It's a documentary case. The evidence is there in the checks, emails, recorded phone calls, etc. Again... Donald Trump picked Michael Cohen. Not the prosecution. THEY DO NOT WANT COHEN TO TALK ON THE STAND. Not that hard to understand why they have to though. .... But like always you are just being snarky here, and trying to gaslight. What you say here is about as credible as what comes out of Cohen or Trump's mouth, and there is documentary evidence here for years that you simply do not have an ounce of objective opinion we should listen to. Just flagrant anti-Democratic propaganda.
The verdict will be interesting. These jurors have their hands full. I am interested in how the electorate would react to all scenarios. And if necessary, the sentencing would be even more intriguing.
allowing nonrelevant testimony to bias a jury was what got the Harvey Weinstein charges thrown out not that this judge or prosecutor care. They just want a conviction before the election, don't care if it withstands appeal.
The previous witnesses presented the evidence of the transactions. Stormy provided testimony of her activities which led to trump making the illegal payments. Furthermore, she was able to provide testimony that countered any defense argument that he was only paying off the p*rn star to keep his wife from finding out.
LOL, so cancun here defends trump's hiding hush payments made by a former president (and presidential candidate) to a p*rn star (cheating on his pregnant wife),... and all cancun can say is, "well, we all know trump cheats on his wives"? Gary Hart was forced out of a presidential race for cheating with Donna Rice. John Edwards was forced out for cheating on his wife with Rielle Hunter. republicans tried to impeach President Clinton for cheating on his wife with Monica Lewinski in the oval office and then lying about. And none of them were p*rn stars.
I've read over 100 pages if I'm not mistaken of Stormy's testimony including the motion for a mistrial. I have yet to make it to her cross examination, but it's my understanding that one of Trump's attorneys suggested she "hate" Donald Trump--which I can understand, given that he basically dangled a slot on "The Apprentice" in exchange for sex, then went on to lie about the affair and defame her... but I could be wrong there, and it really doesn't ****ing matter. What's clear is: Trump's attorneys rarely objected during her testimony, and when they did they were usually sustained. I'm no lawyer but I agree 100% with the judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss. I suggest others tear themselves away from X for a moment and decide for themselves... https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/5-7-2024/00045.html Edited with proper link.
Kirk the right-wing nutjob and Dershowitz, the lawyer who defended the child trafficking pedophile Epstein.
I love how posts like this treat us all as if we are the dumbest least informed people on the planet. Yes, and Jonathan Turley is a famous and respected Liberal Scholar as well. Tulsi Gabbard is a known principled Democrat. etc etc.
Dershowitz has been a Democrat all his life. He was deemed a far-right extremist the moment he questioned the integrity of your Washington masters.
