Always keep in mind that one million times zero equals zero.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 5
Ty Cobb, love the name. Love the Dodgers doubleheader win yesterday, even if the Dodgers $700,000,000 man sat out a game (sore hamstring).
Ty Cobb, ex-atty to the orange rapist:
"“I expect a ‘GUILTY’ verdict, but only because the jury instructions as urged by the DA and adopted by the judge, over strenuous and well founded defense objections, virtually require conviction,”
“I reach this legal conclusion because of my long experience as a federal prosecutor and white collar defense lawyer, my reverence for the rule of law, and despite my view that Trump remains the greatest threat to Democracy in our nation’s history,”
Okay, but isn't it a chicken/egg thing? If the documents, and testimony supports the documents, and combined carry more weight than , say, the theatrics and innuendo produced by the defense, and the judge takes that into account, there's no problem.
At some point Trumpian lies and innuendo must be relegated to the trashpile on which it rightfully belongs.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Follow up ponder:
If the the historical lies of Cohen are admissible and to be considered by the jury, why wasn't Trump's well-documented history of lying examined in court; his lies about election rigging/fraud are obviously relevant as to intent to lie and cheat to get reelected.
No. of Recommendations: 2
At some point Trumpian lies and innuendo must be relegated to the trashpile on which it rightfully belongs.
It looks like Trump is prepping the audience for a guilty verdict, but there are multiple counts and the verdict will likely be mixed - it all seems to ride on intent and lets hope the jury sees the intent in Cohen's testimony. It was rehabbed a little by the last witness. I'd like at least two counts that show intent, then I think it can survive appeals. But I'm not experienced at all, so I'm just guessing after reading others with experience.
But take a look at it, the really big cases against Trump were caused by him as he left office. I was dumbfounded by the Top Secret Documents case - that was so easy to avoid. And Jan 6? Who would have thunk there would be an attempt to thwart the election based on legal bunk made up by Roger Stone? Who are these people throwing away their law licenses? Look at Rudy - I bet he lost money working for Trump.
Trump getting elected again would be a bitter pill - and it's very possible.
No. of Recommendations: 8
If the the historical lies of Cohen are admissible and to be considered by the jury, why wasn't Trump's well-documented history of lying examined in court; his lies about election rigging/fraud are obviously relevant as to intent to lie and cheat to get reelected.
Because Trump did not testify. You can use a past history of lies to impeach a witness, to show that they are not credible. But as a general matter, you cannot use prior past acts of a defendant to try to show that they are more likely to have committed the crimes they are accused of.
No. of Recommendations: 1
But as a general matter, you cannot use prior past acts of a defendant to try to show that they are more likely to have committed the crimes they are accused of.
I think I knew that that's the case, and it's probably a good thing in the long run. But when a perp has been lying his ass of, continues to lie his ass off to the detriment of the nation, it does not seem reasonable that declining the opportunity to testify on one's behalf would shield their M.O. from prosecutors opening and closing statements. .
No. of Recommendations: 4
I think I knew that that's the case, and it's probably a good thing in the long run. But when a perp has been lying his ass of, continues to lie his ass off to the detriment of the nation, it does not seem reasonable that declining the opportunity to testify on one's behalf would shield their M.O. from prosecutors opening and closing statements.
You can't argue things you haven't introduced evidence for. You can't introduce evidence unless it's relevant and it isn't prejudicial. Introducing evidence of bad prior acts for the purpose of establishing the defendant's "M.O." is not relevant, and it's absolutely prejudicial. Hence, you can't talk about it in the closing statement.
You are allowed to introduce evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness, so prosecutors could have brought that stuff in if Trump had testified. One of the many reasons why it's usually a terrible idea to testify in your own defense.
