Legal expert Jonathan Turley calls out Judge Merchan for attempting to influence the outcome of the case by limiting the FEC commissioner's testimony "This witness was needed bc this judge has allowed the jury to hear there were campaign violations & there were NOT. I'm quite convinced this jury thinks there was a campaign violation committed and connected to Trump, and that's just not the case"
Judge Merchan is totally bias!!
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
Legal expert Jonathan Turley calls out Judge Merchan for attempting to influence the outcome of the case by limiting the FEC commissioner's testimony "This witness was needed bc this judge has allowed the jury to hear there were campaign violations & there were NOT. I'm quite convinced this jury thinks there was a campaign violation committed and connected to Trump, and that's just not the case"
Its what MAGA is drooling over, skoob.
You know it, you want it.
Scenes From a MAGA Meltdown: Inside the “America First” Movement’s War Over Democracy
Across the country, the Republican Party’s rank-and-file have turned on the GOP establishment. In Michigan, this schism broke the party — and maybe democracy itself.
www.propublica.org
Squeeze,
This is embarrassing commentary. The non-expert host's interrupting to make analogies to a crack prosecution and beating your wife are simply silly.
This is infotainment. It is sure to excite and entertain Democrats.
It was a very bizarre ruling since the Judge let Cohen speak liberally and extensively about campaign finance violations. Of course, Cohen is anything but an expert on campaign finance law.
At the end of the day, we are still left with the multimillion dollar question (as in all the money Bragg has spent on this prosecution). If the payment to Stormy Daniels was a crime under Federal campaign finance law, why didn't a Federal prosecutor bring a case forward in the last eight years?
Last edited:
I was perplexed to find that the Judge dismissed the jury yesterday until after Memorial Day next Monday.
I don't know how Canadians treat three day weekends, but here this week is still a work week. Perhaps some people will take off Friday afternoon to start the long weekend. Otherwise, it's business as usual in the U.S.
I don't know how Canadians treat three day weekends, but here this week is still a work week. Perhaps some people will take off Friday afternoon to start the long weekend. Otherwise, it's business as usual in the U.S.
LOL. It's always someone else's fault, or Trump was only joking, or we're taking it out of context. But let's face facts. He praised Hitler just a few months ago, and he's basically quoted him by calling immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country..." He's also talked about being a dictator....
You can appeal. It doesn't mean a court will hear it. There needs to be grounds to file one, and they need to be significant enough for the appeals court to grant a new trial. Just saying the judge is biased but providing no proof is not enough.
Yesterday, I filed an official judicial complaint with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct against Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan. His family is directly enriching itself off this sham trial against President Trump in blatant violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct for the New York State Unified Court System, and he must be held accountable.
So you agree he didn't actually "talk about the unified Reich" in the example you provided?
You think Trump runs his own website content? They obviously removed it.
You immediately tried to peddle a narrative that Trump was talking about the Reich, and you were wrong.
Your reference to "dictator" is also out of context...he said it with respect to fixing the horrific border issues meaning he wouldn't leave it up to the opposition to stall and distract from actually fixing it. "dictator for 1 day" if I recall.
I'm not agreeing to anything. I will say there is a possibility that someone posted that. But, it is equally as likely he posted it and then was forced to take it down. And, I think you're proving my point. His defenders are constantly saying you're taking things out of context...The man is a walking contradiction of shit. You can't believe anything he says, or what he says he doesn't mean, or if he meant it, he meant it only in a specific way....Y'all wanna go on about Biden's speaking issues. He stutters and occasionally says something incorrect. But you never hold Trump to the same scrutiny, especially when it appears he is becoming increasingly senile....
So Maga-folk?
I have followed this matter sporadically because coverage of these trials is horrendously bad on both sides. But I understand that numb-nuts has raised yet another "credibility" defence and then refused to take the stand and undergo cross-examination.
That's going to go about as well as it did in the Jean Carroll case, which the moron could well have won had he taken the stand. There are mentally defective 8 year olds who could defend litigation better than that fuckwit. One can but chuckle...
I have followed this matter sporadically because coverage of these trials is horrendously bad on both sides. But I understand that numb-nuts has raised yet another "credibility" defence and then refused to take the stand and undergo cross-examination.
That's going to go about as well as it did in the Jean Carroll case, which the moron could well have won had he taken the stand. There are mentally defective 8 year olds who could defend litigation better than that fuckwit. One can but chuckle...
I’m pretty sure they’d get to at least one level of court of appeal if not higher as of right. The grounds are going to be multiple alleged errors made by the trial judge in his rulings throughout the trial plus in the jury charge. And I’m not saying it is going to have any merit.
I have to disagree. In Jean Carroll case it would have been easy for him to testify and deny and/orclaim lack of memory.
In this case the cross would be absolutely devastating. He would have nowhere to hide. It would secure his conviction and damage him politically at the same time. I said it before his defence rested and I say it now.
It would appear the Judge exercised some errors in judgement. Everyone has their own opinion about whether they were intentional or not.
I can point to two things off the top. First, the Judge let Stormy Daniels go on and on disparaging Trump and divulging sexual details. This seems a bit odd when you consider her testimony doesn't really add a whole lot other than to give her a sounding board for her personal dislike of Trump. You don't have to believe my take. The Judge basically told the jury to ignore certain of parts of her testimony. This kind of sets up a self-evident appeal.
Lastly, the Judge wouldn't allow the defense's Federal campaign finance law expert testify. If you follow the dots that many have obfuscated, the case actually hinges on the question of a campaign finance violation. The Judge also let Cohen liberally comment on Federal campaign finance law which further complicates things for an appeals court.
Last edited:
For some reason, it seems there is limited coverage that trickles out of the court. I'm not exactly sure why.
I personally think the various commentators feel like they have to spin events a certain way for their audience. That hinders clarity.
I seemed to understand at an early age that the prosecuted don't want to testify at their own trial. You want to rely on your advocates to make your case.
The other honest problem is that the Judge has let certain people on the stand go off on Trump. I wouldn't hesitate to say that this Judge would likely allow a prosecutor go off on Trump in areas not pertinent to the payments and their classification.
I think it's wishful thinking to want Trump on the stand and believe he should go on the stand..
Last edited:
It is laughable that Judge Juan Merchan wants decorum in his courtroom after he allowed salacious and irrelevant testimony from Stormy Daniels. Judge Merchan clearly showed he is not concerned about the civil rights of a criminal defendant and went out of his way to bar President Trump’s lawyers from adequately defending their client.
