Trump Trials Watch I

[thethe]

That's something juries do in every case. Assess the credibility of witnesses on a sliding scale and apply the reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases. Trials are an adversarial setting. It is by design. And every case has some good points by both the prosecution and the defense. The jury's job is to assess all of that. Work through the facts and follow the law.

Well majority of this jury has their mind made up and WANT to believe cohen. Sort of an issue if you would ever be honest.

[Garmel]

Unbelievable

Usually when one of the witnesses are caught in a fib on the stand it's over for that witness.

[thethe]

Last gasp effort by left. Can’t beat him fairly at ballot box and margins are getting wider.

Any day though that trap will be released to get Trump!

[thethe]

Unbelievable

Usually when one of the witnesses are caught in a fib on the stand it's over for that witness.

Usually - but when it comes to the lefts pathetic fantasies of seeing Trump in an orange jumpsuit all norms are thrown out the window.

It’s sad and pathetic. They will be punished for this behavior when the adults are back in the room.

[Garmel]

Well majority of this jury has their mind made up and WANT to believe cohen. Sort of an issue if you would ever be honest.

That's why we need an appellate court to do their job.

[thethe]

That's why we need an appellate court do their job.

In shocked that a case built on a porn star and scumbag attorney hasn’t panned out the way the left thought it would.

[Garmel]

In shocked that a case built on a porn star and scumbag attorney hasn’t panned out the way the left thought it would.

The effed up part is that this trial is still going on.

[Carp]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/n...smid=url-share

Please answer my question.

Why do you support conviction of someone in a case like this with such flimsy evidence? Is there a case you can name where prosecution's main piece of evidence is the testimony of a perjurer?

Or will will just admit that you don't care about the justice system and you just want a guilty verdict?

[Garmel]

Please answer my question.

Why do you support conviction of someone in a case like this with such flimsy evidence? Is there a case you can name where prosecution's main piece of evidence is the testimony of a perjurer?

Or will will just admit that you don't care about the justice system and you just want a guilty verdict?

He actually believes this case is legit.

[sturg33]

Last gasp effort by left. Can’t beat him fairly at ballot box and margins are getting wider.

Any day though that trap will be released to get Trump!

An interesting part of this poll is that it shows Kari Lake losing by a whopping 13 points

[Tapate50]

It’s so sad.

[thethe]

Lakes lost what she had from 2022. It’s a shame since it was obviously stolen from her. Will have to rebuild her brand the next few years if she wants to stay in politics

[Runnin]

Please answer my question.

Why do you support conviction of someone in a case like this with such flimsy evidence? Is there a case you can name where prosecution's main piece of evidence is the testimony of a perjurer?

Or will will just admit that you don't care about the justice system and you just want a guilty verdict?

Flimsy evidence??? That taped conversation seems pretty solid.

Everyone knows, including you, he's as guilty as any scumbag can be. Regardless what the verdict turns out to be, he is getting his comeuppance with these indictments and trials. He's having to sit in front of a judge and jury and getting a taste of the legal system. That's what it's designed to do. If he were as innocent as some of you gooberheads still pretend to believe, he wouldn't be in this position.

[sturg33]

Lakes lost what she had from 2022. It’s a shame since it was obviously stolen from her. Will have to rebuild her brand the next few years if she wants to stay in politics

I had assumed her decision to pivot to being pro choice would have saved her

[Garmel]

Flimsy evidence??? That taped conversation seems pretty solid.

Everyone knows, including you, he's as guilty as any scumbag can be. Regardless what the verdict turns out to be, he is getting his comeuppance with these indictments and trials. He's having to sit in front of a judge and jury and getting a taste of the legal system. That's what it's designed to do. If he were as innocent as some of you gooberheads still pretend to believe, he wouldn't be in this position.

lol

[Garmel]

The last time this cockamamie "election interference" nonsense was tried John Edwards walked.

It's poor legal theory.

Trying to convict a man for trying to keep an embarrassing story from his family isn't illegal. Trying to convict someone for election interference for it is even more ridiculous.

[Carp]

Flimsy evidence??? That taped conversation seems pretty solid.

Everyone knows, including you, he's as guilty as any scumbag can be. Regardless what the verdict turns out to be, he is getting his comeuppance with these indictments and trials. He's having to sit in front of a judge and jury and getting a taste of the legal system. That's what it's designed to do. If he were as innocent as some of you gooberheads still pretend to believe, he wouldn't be in this position.

You mean the secret tape recording where everything is vague and no one admits to any sort of crime or refer to anyone by name? That's your standard of evidence?

[Tapate50]

You mean the secret tape recording where everything is vague and no one admits to any sort of crime or refer to anyone by name? That's your standard of evidence?

Yes!


Hahaha. So sad

[nsacpi]

Please answer my question.

Why do you support conviction of someone in a case like this with such flimsy evidence? Is there a case you can name where prosecution's main piece of evidence is the testimony of a perjurer?

Or will will just admit that you don't care about the justice system and you just want a guilty verdict?

I've indicated my thoughts on this case.

I think it is a solid case in terms of the evidence.

But I don't think Bragg should have brought it for various reasons.

Of the four cases pending against Trump, I think this is the one that a reasonable person might say involves selective prosecution.

[nsacpi]

Flimsy evidence??? That taped conversation seems pretty solid.

The evidence is circumstantial but pretty solid. The legal theory is a bit convoluted but has been applied before. The prosecution has been aware all along that Cohen is a problematic witness and has built up a case that doesn't turn on his credibility.