Let's talk about the merits of the NY case against Trump

[Matt]

My comments about being "dumber than a box of rocks" were targeted at Matt and only Matt, and only because calling people who would under any circumstance vote for Trump stupid is part of his shtick here. It isn't just his signature. He repeatedly calls me (and others) stupid or dumb or whatever whenever something even hinting at defending Trump occurs.

Other people are of course entitled to their own opinions, I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise. I do struggle though understanding how people can see the NY prosecution as anything other than politically motivated, given all the circumstances. I also find it amusing that the only reason Hillary wasn't prosecuted by the FBI for her improper handling of classified information is because she was apparently too stupid to know she was violating the law (same goes for Biden, except he was too old and forgetful to know of his violations), yet Trump - Trump, while otherwise portrayed by the media and those who don't like him as being dumber than a 5th grader, is somehow a criminal mastermind who conjures up all these grand, elaborate conspiracies to break the law for his own benefit. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't pass the smell test for me.

If you're voting for Trump, you are either a moron or a complete partisan hack. You choose.

You simply can't look at the man's conduct after he lost the election and come to the conclusion that he can be trusted with the presidency again. Period.

It doesn't make sense to play a what-if game on the NY case, because history shows that if Trump had lost in 2016, he would have pulled the same shit as when he did lose in 2020. That likely would have had a harsh legal response. A little wimpy rat like Cohen would have flipped much sooner to save his own ass.

[Honeyman]

My comments about being "dumber than a box of rocks" were targeted at Matt and only Matt, and only because calling people who would under any circumstance vote for Trump stupid is part of his shtick here. It isn't just his signature. He repeatedly calls me (and others) stupid or dumb or whatever whenever something even hinting at defending Trump occurs.

Other people are of course entitled to their own opinions, I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise. I do struggle though understanding how people can see the NY prosecution as anything other than politically motivated, given all the circumstances. I also find it amusing that the only reason Hillary wasn't prosecuted by the FBI for her improper handling of classified information is because she was apparently too stupid to know she was violating the law (same goes for Biden, except he was too old and forgetful to know of his violations), yet Trump - Trump, while otherwise portrayed by the media and those who don't like him as being dumber than a 5th grader, is somehow a criminal mastermind who conjures up all these grand, elaborate conspiracies to break the law for his own benefit. I'm sorry, but this just doesn't pass the smell test for me.

If you're voting for Trump, you are either a moron or a complete partisan hack. You choose.

You simply can't look at the man's conduct after he lost the election and come to the conclusion that he can be trusted with the presidency again. Period.

It doesn't make sense to play a what-if game on the NY case, because history shows that if Trump had lost in 2016, he would have pulled the same shit as when he did lose in 2020. That likely would have had a harsh legal response. A little wimpy rat like Cohen would have flipped much sooner to save his own ass.

I completely agree. But still, 1/2 the country will vote for him. It's not a fringe thing. Why? The Dems better figure it out quick or were in biiiiig trouble.

[zzand]

From a longer article

“It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you, especially when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

He totally described himself.

[Turkeytop]

From a longer article

“It is a really bad feeling to have your Constitutional Right to Free Speech, such a big part of life in our Country, so unfairly taken from you, especially when all of the sleazebags, lowlifes, and grifters that you oppose are allowed to say absolutely anything that they want,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

He totally described himself.

[TC Talks]

In case you are just discovering this, Trump has always deflected his true character by accusing others of being exactly what he is. One could argue this is his most successful trait, as he seems to fail and most things business and relationship.

[bmw]

While I think his suggested outcome is wishful thinking (that the Judge may grant a motion made by the defense after the prosecution rests seeking a direct verdict by the judge on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction), Jonathan Turley's assessment of the case against Trump is nearly a perfect match of what I've been arguing all along in here.

...prosecutors now turn to a witness, Michael Cohen, with a record of saying whatever serves his interests and those of his sponsors.

Everything is riding on his testimony. It is not enough to say that Trump wanted to hush up the alleged affair. That is no crime and NDAs are common and legal. Cohen has to say Trump specifically knew and approved of the characterization of the payments as “legal expenses.”

He further has to establish that Trump intended the denotation to conceal the payments for the purposes of election violations or fraud.

https://nypost.com/2024/05/12/opinion/t ... lls-apart/

[zzand]

Time will tell. The rest either this week or sometime next week. Let's be honest here, his defense team has not been very good to this point in the trail The judge has had to help them a few times. A directed verdict would be in their best interest. I have a feeling their defense would be a mess and Trump would insist on testifying and may turn out to be his own worst enemy by doing so.

[TC Talks]

I think Cohen will do a fine job connecting the dots. Any thoughts of directed verdict are nonsense. Who will refute Cohen? Not Trump.

[zzand]

He is a convicted liar. The prosecution will have to overcome that.

[Rate This]

I think Cohen will do a fine job connecting the dots. Any thoughts of directed verdict are nonsense. Who will refute Cohen? Not Trump.

Cohen speaking may refute cohen. The defense is going to try to hammer on his tendency to lie.

[bmw]

I've been super busy today so haven't been following the news, but the 2 minutes I heard on the radio coming home sounded to me like the prosecution's case is blowing up in its face. Anderson Cooper said Cohen appears to be "making it up as he goes along" and one of the ladies on the View today said she couldn't convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Anderson Cooper and anyone from The View are saying that, it sounds like Trump had a good day.

[Matt]

I've been super busy today so haven't been following the news, but the 2 minutes I heard on the radio coming home sounded to me like the prosecution's case is blowing up in its face. Anderson Cooper said Cohen appears to be "making it up as he goes along" and one of the ladies on the View today said she couldn't convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

If Anderson Cooper and anyone from The View are saying that, it sounds like Trump had a good day.

Not an unbiased source, but interesting commentary: https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/ ... vDLgw&s=19

I'd trust McQuade over the view or Ms. Cooper.

[bmw]

Not an unbiased source, but interesting commentary: https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/ ... vDLgw&s=19

I'd trust McQuade over the view or Ms. Cooper.

...Prosecution spent the entire case preparing for this moment by pre-corroborating his testimony with documents and other witnesses...

Now that's an interesting take. If the prosecution has documents and other witnesses that corroborate Cohen's testimony in its entirety, then there's no reason to take the risk of putting a liar like Cohen on the stand. The only reason you'd call him as a witness is that he's needed to fill in some gaps, and if he's a proven liar, that becomes a major liability for the prosecution, particularly given the "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

[TC Talks]

Not an unbiased source, but interesting commentary: https://twitter.com/BarbMcQuade/status/ ... vDLgw&s=19

I'd trust McQuade over the view or Ms. Cooper.

...Prosecution spent the entire case preparing for this moment by pre-corroborating his testimony with documents and other witnesses...

Now that's an interesting take. If the prosecution has documents and other witnesses that corroborate Cohen's testimony in its entirety, then there's no reason to take the risk of putting a liar like Cohen on the stand. The only reason you'd call him as a witness is that he's needed to fill in some gaps, and if he's a proven liar, that becomes a major liability for the prosecution, particularly given the "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Proven liars are legitimate when they can back up claims. Additionally, if Cohen is corrupt doesn't that reflect poorly on the defendant who had a close business relationship for years?

Gotta tell ya BMW, your read on this trial is from a Trump loving perspective. For every story that makes it look good for Trump, there are stories that suggest he is in trouble. Unless you know what the jurors are thinking, there is not much the gallery of commentators vying for viewership are going say that is rooted in the actual outcome.