This. Reflective of his mental disorder.
I know it was just CNN calling “a horse race!”, but during the first two weeks of the trial, the commentators were acting like the prosecution’s entire case could and would be made without Cohen’s testimony. And that Cohen’s testimony was like one petal on one flower on the icing of the case. All but superfluous.
And now? It’s a one-man case? It’s now ALL on Cohen’s testimony? Aside from “juries are unpredictable!”, Trump is nailed to the wall right now.
This is why the jury instructions are so important. Because a lot of this hinges on “intent to defraud” and “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof”.
Depending on what the “another crime” was (tax fraud, conspiracy to interfere with the election, election finance violations) Cohen may be the primary evidence that the purpose of the payment was to commit or conceal that crime.
And “intent to defraud” is a it tricky one too. Because who is being defrauded, and of what? Is it the state of NY? Is it the voters? Each of those requires different evidence, and the wording of all of that is what the lawyers are arguing about now.
I suppose it’s a matter of philosophy. Which brick holds up the archway? All of them do, but if any one fails, the arch falls.
The evidence is seen as a totality. Without the supporting evidence, just Cohen’s word would never be enough to convict Trump. But at the same time, without Cohen pointing the finger, none of the supporting evidence directly ties Trump to this particular crime. Does that mean it’s “all on him”? I don’t think so, l but I do believe that if he fails, the case fails.
Unfortunately, too many people do believe him and it doesn’t even matter how outrageous the lie is.
Trump is what happens when someone spends decades of their life paying people to tell him the crowd is saying “booo-urns”.
Those two attorneys on the jury – do we know what branch of law they are in? It occurs to me there are a lot of practicing lawyers who never see the inside of a courtroom. If these are two of them, their occupation may not have very much influence.
they are both corporate lawyers.
Even if this is true, they are still schooled in the basic rules of evidence. It’s what being a lawyer is all about.
For many who never go to court, the rules they learned in law school are a bit fuzzy to say the least. Same for me, if I tried to do some securities transaction.
But, as jurors they don’t need to know the rules, but understand the concepts. I think many lawyers would see the defense strategy as mostly floating red herrings and ignoring the elements of the offense.
I saw a few articles last night saying Trump started attacking the judge after he left the courthouse, but I don’t think I saw it mentioned here yet.
“The judge hates Donald Trump,” Trump said, creepily referring to himself in the third person. “Just take a look. Take a look at him. Take a look at where he comes from.”
Isn’t this violating the gag order?
But the order doesn’t stop Trump from talking about the allegations against him or commenting on the judge or the elected top prosecutor. And despite a recent Trump remark, it doesn’t stop him from testifying in court if he chooses.
I don’t think the gag order restricts Trump from talking about the judge.
Oh, okay.
[quoting Trump]
Where does he come from?
he was born in columbia.
Nitpick: Colombia.
Also: Mechan lived in Queens from the age of 6. I guess a compelling case could be made for the untrustworthiness of people from Queens…
i’m totally blaming spell check. dang it.
i keep wondering why trump is going on about “the judge is highly conflicted”. i really don’t see a conflict of interest, unless he is referencing the daughter.
I can’t help considering that Aileen Cannon was also born in Colombia.
Huh. Why would Merchan be the target of Trump’s xenophobic ire, but not Cannon??
Huh.
Yeah. I got nothin’.
:rolleyes:
He is.
Plus, I think Merchan donated like $15 to Biden’s campaign a few years back, and maybe another $20 to other Democratic causes.