wonderful as yourself here to point our shortcomings and idiocy. Thank you so much.
That jury will conduct PDJT after a half hour of deliberations. It makes no difference who does, or doesn’t, testify. Jurors were cherry picked to do exactly that. Prosecution was careful to include ONE guy who gets his info from Truth Social just so it would look fair.
Bill had it right,
First let’s do in the lawyers.
True. It does worry me that Bragg is trying to convince the jury though legal sophistry, and hopes that they are clueless or deranged enough to buy it.
You look mahvelous.
No.
Trust me……this group of prosecutors are trying to damage Trump. The law doesn’t matter. If it did……..this case would have never gone to trial.
Absolutely correct
The prosecution weaponizers of the law have forfeited their right to life
I heard that there are at least two lawyers on the jury. Lawyers hate trump, with a passion.! He's not one of "THEM".
I say they'll find him guilty, and there ain't NOTHING that'll change that.
There’s still the possibility that the TDS-infected jurors will still vote guilty, because OrangeManBad. A very real possibility.
Maybe it was separate property, with the title in his own name as sole owner.
I’m betting that there will be no direct verdict. They are hoping for a hung jury so that they can start all over again and again and again to keep President Trump in the court room.
I know others are saying the defense got to help choose the jury, but they have limited excusing, right? - same as the prosecution (uh-huh. It's NYC, and a horribly corrupt hand-picked judge!)
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.