this corrupt judge doing his all

[woofn]

to sabotage the jury in order to get a conviction for his kangaroo court. Whether the jury is a get Trump no matter the evidence and or proof of guilt will be interesting. But more interesting will be how the 2 so called lawyers on the jury decide guilty or not guilty imo. If Trump is in fact found guilty by the jury, i guess the dem swamp is still alive and well. If the kangaroo court wins this battle for now, the appeals process starts. So Bragg, judge, etc get the prize they wanted. Keep Trump tied up and keep him from campaigning as he should be doing…among other things. If this happens the United States will become much worse as the corruption in our country that so many think is will go to another level…it won’t be pretty. jmo

 

[Athens is Heaven]

to sabotage the jury in order to get a conviction for his kangaroo court. Whether the jury is a get Trump no matter the evidence and or proof of guilt will be interesting. But more interesting will be how the 2 so called lawyers on the jury decide guilty or not guilty imo. If Trump is in fact found guilty by the jury, i guess the dem swamp is still alive and well. If the kangaroo court wins this battle for now, the appeals process starts. So Bragg, judge, etc get the prize they wanted. Keep Trump tied up and keep him from campaigning as he should be doing…among other things. If this happens the United States will become much worse as the corruption in our country that so many think is will go to another level…it won’t be pretty. jmo

I just feel sorry for our country it will be a banana republic if the Democrats go back in.

 

[dawgfood0612]

Saw the heading, thought you were talking about Aileen Cannon

Or, as the Trumpers call her, "Our favorite member of Trump's re-election team"

 

[atlanta cock#]

to sabotage the jury in order to get a conviction for his kangaroo court. Whether the jury is a get Trump no matter the evidence and or proof of guilt will be interesting. But more interesting will be how the 2 so called lawyers on the jury decide guilty or not guilty imo. If Trump is in fact found guilty by the jury, i guess the dem swamp is still alive and well. If the kangaroo court wins this battle for now, the appeals process starts. So Bragg, judge, etc get the prize they wanted. Keep Trump tied up and keep him from campaigning as he should be doing…among other things. If this happens the United States will become much worse as the corruption in our country that so many think is will go to another level…it won’t be pretty. jmo

I haven't followed the case as closely as others, but I'm curious why he didn't let the the former FEC head testify that it's not a violation. If this is a records case, it seems to me that this testimony would be directly on point, especially since he let Stormy testify about matters that had nothing to do with record keeping. I'm also curious why the gag order applies only to one person. I'm also curious how the judge is guarding against outside influence. Every news channel in America is covering this case. Any juror who turns on the TV or radio or smartphone will see, hear, and read an opinion of the case.

 

[jlstone412]

I haven't followed the case as closely as others, but I'm curious why he didn't let the the former FEC head testify that it's not a violation. If this is a records case, it seems to me that this testimony would be directly on point, especially since he let Stormy testify about matters that had nothing to do with record keeping. I'm also curious why the gag order applies only to one person. I'm also curious how the judge is guarding against outside influence. Every news channel in America is covering this case. Any juror who turns on the TV or radio or smartphone will see, hear, and read an opinion of the case.

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

Best I have found on it... assuming you were talking about Brad Smith

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

I haven't followed the case as closely as others, but I'm curious why he didn't let the the former FEC head testify that it's not a violation. If this is a records case, it seems to me that this testimony would be directly on point, especially since he let Stormy testify about matters that had nothing to do with record keeping. I'm also curious why the gag order applies only to one person. I'm also curious how the judge is guarding against outside influence. Every news channel in America is covering this case. Any juror who turns on the TV or radio or smartphone will see, hear, and read an opinion of the case.

Generally speaking, judges don't want experts that interpret the law for the jury as that is the responsibility of the judge. Now, I don't think the defense side expects the judge to give a favorable interpretation of the law but that's a different matter.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

Best I have found on it... assuming you were talking about Brad Smith

Meh. The judge ruled he couldn't testify about the issues the defense wanted him to cover which basically rendered him useless. As I mentioned above, it's not necessarily sinister because Smith was going to testify about election law and that is the judges responsibility but there isn't much difference in saying the judge wouldn't let him testify or the judge wouldn't let him testify about his area of expertise.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Generally speaking, judges don't want experts that interpret the law for the jury as that is the responsibility of the judge. Now, I don't think the defense side expects the judge to give a favorable interpretation of the law but that's a different matter.

I hear you but that's what experts are for. If it's a question of law, the judge decides. If it's a question of fact, the jury decides. But if this judge is sending that question to the jury, the defense should have been permitted to present evidence supporting their argument.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Meh. The judge ruled he couldn't testify about the issues the defense wanted him to cover which basically rendered him useless. As I mentioned above, it's not necessarily sinister because Smith was going to testify about election law and that is the judges responsibility but there isn't much difference in saying the judge wouldn't let him testify or the judge wouldn't let him testify about his area of expertise.

I'm not sure about that. If he was going to testify that the FEC has never interpreted it as a violation, the defense should have been allowed to present it because we all act on our present understanding and enforcement of the law. As stated in another post, if this judge is sending this specific question to the jury, the defense should have been permitted to support their argument. Typically a judge will err on the side of caution, which usually means in favor of the defendant since the prosecution carries the burden of proof.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

Meh. The judge ruled he couldn't testify about the issues the defense wanted him to cover which basically rendered him useless. As I mentioned above, it's not necessarily sinister because Smith was going to testify about election law and that is the judges responsibility but there isn't much difference in saying the judge wouldn't let him testify or the judge wouldn't let him testify about his area of expertise.over

That judge is a clown and he is presiding over a kangaroo court that is trying to politically destroy Trump. This whole nation can see what’s happening and they are mad as hell!

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

That judge is a clown and he is presiding over a kangaroo court that is trying to politically destroy Trump. This whole nation can see what’s happening and they are mad as hell!

No doubt about that but that isnt the big issue to me.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

No doubt about that but that isnt the big issue to me.

What is the issue?

 

[maugwa]

Not going to matter one eFFn bit...............TRUMP in a LANDSLIDE.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

What is the issue?

Allowing SD to present a verbal soft porn show and speak about ghosts. Allowing Cohen to drone on and on and his treatment of Costello and now evidently allowing the jurors to convict even if there isn't a unanimous agreement on one underlying crime as long as 12 jurors decide he's guilty of one of 3 charges separately.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Allowing SD to present a verbal soft porn show and speak about ghosts. Allowing Cohen to drone on and on and his treatment of Costello and now evidently allowing the jurors to convict even if there isn't a unanimous agreement on one underlying crime as long as 12 jurors decide he's guilty of one of 3 charges separately.

Yeah that last part is new to me. I've never seen that.

 

[doerunn]

Meh. The judge ruled he couldn't testify about the issues the defense wanted him to cover which basically rendered him useless. As I mentioned above, it's not necessarily sinister because Smith was going to testify about election law and that is the judges responsibility but there isn't much difference in saying the judge wouldn't let him testify or the judge wouldn't let him testify about his area of expertise.

But the porn star can talk about positions that is relevant

 

[DawgWCK]

I'm not sure about that. If he was going to testify that the FEC has never interpreted it as a violation, the defense should have been allowed to present it because we all act on our present understanding and enforcement of the law. As stated in another post, if this judge is sending this specific question to the jury, the defense should have been permitted to support their argument. Typically a judge will err on the side of caution, which usually means in favor of the defendant since the prosecution carries the burden of proof.

I think that would have blow the prosecutions case and in effect why he was not allowed to testify.