Takeaways from the Trump hush money trial: Opening statements and the first witness

[jerrymahoney]

20 hours ago, Walker88 said:

 

All of that makes the jury more willing to accept the legal definition of the laws NY State alleges trump broke

In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html

[Skipalongcassidy]

17 hours ago, Walker88 said:

LOL

 

Maybe that 'accredited degree' isn't quite enough to allow you to fully comprehend?

 

Certainly I think it's high time you at least gave a shot at producing something of value. Come on, Skippy, show your fastball.

Everything that you post is just blather... blather this... blather that.

[Tug]

1 minute ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Everything that you post is just blather... blather this... blather that.

Another words walker88 just spanked you big time!

[Skipalongcassidy]

16 hours ago, candide said:

On top of it, legal arguments are usually too long to be displayed on the memes they get from social networks, which seem to be their main source of information (as we have observed yesterday)! 😁

This is the best of the liberal lawyers???  New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

[Roo Island]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

This is the best of the liberal lawyers???  New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

They are spot on. I'm guessing you are a fan of the National Enquirer and their fake news and misinformation? All done to help Trump? Sounds like Faux News and the other right wing media outlets.

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

This is the best of the liberal lawyers???  New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass on Tuesday said the other crime was a violation of a New York law called "conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

Since your "news" is propaganda, the outcome of this trial may be a big surprise for you.

[Skipalongcassidy]

5 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

  Sounds like Faux News and the other right wing media outlets.

Sounds like coming from the person who only reads the left wing trash from the NYTimes... you do know that they are as far left as fox is far right???

[Skipalongcassidy]

7 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Since your "news" is propaganda, the outcome of this trial may be a big surprise for you.

So because you don't like the source you deny that this is what was said... sad... it was said.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Sounds like coming from the person who only reads the left wing trash from the NYTimes... you do know that they are as far left as fox is far right???

It is not about left or right, it's about facts. Fox news is short on those.

[Chomper Higgot]

Good to see someone planning for the ‘Great Honor’ Defendant Trump says he wants:

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/apr/23/secret-service-preparing-donald-trump-contempt-ord/

 

[impulse]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Another words walker88 just spanked you big time!

At least get the quote insult right.

[Skipalongcassidy]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It is not about left or right, it's about facts. Fox news is short on those.

And liberal left media is not... right... 555555

[Danderman123]

I don't think it will be difficult for the Prosecution to prove there was an underlying crime. David Pecker is testifying about all sorts of criming, both state and Federal.

 

Does anyone disagree?

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

And liberal left media is not... right... 555555

What is your definition of the "liberal left media"?

 

Do you mean any media sources that strive for accuracy?

[jerrymahoney]

Law Professor Scorches Alvin Bragg In NYT Op-Ed, Calls Trial ‘Historic Mistake,’ ‘Legal Embarrassment’

Apr 24, 2024 DailyWire.com

“Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” Shugerman wrote, noting that the prosecutors appeared to be attempting to use state laws to shoehorn in a case that belonged in federal jurisdiction.

“None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet,” Shugerman continued.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-professor-scorches-alvin-bragg-in-nyt-op-ed-calls-trial-historic-mistake-legal-embarrassment

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

And liberal left media is not... right... 555555

Fox and Newsmax were caught lying. None left liberal media has to settle defamation suits. Hilarious that you hint Fox strive for accuracy. LOL. 

[Danderman123]

Hey Trump fans!

 

Any of you think that David Pecker is lying on the stand?

 

Of course, you can't answer because you don't have talking points yet.

[Roo Island]

29 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Sounds like coming from the person who only reads the left wing trash from the NYTimes... you do know that they are as far left as fox is far right???

Absolutely wrong. But typical of a far right wing person. Ignore the truth. Deflect. Attack

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Law Professor Scorches Alvin Bragg In NYT Op-Ed, Calls Trial ‘Historic Mistake,’ ‘Legal Embarrassment’

Apr 24, 2024 DailyWire.com

“Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” Shugerman wrote, noting that the prosecutors appeared to be attempting to use state laws to shoehorn in a case that belonged in federal jurisdiction.

“None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet,” Shugerman continued.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-professor-scorches-alvin-bragg-in-nyt-op-ed-calls-trial-historic-mistake-legal-embarrassment
 

This sounds like material for the inevitable appeal. Assuming Trump is convicted.

[Roo Island]

20 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

And liberal left media is not... right... 555555

It's a proven fact that Faux News is about entertainment. Not factual news. Even their lawyers admit it. And a lawsuit of almost 800 million. With more to come. You really need to step outside your echo chamber. It's really not that scary.

[Roo Island]

12 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Law Professor Scorches Alvin Bragg In NYT Op-Ed, Calls Trial ‘Historic Mistake,’ ‘Legal Embarrassment’

Apr 24, 2024 DailyWire.com

“Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” Shugerman wrote, noting that the prosecutors appeared to be attempting to use state laws to shoehorn in a case that belonged in federal jurisdiction.

“None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet,” Shugerman continued.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-professor-scorches-alvin-bragg-in-nyt-op-ed-calls-trial-historic-mistake-legal-embarrassment
 

It's an opinion piece.

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

And liberal left media is not... right... 555555

Ironically, David Pecker is testifying about making up stories that were published to help the Trump campaign.

 

Do you have any thoughts about such fraudulent news stories that helped Donald Trump?

[Lacessit]

"Beyond the confines of the courtroom, legal battles continued to unfold. A parallel hearing focused on allegations of Trump's violation of the judge's gag order, underscoring the contentious nature of the proceedings. Prosecutors sought sanctions against Trump for alleged breaches, highlighting the gravity of the situation. Meanwhile, Trump's legal team vehemently contested the allegations, setting the stage for a showdown over the boundaries of free speech and judicial oversight"

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

25 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Law Professor Scorches Alvin Bragg In NYT Op-Ed, Calls Trial ‘Historic Mistake,’ ‘Legal Embarrassment’

Apr 24, 2024 DailyWire.com

“Their vague allegation about ‘a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election’ has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud,” Shugerman wrote, noting that the prosecutors appeared to be attempting to use state laws to shoehorn in a case that belonged in federal jurisdiction.

“None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it ‘election fraud’ is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet,” Shugerman continued.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/law-professor-scorches-alvin-bragg-in-nyt-op-ed-calls-trial-historic-mistake-legal-embarrassment
 

 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

Sounds like the law professor isn't up to speed on election crimes.

[Danderman123]

At this point of Pecker's testimony, the jury may convict Trump on the basis of so many electoral fraud schemes. It's actually difficult to nail down a single crime among all the violations.

 

But when Trump's ladies testify, that will be the final nail(s).

[impulse]

56 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

It's a proven fact that Faux News is about entertainment. Not factual news. Even their lawyers admit it. And a lawsuit of almost 800 million. With more to come. You really need to step outside your echo chamber. It's really not that scary.

 

I wonder if they'll get that Dominion money back after a Georgia court case showed you actually can hack the machines with a Bic pen and a $10 USB chip?

 

[pomchop]

Pity the fools that have to try and defend donnie and the dunces from his many crimes....of course he is innocent as he has never done anything wrong in his entire itty bitty life.

 

  It is obvious  to trumpers that donnie wants to delay and disrupt every proceeding since he is so very very  innocent it is a waste of time to have to go to trial.  Slam dunks all.  Sure donnie.  Sure.  But go ahead and show us how it is all a big witch hunt , cut the delay and disrupt crap and lets see what the jurys all have to say?  Surely you will be given a clean slate with no convictions then you can prove  and brag ad nauseum how bigly innocent you are.

[jerrymahoney]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

Sounds like the law professor isn't up to speed on election crimes.

Don't see the word 'fraud' in there.

 

But as you once wrote of the NY State Appeals Court on the Engoron case, maybe he's just offering an opinion to justify his existence.

[Danderman123]

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Don't see the word 'fraud' in there.

Not necessary.

 

Trump's felony charges hinge on there being an underlying crime. I cited the statute for the underlying crime.

 

If the Prosecution used the word "fraud", they were using it in the layman's sense, not a legal sense.

 

All the Prosecution has to prove is that Trump wrote checks labeled as "business expenses" or "legal expenses" to cover up the underlying crime.

 

The testimony of Stormy Daniels will be the icing on the cake, primarily to prove Trump is a liar, and, by extension, that his defense is worthless.

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Not necessary.

 

Trump's felony charges hinge on there being an underlying crime. I cited the statute for the underlying crime.

 

If the Prosecution used the word "fraud", they were using it in the layman's sense, not a legal sense.

 

All the Prosecution has to prove is that Trump wrote checks labeled as "business expenses" or "legal expenses" to cover up the underlying crime.

 

The testimony of Stormy Daniels will be the icing on the cake, primarily to prove Trump is a liar, and, by extension, that his defense is worthless.

Thanks.  Your opinion.