Lawrence O’Donnell

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

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?

On what?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

Trumps defense is partly that the conduct alleged to constitute the underlying crime is not a crime. In your view the jury would be asked to decide a point of federal law, without evidence. That makes no sense. This is an unusual case made worse by the judge allowing it to proceed without the fact of the underlying crime being established. I think that is one of several reversible errors

You would be correct if the expert were asked to give an opinion about the crime charged.

 

[twenty02]

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.

Isn't that how every court case works? And why there is an appellate system?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Trumps defense is partly that the conduct alleged to constitute the underlying crime is not a crime. In your view the jury would be asked to decide a point of federal law, without evidence. That makes no sense. This is an unusual case made worse by the judge allowing it to proceed without the fact of the underlying crime being established. I think that is one of several reversible errors

You would be correct if the expert were asked to give an opinion about the crime charged.

No, in my view the jury is not being asked to decide a point of law, because that point has already been adjudicated in pretrial motions and, iirc, an appeal. That part of Trump's defense is already over.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No, in my view the jury is not being asked to decide a point of law, because that point has already been adjudicated in pretrial motions and, iirc, an appeal. That part of Trump's defense is already over.

With what result? I don’t recall that. But I didn’t pay much attention to the early proceedings.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

With what result? I don’t recall that. But I didn’t pay much attention to the early proceedings.

Well, they are allowing them to move forward with the felony charges, so I guess he lost? I assume it's still preserved for more appeals, though. Point is, it's not the jury's problem. The jury will be instructed as though the acts alleged do constitute a campaign finance violation, and the jury will decided if they happened, not whether or not they should be a crime.

Look, if I'm on that jury, I'm planning on telling my compatriots about a little thing called jury nullification. Okay? I'm not sympathetic to this case. But the question was about this expert and why he can't tell the jury effectively that the judge is interpreting the law wrong. The answer is because no judge would ever allow such a thing. It's not bias. It's competence. This point is not the jury's business, period.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Your constant slurping for the Democratic Party is really quite admirable. You'd probably make a decent WH Press Secretary in the Biden Administration.

You have no self awareness. No one “slurps up” more than you. The way you slurp up to your Lord should be embarrassing for you, but you don’t have the self awareness to be embarrassed.

 

[stollcpa]

Well, they are allowing them to move forward with the felony charges, so I guess he lost? I assume it's still preserved for more appeals, though. Point is, it's not the jury's problem. The jury will be instructed as though the acts alleged do constitute a campaign finance violation, and the jury will decided if they happened, not whether or not they should be a crime.

Look, if I'm on that jury, I'm planning on telling my compatriots about a little thing called jury nullification. Okay? I'm not sympathetic to this case. But the question was about this expert and why he can't tell the jury effectively that the judge is interpreting the law wrong. The answer is because no judge would ever allow such a thing. It's not bias. It's competence. This point is not the jury's business, period.

So the prosecution didn’t produce one witness who had any info that Trump knew about the Cohen legal billing and directed how it be posted. How can the judge allow the trial to continue?

 

[IU_Hickory]

So the prosecution didn’t produce one witness who had any info that Trump knew about the Cohen legal billing and directed how it be posted. How can the judge allow the trial to continue?

you think trump doesn't know about a 6 figure expenditure?

lmao

 

[stollcpa]

you think trump doesn't know about a 6 figure expenditure?

lmao

You have no idea how a multi million dollar company operates. The CEO might very well have awareness of a check written but they have no input on where the accounting staff posts the check in the general ledger. Hell the CFO isn’t directing posting of expense checks.

Don’t answer because you have no idea about this subject.

 

[IU_Hickory]

You have no idea how a multi million dollar company operates. The CEO might very well have awareness of a check written but they have no input on where the accounting staff posts the check in the general ledger. Hell the CFO isn’t directing posting of expense checks.

Don’t answer because you have no idea about this subject.

lol and you've had no idea what you were talking about this entire thread. Hasn't stopped you from accusing the judge of bias and pretending Trump is a victim.

So your THEORY is that Cohen paid Stormy 6 figures and Trump Organization reimbursed him without Trump's knowledge?

I got ocean front property in Indiana to sell you.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So the prosecution didn’t produce one witness who had any info that Trump knew about the Cohen legal billing and directed how it be posted. How can the judge allow the trial to continue?

If they can possibly draw the inference from Cohen and others, they don't need a smoking gun witness. Judge doesn't dismiss simply because the prosecution made a weak case. Prosecution has to effectively make no case at all. That didn't happen.

 

[cosmickid]

They didn't. They just didn't think it was a winnable case.

Actually I think it's more a question of who controlled the SDNY and DOJ at that point in time. Barr and Trump fired Geoffrey Berman, who was the US Attny for SDNY, and a Trump appointee. In other words he was like many other GOP/Trump appointees, canned because he spoke out against Trump's BS. Again Berman, a lifelong Republican has subsequently characterized Barr as "stupid, a liar,a bully and a thug"...

Why did Trump fire Berman (and petend it was Barr's idea)? For the current case here is the relative part...

"Under Berman's watch, Cohen ultimately pleaded guilty to financial crimes, lying to Congress and campaign finance crimes. Under oath, Cohen implicated Trump in payments made to two women ahead of the 2016 elections to keep them quiet about affairs they said they had with Trump."

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/20/881148365/geoffrey-berman-u-s-attorney-who-prosecuted-trump-allies-says-he-wont-quit

The Berman episode undermines two frequent talking points of Trump defenders. First off the claim that somehow Biden has "weaponized" the DOJ, which clearly was far more rampant during Trump/Barr.

And secondly the idea that the Feds didn't want to at least further investigate Trump, and decided not to because there was no evidence. Trump stymied the investigation and replaced Berman with another lackey, but Berman was very interested in probling in to both Trump and Rudy. Although presumably MAGA enough to be appointed by Trump, he apparently wasn't ultra MAGA. And he hasn't been shy about the resistance his investigation encountered from Trumpers within his office...