Trump Trials Watch I

nsacpi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Unbelievable

Usually when one of the witnesses are caught in a fib on the stand it's over for that witness.
 
[tw]1792188787155472803[/tw]

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!
 
Garmel said:
Unbelievable

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

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.
 
Carp said:
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?
Click to expand...

He actually believes this case is legit.
 
thethe said:
[tw]1792188787155472803[/tw]

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!
Click to expand...

An interesting part of this poll is that it shows Kari Lake losing by a whopping 13 points
 
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
 
Carp said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
thethe said:
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
Click to expand...

I had assumed her decision to pivot to being pro choice would have saved her
 
Runnin said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol
 
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.
 
Runnin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Runnin said:
Flimsy evidence??? That taped conversation seems pretty solid.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top