Trump's Troubles

The Judge isn't the monster that you're making him out to be. He gave instructions to the prosecution and Stormy Daniels to keep it high level. She did not do so and the Judge sustained numerous objections from the Defense. He also raised his own objections when the Defense failed to do so, and admonished the Prosecution for not following his order. The Defense moved for a mistrial but the judge ruled that it wasn't sufficient to warrant a mistrial.

Stormy Daniels testimony was important because (1) the Defense claimed in their opening argument that her story was a lie which opened the door to her testifying to tell her side of the story and (2) it shows how this would be embarrassing and damaging to Trump if this came out before the election, especially in the wake of the Access Hollywood tape coming out. People may have begrudgingly accepted the "it's just locker room talk" explanation but if in the next couple days a story came out that he had an affair with a pornstar while his wife was home taking care of their infant son it very likely would have impacted the election.

 

I think a pretty important point against this being extortion is that Stormy Daniels and her manager/lawyer didn't go to Trump asking for money. They were shopping their story around to various tabloids including the National Inquirer. David Pecker, once he caught wind of the story, notified Michael Cohen per their pre-existing arrangement to catch and kill any negative stories about him. Hard to make the case that this is extortion when it was Trump's team who first made contact with Stormy Daniels.

 

Georgia court to hear Trump's Appeal:

Georgia Court of Appeals Just Delivered Some Bad News for Fani Willis (townhall.com)

There is not likely going to be a trial before 2025.

"There will be no Georgia trial before 2025. Period. Full stop," Georgia State University constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis remarked on X's platform, formerly Twitter. "Fani Willis messed up badly," the Atlanta-based professor assessed."

Too bad so sad for Dictator Biden's lawfare.

 

Setting aside that these are state charges that have nothing to do with Biden, let me ask you a general question.

How do you propose that a former president should be investigated and charged when he's accused of crimes, is no longer in office, and the opposite political party is now in charge of the white house?

 

Expert testimony as to what the law is generally is not admissible.

While I haven’t looked at the order, I’m guessing that the judge is excluding him because the judge thinks what he is being offered for is opinion testimony about the law and doesn’t think that’s a proper subject for expert testimony.

 

Like falsifying business records?

Or using funds from a business to pay for expenses you've clearly identified as essential for a political campaign?

Or both?





Also, thanks for pointing out that the guy you're shilling for committed a crime.

 

Congratulations Judge Merchan.
We haven’t seen a judge run a trial this poorly since Lance Ito in the OJ trial.

 

If you were a juror would you let politics affect your decision? Why would you assume this jury would?

 

Merchan can't hold a candle to judge Cannon but I'm assuming (maybe poorly) that you don't have as much issue with that one.

 

Nonsense. But expected nonsense, coming from you!

 

Always the easiest way to understand this phenomenon:

 

If you could go back in time you’d see every one of my posts said adults doing consensual adult things makes no difference to me. Still doesn’t. I don’t care if he has dozens of affairs. He’s incompetent on the merits of incompetence.

 

I wouldn’t. But as you can see hear from my postings that I care very little for conforming and actually enjoy the petty, ignorant comments directed at me from the lefties here. Given how juries work, I have little confidence that those in Manhattan would buck the trend and incur the wrath.

So to summarize, here’s how this will play out.
1. Trump will be convicted.

2. The conviction will be reversed on appeal.

3. Jurors will sell their stories and we will have a few claiming the “wanted “ to vote to acquit, but couldn’t for one reason or another.

 

I’m curious how many trials you’ve experienced to make the comparisons.

 

So you personally would rule on a case’s merits even though you’re a partisan hack in here but you don’t trust a jury to do it? Mm. Ok. You’re lying about your own capabilities then.

 

Apparently you haven't read the thread on Aileen Cannon although I guess technically the case in Florida and the New York case aren't completely analogous considering that Judge Cannon, Donald Trump's personal judge, is doing her utmost to prevent commencement of the actual trial.

 

Yep, no doubt she has his back. Yet he likes to bark about Merchan being " corrupt".

 

Look.... another right wing law and order Republican.... unless it's a Republican being charged. Hypocrites are just liars with an ironical twist.

 

I didn’t say corrupt, I said incompetent.

 

Actually, both trials are nonsense and both judges are weighing in based on their own biases.