Jump to content

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


Social Media

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Confused 4
  • Love It 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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???

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Edited by Danderman123
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

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.

Edited by jerrymahoney
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...