A serial liar and perjurer who got caught lying while on the stand in this trial now cops to being an embezzler too?

Amy juror who takes their civil responsibility seriously would simply discard Cohen's testimony altogether. Absent of his testimony Bragg has very little left.

Strongest and best witness ever! - DR left

#I7. You mad bro?

In a court of law guilt has to be proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Bragg's key witness is a terrible witness for the prosecution. The witness's credibility absolutely matters in any jury trial. With so much hinging on a terrible witness like Cohen Bragg really shouldn't have even brought the case. In the defense's closing remarks Cohen will be absolutely skewered, as ANY halfway decent defense lawyer would do.

It's ridiculous that I have to explain this to you.

Regardless, if the case crashes and burns the big consolation prize is all of the legal fees Trump had to absorb AND this kept the party in power's political opponent off the campaign trail for weeks. The process is the punishment and if the party in power has to abuse the legal system to improve the odds of holding onto power, then so be it, right?

It's beginning to look more and more like defeating the opponent will have to be achieved at the ballot box.

Oh the horrors! We may have to engage in a Democratic process!

" He'd make more off a Not Guilty verdict, because he'd have a lot more to say."

Yes, we know he has podcasts and is trying to monetize all of this. That he has a financial stake in the outcome in all of this further erodes his credibility because he's essentially admitting that if he can benefit Trump with his testimony he will benefit financially.

#35. I'm saying Cohen has no credibility as a witness. It's really not complicated.

Yeah, you're right JPW. Cohen is the greatest witness of all time.

Pray-tell, what crime did the defense's alleged misdemeanor further to elevate it to a felony AS LAID OUT BY THE PROSECUTION?

When did you of all people become so binary? One can think Trump is a POS AND recognize this case is a fricking joke and an abuse of our criminal justice system. Is that too nuanced for you?

" What a riot, coming from someone who judges everything by the letter after the name.

#55 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2024-05-20 09:12 PM | REPLY"

To borrow a phrase - My irony meter just exploded!

Stormy

Daniels.

69!!!!

" There is no statute of limitations for tax fraud.

#71 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2024-05-20 11:36 PM | REPLY"

Has the prosecution alleged tax fraud?

It's certainly not in the indictment.

#74. So the IRS is prosecuting this case through NYC?

" , was it in furtherance of other crimes?"

I don't know. Apparently the prosecution doesn't either.

" I'm asking what is you yourself truly and actually believe."

You want a gut reaction? I try to base opinions on information available. In this case, no, I am not convinced records were even falsified, much less in furtherance of another crime the production hadn't defined. The classified documents case is a whole different story ...

JPW,

Produce something of substance. Anything.

One thing I've observed about you is the anger is palpable when you emotionally invest yourself into a political issue like this and in spite of a dream venue for the prosecution it's looking increasingly likely that this will not succeed.

Win at the ballot box and you don't have to worry about this. I don't know why you hate Democracy, but here we are.

"So the IRS is prosecuting this case through NYC?"

Doesn't matter" -Danforth

Jurisdiction matters. This case isn't even about taxes. Please show me where the prosecution has alleged tax violation (setting aside Bragg has no jurisdiction).

" There is no requirement in the law to prove the sideline crimes"

Wow. A person can be found guilty of a "sideline crime" (which can include intent) without any due process whatsoever?

Without proof of the "sideline crime" (nice Orwellian term, BTW) how can one be guilty of it? Does due process cease to exist when someone the left despises is in trial?

During opening statements the prosecution said this was election fraud. Yet, when the FEC investigated this very issue as it pertains to these transactions they declined to recommend charges and they actually do have jurisdiction.

" There is no requirement in the law to prove the sideline crimes, mainly for the reason you've illuminated: thugs could go free if only the multiple crimes couldn't be prosecuted by the same court"

Well the alleged "on the field crime" is a misdemeanor with a 2 year statue of limitations.

Deadline missed. Had that misdemeanor been prosecuted timely and the defendant found guilty this trial would only be the so-called "sideline crime".

The prosecution wants to have its cake and eat it too.

How could the jury possibly know what the other crime was that was furthered? Square that with due process. You can't.

"This other sideline crime' is really a crime and you just have to trust us on this."

That is NOT how our legal system works. Stop ------- gaslighting.

" Tax fraud? There is no statute of limitations for tax fraud.

#89 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2024-05-21 12:36 AM | FLAG: "

He's not being charged with tax fraud! Why do you want to constantly color WAY outside the lines?
Stick with what the prosecution is charging. Although that's difficult because they haven't really even spelled it out.

" How could the jury NOT know?

#91 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2024-05-21 12:39 AM | FLAG: "

Because the things you continue to talk about aren't even within what the prosecution has moved with. Do you really believe defendants are to be deemed guilty of a crime based not upon what the prosecution lays out, but by inference?

" Sorry pal, but you being ignorant of New York law has nothing to do with gaslighting."

New York law does not supersede due process laid out in the Constitution. It doesn't. And you know it.

" Why do you continue with the demand there be a second alleged crime under the jurisdiction of this specific prosecutor"

It's not me. It's the Constitution and two and a half centuries of case law in our legal system.

" " He's not being charged with tax fraud"

Only because that's not within Bragg's jurisdiction.

Remind us: does the law specifically state the other crime had to be committed within the jurisdiction of the prosecutor?"

It can only be considered a crime (which can include intent) if the defendant has been convicted. Otherwise it's an allegation. In criminal court allegations have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Period. Full stop.

Here is how this works: NY believes Trump committed a misdemeanor falsifying records. They ALSO believe it was done in furtherance of another crime and share what they have with prosecutors who do have jurisdiction for that other crime.

The NY prosecutors move forward with the records falsification misdemeanor. This is what happens from there:

-The defendant is found not guilty of misdemeanor and it all ends there.
-The defendant is found guilty of misdemeanor but the prosecutors who have jurisdiction over the "sideline crime" opt not to prosecute and it all ends with misdemeanor and nothing more.
-The defendant is found guilty of misdemeanor but the prosecutors who have jurisdiction over the "sideline crime" opt to prosecute, the defendant is found not guilty and it all ends with misdemeanor and nothing more
-The defendant is tried and found guilty in both jurisdictions and now NYC can go to trial and attempt to prove the one misdemeanor was in the furtherance of another misdemeanor

It's scary that you all seem to think that a trial with a maximum sentence of 136 years over book-keeping can be handled with so much circumvention of core due process.

" d there's no way the Constitution precludes NY from requiring, or not requiring a connected crime to be committed in its jurisdiction. "

Agreed. Fortunately, I never said that. In order for one to be guilty of a "connected crime" they must first be convicted of a "connected crime."

Please show me the connected crime' the defendant has been convicted of, or which this prosecution has not only jurisdiction over but has actually spelled out.

The discussion has become circular at this point.

What if the sideline crime' was the only crime a defendant is accused of? Does that go to trial in its proper jurisdiction or does a prosecutor in NYC get to allege the crime, circumvent a trial and proceed straight to a conviction. That's what is happening here.

" Best to leave legal interpretations to attorneys familiar with the law."

That's what I've been doing.

" legal. However, Cohen's payment of the hush money would be an illegal campaign contribution. This has already been proven"

When and by whom?

The FEC has already investigated this and concluded it wasn't a campaign violation. But then, what would the Federal Election. Commission know about this stuff.