Our "sacred airways" 😂So if you think your employer didn’t give you enough bonus you can rebalance steal the amount you think you deserve.
Someone tell me this fck isn’t a biased POS.
Lawrence O’Donnell
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
I asked you if you thought the judge was impartial and followed up with example that I think shows he’s not impartial.
or
G) to get Trump at any cost. no matter, no number of lives or livelihoods lost are too many, if it's to GET Trump. The Defense should also act in an adult way, according to the prosecutions definition.
If Goat gave you the reasoned legal basis for that ruling would it change your mind?
Whatever it takes Murt…
Last edited:
Okay, what expert? The only one I know about is allowed to testify, but Trump's team isn't going to call him.
That would have required a suspension of disbelief.
He should have understood that he was hopelessly tainted and asked to have a special prosecutor appointed for all Trump proceedings.
Last edited:
Don't hold me to this, but I believe he ruled that the expert could be called to talk about campaign finance laws in broad general terms but could not opine on the specifics of this case.
It makes sense that the expert would not be allowed to testify to the legal theory before the jury, as that's not a matter for the jury. Such a ruling doesn't show the judge to be biased; it shows him to be competent.
Because you post vaguely, disingenuously, & dishonestly & then get all flippant when called out on it.
It's neither disingenuous nor dishonest to limit my posts to what I actually think, rather than add wild speculation. Instead, your disdain at me for not believing the things you want me to believe so as to match your caricature of a liberal shows the fault in your character, not mine.
He’s going to greatly limit is testimony to help the prosecutor just like he did with Costello today. He’s not going to allow the expert to testify on why this isn’t a violation of campaign finance law.
Stormy was allowed to talk about her expertise in communicating with the dead and everything else she wanted to talk about. Costello who’s a strong well respected attorney wasn’t allowed to tell his story.
As I said already to Mark, he shouldn't allow such testimony, because that's not an issue for the jury. If the expert wants to raise that issue, he does it in a pretrial hearing, or in an amicus brief on appeal. But the jury isn't supposed to decide what is and is not legal, and the judge isn't supposed to ask them to.
Supposedly Cohen testified that this was a campaign finance violation.
On another note why isn’t Trump’s CPA being called to confirm that Trump directed the posting of Cohen’s legal bill? Must be because he’s wouldn’t say that.
It wouldn’t be unusual at all for accountants to post a legal bill to legal expense.
Cohen gave his opinion. Why shouldn’t judge allow an attorney who hasn’t been disbarred give his opinion? And btw the guy has expertise in the area.
I don't know what Cohen said. If he opined on the legal theory of the case, I'd bet the judge sustained an objection and struck it from the record.
Okay, now I read about it, and I can answer your question. Cohen didn't testify that the payment did violate election law. Rather, he testified that he personally knew it violated the law when he made it. He was testifying to his own intent, rather than to the legal soundness of the case.
That might sound like an end run around the rules, but the purpose of the testimony was not to convince the jury that the action was in fact illegal, which is not a question of fact for the jury to decide, but rather to establish intent, which is a question of fact for the jury to decide.
How do you know what the purpose was?
Don’t experts give their professional opinions in court trials all the time? Why can’t Trump call an expert of Campaign Finance Law to give an opinion on the matter at hand?
The deal here is pretty simple. Get a conviction of Trump and it doesn’t matter that it’s going to be reversed a couple years down the road.
I've already explained it. Juries decide facts. Judges decide law. Experts do not testify to the state of the law before the jury, because that's not a jury question.
I'm sure stoll is an outstanding accountant. But it's obvious he just doesn't grasp the finer aspects of how the law works. And I'll be the first to admit I don't know nearly as much as I think I do. But this is not that difficult to understand.
Existence of the underlying crime is an element of the crime Trump is charged with. How would the jury decide whether that element is proven?
Cohen, a lawyer, gave his opinion he thought he committed a crime. Trump should be able to rebut that opinion.
Edit: That’s one reason why the Prosecution and Judge FUBARED the case. It should never have survived an MTD without the underlying crime being first established. The jury shouldn’t decide both crimes.
Cohen is an idiot only the basis that he owned 30+ NYC taxi medallions at the time period when they were selling for up to $1m/each. And didn't sell them!
It's not when you buy, it's when you sell!
A fkn moron could see Uber/Lyft coming from miles away for years and this dumb fk didn't get out.
It's not when you buy, it's when you sell!
A fkn moron could see Uber/Lyft coming from miles away for years and this dumb fk didn't get out.
Last edited:
So Trump’s team has to hope the judge instructs the jury correctly on the law? Well we know how that’s going to go. If he knew the law he would have already dismissed the case.
I don’t pretend to know the finer aspects of the law. I can grasp fair and by all accounts this judge hasn’t been fair.
It’s obvious the prosecution is going for reverse jury nullification. Most liberal district in the US hates Trump and will vote him guilty. Sad state of the justice system in the US where Dems are in charge.
Thank you for answering Mark's question about his you'd respond to a clear legal explanation.
You are muddying the waters by confusing multiple issues here. Stoll asked why an expert isn't allowed to testify to the jury as to his opinion on the interpretation of the law. The answer to that question is simple, and as a lawyer, you know I'm right.
I've already multiple times stated that I don't personally buy the prosecutor's theory of the case. I don't need to be convinced on that point. But the question isn't whether the theory is weak. The question is the proper time and venue for addressing that. And it's not before the jury.
I accepted your explanation of why the judge won’t allow the expert to give his or her opinion.
I assume the judge will at least let him explain the law which the prosecutor is saying Trump broke?
You don't need an expert for that. Both sides have already litigated these issues. That part is over. If the jury wants to acquit because they think the prosecutor is trying to use the law incorrectly or unjustly, they have that right. Juries always have an absolute right to acquit. But no judge in the world is going to help the jury get to that result.
The judge can dismiss the case.
Also who is going to explain to the jury exactly what the charges are? They aren’t whether Trump fcked Stormy which could be easy of the jury to think.
That's what jury instructions are for.
The judge can dismiss the case. The fact that he hasn't doesn't prove he's biased.
God, you make be cuss sometimes. I knew what you were going to say. And I am not dissing you.
So do you feel Bill Barr fairly came to different conclusions than many democrats?
Similar threads
