Judge Merchan is totally bias!!

[WyattEarp]

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.

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.

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 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..

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793317583199834617

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.

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793351898851942542

President Trump’s Justice Department must immediately open a criminal probe on day one. Biden officials like Matthew Colangelo, Andrew Weissmann, Jack Smith, and many others must be held accountable for their actions using official government resources to criminally prosecute a former President of the United States and the current Republican nominee. These republic-ending tactics cannot be allowed to continue.

 

[WyattEarp]

I have to disagree. In Jean Carroll case it would have been easy for him to testify and deny and/orclaim lack of memory.

I'm not sure it would have mattered. It was 25+ year old stale case that couldn't be more "he said, she said". You can't even put the two in the same place at the same time..

You get into civil court and the jury can believe who they want to believe. The concept of beyond a reasonable doubt is not applied.

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793304526268629031

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793297752194945120

 

[mandrill]

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..

Earp. If you say someone is lying about you, you're pretty much expected to take the stand and explain things.

Otherwise, the jury is just left with just one viable account of events.

 

[mitchell76]

Earp. If you say someone is lying about you, you're pretty much expected to take the stand and explain things.

Otherwise, the jury is just left with just one viable account of events.

Why should Trump take the stand with this bias judge overseeing the case?? Also, the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the Carroll case, which was just based on a preponderance of evidence, which is based on a much lower standard!!

Obviously, Trump's defence team, doesn't think the prosecution has proved it's case, beyond a reasonable doubt!! However, this biased Manhattan jury, might still find Trump guilty, who really knows for sure!!

 

[xmontrealer]

I seriously doubt the jury will return a unanimous verdict...

 

[mitchell76]

I seriously doubt the jury will return a unanimous verdict...

I hope so!!

 

[mandrill]

Why should Trump take the stand with this bias judge overseeing the case?? Also, the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the Carroll case, which was just based on a preponderance of evidence, which is based on a much lower standard!!

Okay. But if it's a contest of who the jury believes, it's dumb not to take the stand and state your case.

Obviously, Trump's defence team, doesn't think the prosecution has proved it's case, beyond a reasonable doubt!! However, this biased Manhattan jury, might still find Trump guilty, who really knows for sure!!

The legal team does what Trump tells it to. And Trump would rather run a clown show than a trial.

 

[Leimonis]

I'm not sure it would have mattered. It was 25+ year old stale case that couldn't be more "he said, she said". You can't even put the two in the same place at the same time..

You get into civil court and the jury can believe who they want to believe. The concept of beyond a reasonable doubt is not applied.

It would have been “he said she said” if he had the guts to say something. But he said nothing

 

[Leimonis]

I seriously doubt the jury will return a unanimous verdict...

Have you followed it closely enough to form an opinion? I know I haven’t

 

[Leimonis]

Why should Trump take the stand with this bias judge overseeing the case?? Also, the prosecution has to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to the Carroll case, which was just based on a preponderance of evidence, which is based on a much lower standard!!

Obviously, Trump's defence team, doesn't think the prosecution has proved it's case, beyond a reasonable doubt!! However, this biased Manhattan jury, might still find Trump guilty, who really knows for sure!!

Why don’t you tell us what you think happened? What is your version of events in which Trump is innocent?

if you think he’s actually guilty but you still like him it’s okay just say so

 

[mitchell76]

Okay. But if it's a contest of who the jury believes, it's dumb not to take the stand and state your case.

The legal team does what Trump tells it to. And Trump would rather run a clown show than a trial.

IMHO, Trump realizes that Judge Merchan hates him, so Trump decided that he's better off not to testify. All these leading lawyers like Dersh and Turley, think that Judge Merchan is a disaster, and very bias!!

 

[mitchell76]

Why don’t you tell us what you think happened? What is your version of events in which Trump is innocent?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand this case, at all. I just read the opinions of lawyers like Turley and Dersh etc. Both these lawyers say this case shouldn't have been brought in the first place!!

I don't feel bad, because a lot of actual lawyers don't understand this case either. For example, how Alvin Bragg can take a misdemeanor that already expired years ago, due to the statute of Limitations, and magically turn this case into a felony. According to my reading on this subject, no other lawyer has ever done this before. Bragg is obviously just out to "get Trump."

Also, Judge Merchan lets Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen testify all day, yet won't let any of Trump's witnesses testify, like Brad Smith!!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793290103806116251

Trump Witness Merchan Silenced Speaks Out: Brad Smith Explains What He Would Have Told Jury

Brad Smith, the Trump witness who was essentially silenced by Judge Juan Merchan in former President Donald Trump's business records trial, revealed what he would have told the jury had he been able to testify.

www.breitbart.com

 

[mandrill]

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793018625810432164

Brad Smith: What I would have told the Trump jury - Washington Examiner

In recent days, it has become clear that the Trump trial will somehow come down to federal campaign finance law.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[mitchell76]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792681745814262153

 

[Leimonis]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand this case, at all. I just read the opinions of lawyers like Turley and Dersh etc. Both these lawyers say this case shouldn't have been brought in the first place!!

I don't feel bad, because a lot of actual lawyers don't understand this case either. For example, how Alvin Bragg can take a misdemeanor that already expired years ago, due to the statute of Limitations, and magically turn this case into a felony. According to my reading on this subject, no other lawyer has ever done this before. Bragg is obviously just out to "get Trump."

Also, Judge Merchan lets Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen testify all day, yet won't let any of Trump's witnesses testify, like Brad Smith!!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1793290103806116251

Trump Witness Merchan Silenced Speaks Out: Brad Smith Explains What He Would Have Told Jury

Brad Smith, the Trump witness who was essentially silenced by Judge Juan Merchan in former President Donald Trump's business records trial, revealed what he would have told the jury had he been able to testify.

www.breitbart.com

Forget about the legal side of it for a moment. Let’s just talk facts.
Is there any other version than:
Trump decided to pay money to Daniels right before the elections to make sure that she doesn’t go public and Trump needed it to be done in a way that would not be connected to his reportable campaign payments because these records are accessible by the public. So Trump had cohen pay for it and then trump reimbursed cohen adding cohens income tax obligations on top and then both documented it as payment for services even though there was nowhere near that amount of services ever provided.

Is there any other version?