Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's attorneys should have stipulated the meeting took place. Having Daniels recount the events today do not help Trump at all.

Yup. There’s a reason he didn’t want this to come out in 2016. This plus the access Hollywood tape might have put off enough voters.

And also the Karen McDougal story. Hope Hicks testified that Trump was concerned about all three: the tape, Stormy, and Karen McDougal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/06/hope-hicks-testimony-trump-trial/#:~:text=In%20her%20testimony%2C%20Hicks%20describes,not%20a%20tape.%20...

Trump is trying again to keep McDougal from testifying. If he is denying an affair with her then why doesn't he want her to testify?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

Good grief.
Somehow..... he has allowed the prosecution to do exactly what you said.
In the case of Smith - he knows FEC regulations and laws. He is far more relevant a witness than David Pecker.
And, my gosh... if you have been following this case and the bias by this judge... there are grounds for appeal nearly every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker were present for conversations and other events that are relevant to the case. Bradley Smith was not.

[Anonymous]

This might be of interest to those harping on the federal law angle :

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

Good grief.
Somehow..... he has allowed the prosecution to do exactly what you said.
In the case of Smith - he knows FEC regulations and laws. He is far more relevant a witness than David Pecker.
And, my gosh... if you have been following this case and the bias by this judge... there are grounds for appeal nearly every day.

It doesn't matter if he's the world's greatest expert on the FEC. You can't call a witness to testify about what the law is or isn't. If you didn't know this, you should probably keep shut up before you look even dumber than you already do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker were present for conversations and other events that are relevant to the case. Bradley Smith was not.

Bradley Smith is versed on the "law" that Bragg erroneously is accusing Trump of breaking. So, yes - his testimony is quite relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker were present for conversations and other events that are relevant to the case. Bradley Smith was not.

Bradley Smith is versed on the "law" that Bragg erroneously is accusing Trump of breaking. So, yes - his testimony is quite relevant.

No, it's not. The law is decided by the judge based on the arguments from the parties. The jury doesn't decide what the law is and you can't call witnesses to talk about what the law is. This is some of the most basic stuff about how trials work. Are you really this dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker were present for conversations and other events that are relevant to the case. Bradley Smith was not.

Bradley Smith is versed on the "law" that Bragg erroneously is accusing Trump of breaking. So, yes - his testimony is quite relevant.

No, it's not. The law is decided by the judge based on the arguments from the parties. The jury doesn't decide what the law is and you can't call witnesses to talk about what the law is. This is some of the most basic stuff about how trials work. Are you really this dumb?

The grand jury indictment does not mention this law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker were present for conversations and other events that are relevant to the case. Bradley Smith was not.

Bradley Smith is versed on the "law" that Bragg erroneously is accusing Trump of breaking. So, yes - his testimony is quite relevant.

No, it's not. The law is decided by the judge based on the arguments from the parties. The jury doesn't decide what the law is and you can't call witnesses to talk about what the law is. This is some of the most basic stuff about how trials work. Are you really this dumb?

Somehow that didn't apply in the trial of John Edwards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

Good grief.
Somehow..... he has allowed the prosecution to do exactly what you said.
In the case of Smith - he knows FEC regulations and laws. He is far more relevant a witness than David Pecker.
And, my gosh... if you have been following this case and the bias by this judge... there are grounds for appeal nearly every day.

Wait are you actually concerned about judicial bias? Where are your complaints about Judge Cannon then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker were present for conversations and other events that are relevant to the case. Bradley Smith was not.

Bradley Smith is versed on the "law" that Bragg erroneously is accusing Trump of breaking. So, yes - his testimony is quite relevant.

No, it's not. The law is decided by the judge based on the arguments from the parties. The jury doesn't decide what the law is and you can't call witnesses to talk about what the law is. This is some of the most basic stuff about how trials work. Are you really this dumb?

Somehow that didn't apply in the trial of John Edwards.

The trial judge in the Edwards trial also barred a former FEC commissioner from testifying about what the law is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Michael Cohen and David Pecker were present for conversations and other events that are relevant to the case. Bradley Smith was not.

Bradley Smith is versed on the "law" that Bragg erroneously is accusing Trump of breaking. So, yes - his testimony is quite relevant.

No, it's not. The law is decided by the judge based on the arguments from the parties. The jury doesn't decide what the law is and you can't call witnesses to talk about what the law is. This is some of the most basic stuff about how trials work. Are you really this dumb?

Somehow that didn't apply in the trial of John Edwards.

The trial judge in the Edwards trial also barred a former FEC commissioner from testifying about what the law is.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/election-finance-witness-for-john-edwards-barred.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

Good grief.
Somehow..... he has allowed the prosecution to do exactly what you said.
In the case of Smith - he knows FEC regulations and laws. He is far more relevant a witness than David Pecker.
And, my gosh... if you have been following this case and the bias by this judge... there are grounds for appeal nearly every day.

This is a new york case, not a federal case. There is no FEC jurisdiction here.