Indictment Monday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Maybe it’s just time for you to stop opining on trials. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

There's a reason that Bragg didn't call him. One would think that he might have greater credibility than Cohen - but might not have been willing to say what Cohen did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Maybe it’s just time for you to stop opining on trials. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Whether or not an expense is a campaign expense is a question of fact for which expert testimony is expressly permitted. For example, accountants testify in in cases all the time. Accounting expert witnesses practice in a variety of fields, including forensic accounting, tax law, financial analysis, auditing, and business valuation. Some of the most common specialties among accounting expert witnesses also include fraud examination, bankruptcy consulting, economic damage calculations, money laundering investigations, and corporate governance. They can opine on the effects of financial misrepresentation, tax evasion, embezzlement, breach of contract damages, and fraudulent financial reporting.

Additionally, expert witnesses can opine on ultimate issues of fact. For example, Fed.R.Evid 704 allows the expert to testify as to the ultimate issue of fact; with the narrow exception that experts at a criminal trial may not testify as to whether a defendant had the requisite mental state to commit the charged offense. Same thing in New York courts (Rule 7.01).

Neither Pecker nor Cohen are experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Maybe it’s just time for you to stop opining on trials. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Whether or not an expense is a campaign expense is a question of fact for which expert testimony is expressly permitted. For example, accountants testify in in cases all the time. Accounting expert witnesses practice in a variety of fields, including forensic accounting, tax law, financial analysis, auditing, and business valuation. Some of the most common specialties among accounting expert witnesses also include fraud examination, bankruptcy consulting, economic damage calculations, money laundering investigations, and corporate governance. They can opine on the effects of financial misrepresentation, tax evasion, embezzlement, breach of contract damages, and fraudulent financial reporting.

Additionally, expert witnesses can opine on ultimate issues of fact. For example, Fed.R.Evid 704 allows the expert to testify as to the ultimate issue of fact; with the narrow exception that experts at a criminal trial may not testify as to whether a defendant had the requisite mental state to commit the charged offense. Same thing in New York courts (Rule 7.01).

Neither Pecker nor Cohen are experts.

So you decided to keep proving to us that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does Trump testify?

The defense cannot afford to let Trump testify. First, he has no filter between his brain and his mouth. If he thinks it, he will say it and he would just blurt out many things that would incriminate him. Just look at his "closing statement" the last time he testified and you'll see exactly why the defense cannot afford to let this man open his mouth under oath.

Second, if he testifies, then the prosecution will be able to cross-examine him. He will be asked many, many, many things that he would need to plead the 5th amendment on. And when almost every answer from him about anything other than what color bronzer he uses is answered with a 5th amendment statement, how do you think that will make him look in front of the jury?

Last, he has nothing to add that can possibly get him acquitted. The only defense they have so far is that the financial fraud that he is accused of didn't happen and was all manufactured by Michael Cohen who lies, so you cannot believe anything he says. They have no other refutation of the accusations and the documentation of the fraud that has been proven.

The defense has nothing to gain and everything to lose if they let Trump testify.

And lucky for the defense, Trump’s cognitive abilities have declined precipitously in the the last few years and he can’t be goaded into testifying as easily as I think the internet could have done a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Maybe it’s just time for you to stop opining on trials. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Whether or not an expense is a campaign expense is a question of fact for which expert testimony is expressly permitted. For example, accountants testify in in cases all the time. Accounting expert witnesses practice in a variety of fields, including forensic accounting, tax law, financial analysis, auditing, and business valuation. Some of the most common specialties among accounting expert witnesses also include fraud examination, bankruptcy consulting, economic damage calculations, money laundering investigations, and corporate governance. They can opine on the effects of financial misrepresentation, tax evasion, embezzlement, breach of contract damages, and fraudulent financial reporting.

Additionally, expert witnesses can opine on ultimate issues of fact. For example, Fed.R.Evid 704 allows the expert to testify as to the ultimate issue of fact; with the narrow exception that experts at a criminal trial may not testify as to whether a defendant had the requisite mental state to commit the charged offense. Same thing in New York courts (Rule 7.01).

Neither Pecker nor Cohen are experts.

So you decided to keep proving to us that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Such a witty and learned retort. Did you take the NY bar exam? Have you tried any cases? Called experts to testify at trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

David Pecker testified about talking with a National Enquirer lawyer who thought it was an illegal campaign expense. Michael Cohen testified about going to prison due to it being an illegal campaign expense. Bradley Smith has no facts regarding this case to testify to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When does Trump testify?

The defense cannot afford to let Trump testify. First, he has no filter between his brain and his mouth. If he thinks it, he will say it and he would just blurt out many things that would incriminate him. Just look at his "closing statement" the last time he testified and you'll see exactly why the defense cannot afford to let this man open his mouth under oath.

Second, if he testifies, then the prosecution will be able to cross-examine him. He will be asked many, many, many things that he would need to plead the 5th amendment on. And when almost every answer from him about anything other than what color bronzer he uses is answered with a 5th amendment statement, how do you think that will make him look in front of the jury?

Last, he has nothing to add that can possibly get him acquitted. The only defense they have so far is that the financial fraud that he is accused of didn't happen and was all manufactured by Michael Cohen who lies, so you cannot believe anything he says. They have no other refutation of the accusations and the documentation of the fraud that has been proven.

The defense has nothing to gain and everything to lose if they let Trump testify.

Trump is running his show not his lawyers. Narcissistic sociopaths, like Trump, believe they can make everyone else believe them just look at the Republican Party I think there is a chance that he will testify. After all, this may be his bully pulpit or he'll try his best to make it so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

There's a reason that Bragg didn't call him. One would think that he might have greater credibility than Cohen - but might not have been willing to say what Cohen did.

So why doesn’t the defense call him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The jury.ust be wondering where Allen Weisselberg is.

There's a reason that Bragg didn't call him. One would think that he might have greater credibility than Cohen - but might not have been willing to say what Cohen did.

So why doesn’t the defense call him?

Just a guess but it may be a bad look since he’s serving time for perjury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Maybe it’s just time for you to stop opining on trials. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Whether or not an expense is a campaign expense is a question of fact for which expert testimony is expressly permitted. For example, accountants testify in in cases all the time. Accounting expert witnesses practice in a variety of fields, including forensic accounting, tax law, financial analysis, auditing, and business valuation. Some of the most common specialties among accounting expert witnesses also include fraud examination, bankruptcy consulting, economic damage calculations, money laundering investigations, and corporate governance. They can opine on the effects of financial misrepresentation, tax evasion, embezzlement, breach of contract damages, and fraudulent financial reporting.

Additionally, expert witnesses can opine on ultimate issues of fact. For example, Fed.R.Evid 704 allows the expert to testify as to the ultimate issue of fact; with the narrow exception that experts at a criminal trial may not testify as to whether a defendant had the requisite mental state to commit the charged offense. Same thing in New York courts (Rule 7.01).

Neither Pecker nor Cohen are experts.

So you decided to keep proving to us that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Such a witty and learned retort. Did you take the NY bar exam? Have you tried any cases? Called experts to testify at trial?

Facts of a case are not about the law. They’re about the circumstances, conduct and evidence in a trial specific to that case. The lawyers can hash out jury instructions based on their opinion of how the law applies. This is done outside the presence of the jury, and the judge will deliver the instructions.

Matters of law are decided by judges, either at the trial court or at the appellate level. Matters of law are not up to the jury, which is why his testimony won’t be allowed. If Trump is convicted, that guy can file a brief on appeal. Or, Trump’s attorneys can make that argument to the appeals court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard that Trump isn't even going to bother to raise a defense in his trial (for the jury, akin to admitting that Bragg proved the case beyond unreasonable doubt). Cohen's testimony was devastating for Trump. Do we have estimates on when the jury will convict and will it be stuck in appeals until election day?

The defense isn’t calling any witnesses?? Why didn’t they just enter into a plea deal then?

They really don't have to call any witnesses. The prosecution hasn't proven their case.
They may call a former FEC chairman, but the judge has unsurprisingly placed huge limits on what he can testify to.
Another possible witness - Cohen's legal advisor Robert Costello who knows that Cohen is lying and has the receipts to prove it.

BOMBSHELL: Michael Cohen’s attorney Robert Costello just testified to Congress that Michael Cohen told him that he didn’t even believe Stormy Daniels story, and only paid her off to save Trump and his family embarrassment.

This completely blows up the entire case in Manhattan! Costello said that Cohen was becoming increasingly agitated at not being invited to work in Washington.

What will Cohen and the Manhattan DA do now? It’s clear now that Cohen and Daniels extorted the President of the United States with help from the US government!

I hope and pray the defense has Costello testify. Costello is in GREAT BIG TROUBLE for jury tampering! It appears he is trying to tamper with this jury.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michael-cohen-ex-legal-advisor-141637478.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:David Pecker and Michael Cohen were allowed to testify that the NDA was an illegal campaign expense. But Bradley Smith is not allowed to testify that they are wrong.
The jury is hearing legal opinion of David Pecker and Michael Cohen with regards to campaign finance law but not an FEC commissioner.

Please cite where Pecker and Cohen have testified to a legal opinion and don't come back until you do! Both are testifying to FACTS and FACTS ARE NOT LEGAL OPINIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alvin Bragg is weird. He dropped the Trump case as soon as he got into office, the lawyers working on it for two years resigned in protest. Then he reopens the case without any clear reason why. Doesn’t make any sense.

It feels like he’s try to front run Jack Smith at DOJ. The entire situation feels off.

Democrats just hate all of Trump’s successes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Michael Cohen ADMITS to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump organization.

Remember when Democrats wanted HIM for President? Lol.

Specifically, name the Democrat who ever wanted Michael Cohen for President. You are nuts. Admittedly, there was cheering when he flipped on Trump but no one wanted him for president.