Judge Merchan is totally bias!!
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
Last edited:
Fair enough...but there's also a chance a Democrat posted it if we're leaving everything up to chance here right?
Fact of the matter is that misleading information is exactly that. Saying "Trump talked about the Reich..." is misleading. He didn't. But those who choose to not verify information will just assume what they hear others say is accurate.
Not really bizarre.
He ruled what experts could testify on back at the beginning and then didn't change it.
He didn't ban the expert from speaking.
I don't think they ever said.
The FEC office of general counsel said they thought it was a violation and recommended action be taken, but the comission vote deadlocked on party lines. The Republicans said that since Cohen went to jail for it, the public record was complete and it would be a waste of resources to pursue it further.
I think there was a juror who had a conflict on Friday, and the judge also didn't want to split up the closing arguments over the long weekend.
He reprimanded the prosecution for not keeping her in line and reprimanded the defense for not objecting more to her testimony, even objecting for them at times.
He also told the jury to ignore parts of her testimony.
Doesn't look very easy to appeal to me.
He did allow the defense's Federal campaign finance law expert to testify.
The defense refused to call him and then Trump claimed his expert wasn't allowed to testify.
Doesn't look very easy to appeal to me.
Which is why he was allowed to testify as an expert on campaign finance law.
No. Cohen wasn't an expert witness and is therefore allowed to offer an opinion.
New York requires a whole hearing in advance on what can and can't be asked about if someone takes the stand in their own trial.
That was all already hashed out.
You are correct that the Judge didn't ban the expert from speaking, but he refused to broaden the pre-trial ruling on what the expert could talk about. It's a simple statement for me to say Cohen shouldn't be citing matters pertaining to campaign finance law. Cohen can testify Trump told him this was to help his campaign, but I would think that would be about it. The Judge gave the prosecution a lot of leeway with Cohen so one can have the opinion this opened up the door for the defense to expand their questioning of Bradley Smith (former Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission).
The Judge himself could have and can still give the jury guidance on campaign finance law. The problem is Federal campaign finance law is very complex and it is very likely it is beyond the expertise of a NY State judge.
So I think it all comes to back to was the Judge fair or putting his thumb on the scale. We can argue this all day, but the appeals court will have the final say. In the meantime, a lot of this is which commentators is one following and who one wants to believe.
A Republican Federal prosecutor brought criminal charges for campaign finance violations against Democrat John Edwards under President Obama's tenure. Why am I making this point? Federal prosecutors have various political leanings and are free to act without authorization from the Attorney General or the FEC.
Federal prosecutors have passed on this case for several years during both Trump and Biden's Administration. The current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is an Biden appointee.
By the way, Cohen went to jail for a variety of crimes.
That's all fine and good. It's still up to the Judge on what he will allow when the defendant is actually sitting on the stand.
Last edited:
I guess we will have to disagree on this. I don't think a non-expert witness' opinion is pertinent or allowable in this situation.
Which doesn't seem weird at all.
There was already a ruling where he refused to ban the expert (which is what the prosecution wanted).
Why should he change the rules now?
Expert witnesses aren't called to rebut specific people's testimony.
They are called to offer expertise.
It also isn't necessary for the prosecution to prove he violated campaign finance law.
I'm still trying to figure out what thumb you think he put on the scale by being consistent with New York law.
Like I said, they never explained themselves.
The idea that "no one thought what Trump did was a crime" is, of course, not supported by the evidence.
He did.
And the judge specifically ordered that the prosecution wasn't allowed to use Cohen's guilt in that case as proof that Trump was involved.
Sure.
And it would have been almost perfect grounds for appeal if the judge went against his own prior rulings in the Sandoval hearing.
Take it up with New York law.
Can we agree an appeals court will have the final say? You are making a great case, but we both are only offering opinions biased by our source of opinion commentary.
Honestly, I think a Judge has a lot more power over what is allowed in his courtroom once a trial starts. There might be pre-trial rulings and agreements, but the prosecution doesn't want to be put in a position where it has to constantly challenge a judge's handling of the trial. The appeals court is the best place for that.
Do you know for a fact how many people would have access to that account?
Do you know for a fact that there is zero chance that someone other than Trump posted it?
Do you know for a fact that his account wasn't accessed by someone who was not authorized?
You don't.
Therefore, if we're talking about "by chance" as mentioned by SilentKisser in this thread, then the possibilities exist. That's my point.
