Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

He actually has, in the form of testimony, particularly of people who worked for Trump directly. The timing also speaks to the motive and...Michael Cohen will be the person who, using the third party testimony and documentary evidence, including Weisselburgs handwritten notes, ties it all together.

If this case hinges on the testimony of Michael Cohen - Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
He is a convicted felon and a serial perjurer. And, a federal judge agrees that he cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/judge-michael-cohen-perjury-00148104#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20—%20A%20federal%20judge,trial%20—%20is%20an%20untrustworthy%20liar.

Which is why he is testifying last, after all of the testimony from people who are liars and perjurers and after the documentary evidence that corroburates his narrative have been entered into evidence.

See how this works?

[Anonymous]

*aren't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

He actually has, in the form of testimony, particularly of people who worked for Trump directly. The timing also speaks to the motive and...Michael Cohen will be the person who, using the third party testimony and documentary evidence, including Weisselburgs handwritten notes, ties it all together.

False records were in 2017. What was the motive?

[Anonymous]

Why doesn’t Trump take the stand, as he promised? Set the record straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Trump take the stand, as he promised? Set the record straight.

Trump was never going to testify. Now he is saying that he can't testify because of the gag order even though Judge Merch has explained to him that this isn't true. MAGA stupidity is really quite terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Trump take the stand, as he promised? Set the record straight.

Because it would be bad for his campaign, as intended.
Also, the judge has stated if Trump testifies it would allow in a lot of other topics that Trump doesn't want to bring before the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Trump take the stand, as he promised? Set the record straight.

You don't know if he is going to take a stand or not. In some criminal cases it is completely unnecessary when prosecutors did not meet their burden of proof

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Trump take the stand, as he promised? Set the record straight.

Because they have proven that he is guilty and he would just add to it by committing perjury if he testified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Trump take the stand, as he promised? Set the record straight.

Because they have proven that he is guilty and he would just add to it by committing perjury if he testified.

They have not so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about the defense strategy on Stormy Daniels? It seems a bit bonkers.

First, they denied the meeting ever took place in opening statements, opening the door for her to testify. Legally, it doesn’t really matter to this case if she was telling the truth. So, I also don’t understand the aggressive cross examination of Daniels and the ho-hum cross of the other witnesses with far more damaging testimony.

The mistrial motions are also weird. Not only did they make sure she would testify, they didn’t object to a lot of things that they should have, and then claimed what she said was grounds for a mistrial.

Was all of it a plan to set up the mistrial claims? An ineffective assistance of counsel claim? Other than Trump being angry about Daniels, it doesn’t make sense. If they’re more concerned about the court of public opinion than the actual criminal court, how is that going to be good for the case? These are competent, experienced attorneys, making what seem to be huge strategy missteps.

They never denied the meeting took place, there are photos of the two of them together. What they denied in the opening argument was that any sex occurred. THAT is what opened the door for her testimony. As her story unfolded, what became apparent is that TRUMP didn't want those details to come out before the election, otherwise it would have sunk his campaign, as testified by Hope Hicks. In fact, she also affirmed that the GOP, after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, was considering a different candidate at that late date. So yes, Trump was desperate to keep Stormy under wraps, and hence the deal to pay her off in October 2016. It was the follow on payments to Cohen - not legal fees, but reimbursements, that are the crime.

So, what’s the defense’s legal strategy on this move? That’s what I’m asking. Seems like a round of very poor choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t Trump take the stand, as he promised? Set the record straight.

Because they have proven that he is guilty and he would just add to it by committing perjury if he testified.

They have not so far.

Yes. They have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assumed the misdemeanor is a slam dunk case, and it fails under trying to extend to a felony.
However, Andy McCarthy explains even the misdemeanor case is nonexistent.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/05/trump-should-be-acquitted-in-manhattan/

Submitting false records is not enough. There must be a willful intent to commit fraud in doing so. Bragg had not presented evidence of that.

INAL, but the tangible aspects of a presidency are kind of obvious. Does Bragg need to lay those out?

Also, where is the business/ personal line for hush money payments?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Too bad. Commit so many acts of criminal/corrupt acts in your lifetime and you're bound to face a jury at some point.

[Anonymous]

Turley. The man made Trump toilet paper. I mean “voice of reason “. I buy what he sells. lol.