From the live updates of the Trump trial in the NYT. That's a free-access link — my last gift link to give until next month, so use it well.
UPDATE: "Todd Blanche is focusing on the 34 documents that led to the 34 felony charges. He sounded as if he was getting close to making a legal argument about 'intent to defraud.' The jurors would have to find that Trump acted with intent to defraud when he directed the falsification of the documents in order to find him guilty. Justice Merchan appeared to glare at Blanche as he came close to commenting on the law. But the defense lawyer moved away, and the judge said nothing."
UPDATE 2: "Todd Blanche is now walking a very thin line as he seeks to convince the jurors that there was no intent by Trump to defraud — a legal concept at the heart of the case — without trespassing into the judge’s territory. Every time Blanche says the phrase 'intent to defraud,' the judge stares over at him — but thus far, Justice Merchan has not said anything."
UPDATE 3: "Todd Blanche just offered quite a quote — and take — on the nature of American politics, saying that it didn’t matter if there was 'a conspriacy [sic] to win an election.' He adds: 'Every campaign in this country is a conspiracy' to elect a candidate. He continues to hammer this idea home, saying: 'This is the campaign, this is an election, this is not a crime.'"
UPDATE 4: "We have no idea what the jurors are thinking and facial expressions are notoriously hard to read. But I thought I saw the foreperson — who sits close to the gallery and has had a skeptical, slightly amused expression on all day — flash a look of disbelief as Blanche argued that the 'Access Hollywood' tape was just another difficult day in a campaign full of them."
Posts
172 comments:
I always wonder what they can say that will take that long. Prosecution will need some time to make their nothing seem like something, but the defense shouldn't need that long to point out there's no there there.
"Justice Merchan appeared to glare at Blanche as he came close to commenting on the law."
Who does Blanche think he is, a lawyer?
That’s exactly the job of a trial judge in a criminal case: Censor the defense lawyer.
Marchan is a disgrace. Always has been. And he knows it.
He is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush-money payment to a porn star on the eve of the 2016 election, in the first criminal trial of an American president. -NYT
What is the felony? What business records were falsified on the eve of the 2016 election?
Let’s also note that Democrats set the precedence of trying American Presidents, so they can no longer whine when it is used against them. Looking forward to progressive’s winning their SCOTUS argument on Presidential immunity. If the Executive isn’t immune, then neither is anyone else in that branch of government.
34!?!?
I (purposefully) haven't been paying much attention to this case, but I can't imagine how there are 34 counts.
How in the world could, why in the world would, a lawyer take 4.5 hours for a closing argument. He ought to be able to do it in 4.5 minutes.
Guess he’s not worried about “losing the jury” as he drones on for 4 hours…
Do they get an intermission? Bathroom break?
The defense can't argue the law? If the attorneys arguing the case can't argue the law, then how does the prosecution even make an argument at all?
That's a free-access link — my last gift link to give until next month
Dollars to donuts they’ll make an exception in this case…
You can take the man out of Bogota, but you can't take Bogota out of the man.
The fuck! Intent is an element of the crime and necessary for a conviction. Of course the lawyer can argue about that!!
In Nebraska jury trial, the lawyers can always talk about the jury instructions and what they mean.
Sounds like the reporter wants to put Blanche on double secret probation.
'Every campaign in this country is a conspiracy' to elect a candidate. He continues to hammer this idea home, saying: 'This is the campaign, this is an election, this is not a crime.'
Not when our supposed moral and intellectual superiors are getting their asses handed to them in the polls!
What’s is like to represent a defendant who’s almost certainly going to be convicted because of the jury’s makeup but the trial is so full of reversible error that the conviction is, or should be, a slam dunk for being vacated? Is it like spitting in the ocean, or do you go full Atticus Finch and appeal to the better angels of the jury’s nature, all the while knowing that the pressure in the jury room will be overwhelming?
one for each installment, again we're still not sure what crime hes been charged for,
its like Cardassian justice, not Kardashian, to be clear,
The "Judge" absolutely refuses to allow testimony that the FEC did not think Trump committed a crime.
This is such a joke. The "Judge" made so many reversible errors while his daughter raked in millions for democrats.
It is just a comedy now.
From this NYC jury, I am expecting a guilty verdict. Guilty of what exactly, I have no idea, but that's not the point of the trial.
Part of the effort to get to 34 counts was "grossing up" the payment that was apparently divided into 12 payments. So they claim 11 falsified invoiced, 12 ledger entries, and 11 checks paid. So one payment traced to multiple "activities" and I guess they think that Trump had enough time to order 12 11 fake invoices, make 12 actual general ledger entries into his books, and then hand write (or at least "sign") 11 checks related to that.
The whole thing is a sad joke.
Dave Begley said...
In Nebraska jury trial, the lawyers can always talk about the jury instructions and what they mean.
I am quite sure in every other court in New York this is the case as well.
Only the "Judge" selected for this case can be this obscene.
Leland said...
Let’s also note that Democrats set the precedence of trying American Presidents, so they can no longer whine when it is used against them.
They would be happy if we adopted their methods.
The actual solution is to suppress people who act this way and ship them to China.
Joe and the Fake News conspired to keep Hunter’s laptop secret.
So, TRump will be convicted. The fix was in from the very beginning. You will never find 12 honest Democrats to find him not guilty.
but what then? Does he go to Jail? Does leftwing Democrat Judge put him on parole subject to him not campaigning? Does he have to give Joe Biden a blowjob on National TV or go to Jail?
A corrupt system. A corrupt trial. And GOPe is silently applauding. Along with Mitch the bitch McConnell and Mittens. All scum.
The New York subhumans will convict Trump. I fully expect that the prosecution and judge will then try to throw him in prison immediately. Biden will come out and take a victory lap. It will backfire, and Trump's support will rise.
The LA Times still has that tape of Obama discussing Palestine hidden away. Perhaps it’s been destroyed but I doubt it. That’s a real conspiracy to avoid bad press during an election. Did the Times extort Obama? Campaign gift in kind?
Was Blanche finally told what the crime was?
"Was Blanche finally told what the crime was?"
We don't know what he did, but we know he did it 34 times!
https://twitter.com/TheNatPulse/status/1795470498391830935
“WHY IS THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ALLOWED TO MAKE THE FINAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST ME? WHY CAN’T THE DEFENSE GO LAST? BIG ADVANTAGE, VERY UNFAIR. WITCH HUNT! DJT” ~ @realDonaldTrump
Considering how litigious Trump has been his whole life, it's weird that he's only just now finding out about the technical details of a trial.
He sure has strong opinions about how other people should be treated by the state criminal system. I recall a certain full page ad taken out in a paper to call for the deaths of the Central Park Five….
Juan Merchan is a Democrat Operative in a Black Robe. He doesn't give a flying f*ck in a rolling donut about the law. The law is what he says it is, not what's in the statues or in the Supreme Court rulings. He doesn't believe the defense needs to put on a strong defense, a strangled defense is all that's needed.
The prosecution can't name the underlying crime because to do so would be a fraud upon the court. So, the prosecutor sweet talks and beats around the bush without really saying what the crime really is.
The defense should go last. The state should present its case, then the defendant should have a chance to rebut it. The other way around is odd.
Blogger Mr Wibble said...
The New York subhumans will convict Trump. I fully expect that the prosecution and judge will then try to throw him in prison immediately. Biden will come out and take a victory lap. It will backfire, and Trump's support will rise.
5/28/24, 10:20 AM
Nah. Sentencing will be postponed to allow for the victory lap to occur without distractions and create a holiday like spirit as Progressives everywhere dream of how long will Trump might be sent to prison. Plus it adds to the process and diminishes the time in which an appeal could occur prior to the election. However, Trump will be prevented from leaving New York, lest he try to flee or campaign.
Under Merchan's jury instructions intent may be inferred, i.e., the jury need not find Trump specifically intended to commit a crime. The hilarity ensues when one looks in the record to find evidence from which Trump's intent may be inferred.
Merchan's instructions also provide no specific felony need be the object of the books/records offense, i.e., the jury may merely conclude Trump intended (by inference) to commit some unspecified felony, and no evidence of such a felony occurrence need be shown.
I just finished Victor Davis Hanson's latest book. I purchased it through the Althouse AMZN portal.
Alexander the Great and Hernan Cortes, respectively, decided to completely destroy Carthage and the Aztec capital city (now Mexico City). Why? The culture of both cities and the people who lived there was absolutely irredeemable and contrary to Western values. We should do the same to NYC and DC. Irredeemable and anti-American. A few refugees will be allowed to escape.
Have the judge and attorneys actually agreed on jury instructions yet? If not, how could either side possibly do meaningful closing arguments? If so, the lawyers should be allowed to reference the legal elements, with the other side free to object if they stray too far.
Dave Begley said...
"Joe and the Fake News conspired to keep Hunter’s laptop secret."
It's really remarkable that you still are holding onto this as some sort of brilliant argument against Biden.
The public pretty seriously said 'meh' when your team brought it up the first, second, third, and fourth time.
AlbertAnonymous said...
"How in the world could, why in the world would, a lawyer take 4.5 hours for a closing argument. He ought to be able to do it in 4.5 minutes.
Guess he’s not worried about “losing the jury” as he drones on for 4 hours…
Do they get an intermission? Bathroom break?"
I wonder if the prosecutor has a catheter and a leg bag.
Also, as has been pointed out on a previous post, without identifying the underlying crime that Trump allegedly committed, there is no way to say if the jury really came to a unanimous verdict, or even if what they chose to "infer" was intended is actually criminal. E.g., they may be thinking that the payment to obtain confidentiality was the underlying "crime." That is, of course,not criminal, but if the defense cannot argue the law how do they convey that to the jury? Or if one juror think a the underlying crime is some kind of voter election violation and another thinks it is tax fraud, there is no unanimoty.
Mark:
Lots of low information voters had no idea this about Hunter's laptop. It was ruthless suppressed. Even with all the vote stealing, if this factual information would not have been covered it up it might have made a difference in a few swing states.
The point - which you missed - is that all campaigns want to hide bad stuff about a candidate and that's not a crime.
Any juror that votes to convict in this show trial is exactly the same as an election-denying January 6 insurrectionist. EXACTLY THE SAME.
Blogger Real American said...
Any juror that votes to convict in this show trial is exactly the same as an election-denying January 6 insurrectionist.
Is there any more braindead term in 2024 that "election denying" etc...???
To state that there was no election fraud in 2020 is just willfully stupid. It's either complete dishonesty, stupidity, or a complete lack of curiosity at best.
Now — after the close of proofs, after all trial motions, after the defense’s summation — I still don’t know what Trump’s story is. (And of course I acknowledge that the defendant has no burden of proof and doesn’t need a story to defeat “beyond reasonable doubt.” What I am interested in here is Trump’s story as a Presidential candidate.)
So what is it? Did Trump have sex with Stormy Daniels and make a genuine NDA deal? Trump himself largely denied that. Was Trump blackmailed by Stormy, et al? Where was that defense evidence? It now appears that Todd Blanche on behalf of Trump is saying that Trump’s payments to Michael Cohen were for legal services. What services? Where was that evidence?
Trump has uttered a hundred different lies about this case. Trump’s defense offered almost nothing by way of actual evidence. What, in plain English, was Trump’s story?
https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/28/democrats-promise-coordinated-assault-on-court-if-they-dont-get-their-way/
Let's remember the Greeks sentenced Socrates to death because he was basically saying democracy can't survive with a population filled with braindead morons. So they poisoned him with hemlock.
It is painfully obvious we have reached that tipping point in the United States.
Am I wrong in assuming the defense at least gets a rebuttal argument after the prosecution finishes? If not, then this method of trial is completely fucked in the head, especially in this case where the prosecution has basically left unstated what the underlying crime was, which I am assuming is coming up in their closing argument.
Hey, Chuck the Cunt- why don't you use your claimed legal skills to describe for us the prosecution's case- what laws were violated, what evidence did the prosecution bring to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do you refuse to do that? Just looking at your idiotic comment- it doesn't fucking matter whether or not Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels or if she were extorting him- in neither case would an NDA be illegal, you dumb fucking cunt. As for what the payments were to Michael Cohen, he was very clear in his own testimony- the payments were to cover the attorney fees and the payments to Daniels for the NDA, which was a legal contract between Trump and Daniels which is the very definition of a legal service. Just because you don't like to call it a legal document doesn't mean shit.
yes its a farkshow that would make Vshinsky and Freisler embarassed or alternately fraud
I'm not a lawyer, but any lawyer who defends this as a legitimate pursuit of justice should be ashamed of themselves.
has there been any scam the danchenko dossier, the afghan bounties, the morning ride of cassidy hutchinson that he hasn't fallen for
What territry of the Judge would the defense lawyer be intruding upon?
Also, these closing arguments are WAY TOO LONG.
Why is Chuck still here?
"People who were looking at their watch are now listening to it."
- George Will
Th law firm of Steinglass, Weissman, and Garland. Very interesting.
Eyes are flying open all over the place. I'm not even mad.
Sorry; the Trump/“Stormy” NDA had very little going for it that was legal. Stormy Daniels isn’t Stephanie Clifford’s real name and I cannot even remember the ridiculous fake name that Trump used (and never executed).
If there was a “Trump” payment to “Stormy,” that was never reported properly. If anyone wants to say that Trump bought himself a perfectly legal NDA, that sure as hell hasn’t been Trump’s story over the years.
Michael Cohen says that all of his work was for doing deals with “Stormy” and Susan McDougall. He testified to that. He testified that at the request of Trump bookkeepers he falsified some invoices to aid the conspiracy, and basically all the prosecution evidence supported that. Trump offered no evidence to the contrary. The terrible and incendiary defense witness Costello didn’t rebut that.
Yancey Ward said...
Am I wrong in assuming the defense at least gets a rebuttal argument after the prosecution finishes? If not, then this method of trial is completely fucked in the head, especially in this case where the prosecution has basically left unstated what the underlying crime was, which I am assuming is coming up in their closing argument.
Any practicing lawyer here will understand the ignorance of this comment. In both criminal and civil trials throughout the English-speaking world, the party which bears the burden of proof generally gets to start first and finish last.
Often, the party with the burden will go first in closing, but then is allowed a rebuttal.
I don’t even know where to start in correcting the idiotic comment above; perhaps another lawyer with more interest in the commenter may wish to chip in.
why did the previous state atty, previous dustice department, previous us atty said nee,
Did Merchan deny the motion for a directed verdict?
Jake said...
What territry [sic] of the Judge would the defense lawyer be intruding upon?
Instructing the jury on the law.
Mark said...
Dave Begley said...
"Joe and the Fake News conspired to keep Hunter’s laptop secret."
It's really remarkable that you still are holding onto this as some sort of brilliant argument against Biden.
The public pretty seriously said 'meh' when your team brought it up the first, second, third, and fourth time.
Mark demonstrates how stupid and despicable you have to be to support someone as obviously corrupt as Joe Biden.
Chuck:
“What, in plain English, was Trump’s story?”
Not that any of it matters, but I’ll play along because I think the answer is easy.
Trump did not have sex with Stormy Daniels and the defense provided her own statement that said it didn’t happen.
Stormy Daniels tried to extort Trump with a threatened release of the lie.
Cohen (Trump’s attorney) got her to sign an NDA agreeing not to publish the lie, in exchange for money. None of which is illegal.
Trump or his organization reimbursed Cohen the NDA payment and paid his legal fees.
The payments were accounted for as legal fees.
Happens all the time. Not illegal.
Now, tell us what, in plain English, is the prosecution’s story? What’s the crime? What evidence was introduced to prove it?
Chuck said...
Sorry; the Trump/“Stormy” NDA had very little going for it that was legal. Stormy Daniels isn’t Stephanie Clifford’s real name and I cannot even remember the ridiculous fake name that Trump used (and never executed).
Stormy owes Trump hundreds of thousands of dollars in part because of that NDA.
Your stupidity and single mindedness make Trump haters look stupid. I appreciate your efforts here.
"I'm not a lawyer, but any lawyer who defends this as a legitimate pursuit of justice should be ashamed of themselves."
The fascist left have no shame. "The ends justify the means" is what they're about.
Yes, Chuck, we understand that you want this explanation. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant to the case at hand. For that matter, Trump does not really need to provide an explanation. The prosecution needs to prove an explanation beyond a reasonable doubt, which they think they have accomplished via a witness who is not only a proven liar but also provably perjured himself on the stand. And, for that matter, the prosecution has not even attempted to prove the underlying crime, a required element of the case, and the judge is fine with individual jurors inventing their own underlying crime, which means Trump is being tried for a crime that he has not yet been informed.
The prosecution has not even performed the minimum requirements for this to go to the jury, and it is only going to the jury since the judge is utterly corrupt and was chosen because he was utterly corrupt. Yet this does not concern you. Odd that.
But we got a past her prime porn star to testify in court. That is something.
Chuck said...
Trump has uttered a hundred different lies about this case. Trump’s defense offered almost nothing by way of actual evidence. What, in plain English, was Trump’s story?
I will use short sentences because you are stupid.
Trump paid a lawyer who invoiced him.
His accountants marked the payments down as legal services.
He secured an NDA from another person.
The FEC determined he did not commit a crime.
All legal and done many many times by many people.
Chuck displays his ignorance of this trial- the defense is going first here according to every single story covering this morning's festivities, Dumb Fucking Chuck the Cunt.
Too fucking funny for words, Chuck- you dumb fucking cunt.
So, again, I ask you- if the defense has to make their closing argument first this morning, do they at least get a rebuttal when the prosecution goes second.
Look, I am perfectly willing to believe the news services are wrong about the order, but even Althouse's post implies the defense went first this morning- prove the news services wrong, you dumb fucking cunt.
What's important is that we focus on Trump's Memorial Day message of inclusion to America:
Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrityevent, 25 years ago, doesn't count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for 'DEFAMATION.' She didn't know when the so-called event took place - sometime in the 1990's - never filed a police report, didn't have to produce the 'dress' that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half - Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)? The Rape charge was dropped by a jury! Or Arthur Engoron, the N.Y. State Wacko Judge who fined me almost 500 Million Dollars (UNDER APPEAL) for DOING NOTHING WRONG, used a Statute that has never been used before, gave me NO JURY, Mar-a-Lago at$18,000,000 - Now for Merchan! ~ @realDonaldTrump
Trump belongs in a dementia unit. He no longer makes any sense.
The previous New York Attorney General also decided there was no way to prosecute Trump for anything done.
He also made this decision when the event happened before statute of limitations expired.
Chuck you dumb fucking cunt- Daniels got money for not telling her story and even lost a court case for doing so despite the NDA- so at least that court recognized that the NDA was legally binding on Daniels (who gives a shit what name was on the document signed- was still Stormy Daniels of Stephanie Clifford since they are one and the same person).
I am beginning to think you actually know very little detail about this case since you seem to get every single detail wrong in some way. I apologize for asking you to detail the prosecution's case since you clearly have no fucking idea.
Rich said...
Trump belongs in a dementia unit. He no longer makes any sense.
I understand him.
But my IQ isn't room temperature so I can see how it would be hard for you.
Two different but fundamentally similar orders for summations in criminal trials:
1. Most common in my experience; Prosecution closes first, then Defense, then Prosecution rebuttal.
2. Alternatively (and happening in this case, because it is standard in NY), Defense goes first, then Prosecution. There is no rebuttal.
Who here needed to hear that from me?
"testified that at the request of Trump bookkeepers he falsified some invoices to aid the conspiracy, and basically all the prosecution evidence supported that. Trump offered no evidence to the contrary. The terrible and incendiary defense witness Costello didn’t rebut that."
The bookkeepers themselves, when called by the prosecution, denied Cohen's story, if that is in fact what Cohen claimed which I don't believe is accurate, but prove me wrong. The bookkeepers testified in no uncertain terms that they defined the payments to Cohen as legal services because the invoices for payment came from Trump's attorney, who was the same Michael Cohen.
Sure, it is shocking that fees for lawyers' fees and binding, signed legal documents can be called legal fees by anyone. You live in a strange world, Chuck the Cunt.
"Who here needed to hear that from me?"
Because, Chuck the Cunt, you claimed my comment displayed ignorance for pointing out the order in this trial, you dumb fuck. Feel free to delete your previous comment since it makes you look like a fucking idiot, Chuck the Cunt.
yes connahey, actually said cohen had otdered the involces,
10 prosecutors how many actual murders rapes and robberies could they clear if they weren't doing this silly thing,
He should be forcing the "judge" to whine on a regular basis
I predict guilty on #s 27 an 16.
Chuck said...
Two different but fundamentally similar orders for summations in criminal trials:
1. Most common in my experience; Prosecution closes first, then Defense, then Prosecution rebuttal.
2. Alternatively (and happening in this case, because it is standard in NY), Defense goes first, then Prosecution. There is no rebuttal.
Who here needed to hear that from me?
You being a dishonest asshole makes new Trump voters every time you post.
Thanks for your efforts here.
So will NY also go after another famous politician who the SEC did fine for mischaracterizing oppo research as legal fees?
Its from the same time period, too, so no statute of limitations.
The FBJ taunts during the Biden-Harris campaign stunt outside the courtroom were pretty funny.
And note how, once again, Chuck the Cunt is silent when asked to describe the nature of the crime committed here and charged/proven by the prosecution. It is almost like he knows there isn't one but wants to imply that the NDA itself was illegal without explaining how.
Trump belongs in a dementia unit.
And doesn’t it frighten you that his opponent is in vastly worse shape?
it doesn't fit on his cue card, he'd be the sort holding deniros strips of paper,
Harun said...
So will NY also go after another famous politician who the SEC did fine for mischaracterizing oppo research as legal fees?
The last time this kind of case was tried it was John Edwards.
It did not go well for the prosecution.
and john edwards had actual proof of the affair, he had a donor a mellon put up the money
"And doesn’t it frighten you that his opponent is in vastly worse shape?"
Doesn't matter. Winning is what's important to the nazi left. If the prize was a bag of shit, they'd claw and scratch to win *that*, too.
Can we assume the foreman understands the English language?
"Justice Merchan appeared to glare at Blanche as he came close to commenting on the law."
Trump's trial in a galaxy far, far away.... Since when is the defense not permitted to comment on the law? And comments on the "intent to defraud?" Essential to the defense and including questions of fact for the jury.
It's this kind of uninformed crap from the NYT and other leftmediaswine that causes their readers to pontificate stupidly and at length on the nuances of the trial.
Arguments attacking witness credibility or that the prosecution failed to prove its case are, in the minds of jurors, an implied admission that the defendant did it because if he did not do it, they would say, "He didn't do it."
Saying that it didn’t matter if there was 'a conspiracy to win an election' is an admission that there was a conspiracy.
Taking three hours to make your closing argument contradicts your argument that the jury should come back with a quick not guilty verdict.
He sounded as if he was getting close to making a legal argument about 'intent to defraud.'...Justice Merchan appeared to glare at Blanche as he came close to commenting on the law
You hyper-ventilating people would do yourself a favor if you did not assume that what the reporter is saying is accurate. First, the reporting on this trial has been abysmal for learning about exactly what is being said and done. Everyone is too eager to give commentary instead. Second, much of closing argument is precisely about arguing the application of the evidence to the law. That is entirely proper. Which shows that the reporter here is FOS.
Consider the jury instructions issue, which everyone is up in arms about.
How can anyone be arguing about whether the jury instructions are fair or not when the jury instructions have not even been publicly released? All you folks are going on is what the MSM and the Trump media have been saying. How about you just wait to read the actual thing???
You would think people would have learned by now NOT to rely on the media's characterization of something and would look at the original source material themselves.
This is about leftist joining hands and making it illegal for anyone but another leftist to win an election.
Meanwhile, I fail to see why everyone here should have to be exposed to extremely offensive and misogynistic profanity in making your points. It actually detracts from any serious argument you might have to offer.
The Biden campaign claims their press conference outside the Trump Manhattan courthouse was not political.
Except they brought along a bag of Biden Harris 2024 signs.
The Biden administration is knee deep in the Trump prosecutions and almost certainly directing it behind the scenes.
I heard a snippet on the media that was essentially "Trump tried to win an election."
as if that is illegal.
This is where the radical Soviet Democrat party and the their corrupt media reside.
because you're a sniveling drone who is abetting this kangaroo tribunal, while justice cries out for anyone in the five bureaus to actually try and convict criminals,
There is nothing left to say to you a-holes on the corrupt left - except - you can all go fuck yourselves.
I'm saying this as someone who is not a huge fan of Trump.
Foreperson has had something grabbed in the past.
Is saying "They let you do it - grab em by the pussy" illegal?
Words are now illegal in America?
Male bravado is illegal?
What does the Hollywood access tape have to do with hush money? or anything?
"Joshua Steinglass, by contrast, is telling a sweeping story about a fraud on the American people, and using some of the lofty language that you would associate with such an argument. He argues that the American people in 2016 had the right to determine whether they cared that Trump had slept with a porn star or not, and that the conspiracy prevented them from doing so."
The fuck! This behavior, even if true, is not a crime.
Maggie Haberman, " It may not have been unusual for The Enquirer, but there is nothing normal or standard about what the tabloid was doing with Trump."
As compared to the NYT pushing the false Russia hoax for years and refusing to publish the truthful Hunter Biden laptop story?
Maggie Haberman is no better than Stormy Daniels. Both are complete whores.
Dave Begley - exactly.
Re-litigating the 2016 election where all the Hillary-lost butthurt a-holes cannot abide that most of the nation fucking hates that witch.
Did anyone not know Trump had a history of womanizing in 2016?? Bueller??
VA Lawyer Mark: "Meanwhile, I fail to see why everyone here should have to be exposed to extremely offensive and misogynistic profanity in making your points."
Have you met Howtizer Howard?
I suspect you'd have lots to chat about.
#civiltyBS
What’s striking about Joshua Steinglass's closing argument is that unlike Todd Blanche, he is telling a story with a narrative arc as he seeks to dismantle Blanche's arguments. Blanche raised and dropped so many different things that ultimately had nothing to do with his argument that it was hard to keep track of
Scattershot, kitchen sink arguments are rarely effective. But no doubt the defendant was delighted with the ranting and raving.
yep you still haven't laid out the crime, genius,
Mark said...
Meanwhile, I fail to see why everyone here should have to be exposed to extremely offensive and misogynistic profanity in making your points. It actually detracts from any serious argument you might have to offer.
What are the crimes that Trump is being charged with committing?
Amazing that the NYT thinks the National Enquirer helped Trump win the 2016 election.
One aspect of this case that has always made some proponents of press freedom uncomfortable is the criminalization of what David Pecker and American Media Inc., The National Enquirer’s parent company, were doing as a media organization. But in Joshua Steinglass’s detailed description, their actions demonstrate that their practices went far beyond what reporters actually do, all with the aim of helping Trump’s candidacy.
Haberman has zero self-awareness.
Presumably this case will be appealed. If in fact there is no crime and given what I interpret as errors by the judge, can someone explain when and where the case will be appealed? Thanks.
Todd Blanche’s portrayal of Trump as essentially a dupe who people took advantage of
That has been a glaring weakness of the defense, the extent to which Donald J. Trump, Super Genius Businessman, has been playing like he's Sgt. Schultz who knew nothing and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars without demanding justification to the penny.
the new york appeals bar is very possum
https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1795457475816083768
Prosecutor Portrays Trump’s Actions as a Fraud on the American People
That's a pretty loose definition of "fraud."
I wonder how many politicians lied in order to get elected president?
Trump is the first?
Bizarre how Democrats are so sure this standard of law will never be applied to them.
minnesota farm guy:
One of my fears is that the so-called Judge sentences Trump to 30 days right after the guilty verdict comes down. I highly doubt an appellate court would act. And it couldn't act quickly enough to prevent Trump from spending some time in jail.
Plenty of reversible errors in this trial, but people spend time in prison before their verdicts are reversed.
Some yammering that if Trump spent time in jail, it would actually help him win the election. I don't think so. The jail term (and abortion) will be the pegs the Dems will use to rationalize a Dem victory in November. And Joe will be out too. All the vote stealing by the Dems will be covered up by these three "great" issues for the Dems.
If the Dems win TX, we know the election was stolen. And I think that can happen.
So Merchan is going to advise the jury they need not agree unanimously on the underlying crime. He's offering them a Chinese menu of three options to choose from. Sure it's unconstitutional, but there are even "lawyers" who hang out here that can argue in favor of denying due process, in fact they seem to relish the idea. It's a fucked up world.
Some yammering that if Trump spent time in jail, it would actually help him win the election. I don't think so.
I expect Trump's poll numbers to go up and Biden's to go down.
Biden is the first American president to try to get his opponent arrested and sent to jail.
He should be blamed, and he will be blamed.
NYT, "Joshua Steinglass is playing a recording the jurors heard earlier in the trial — a conversation that Cohen secretly recorded between himself and Trump discussing the Karen McDougal deal in September 2016.
Steinglass argues that the conversation shows Trump’s “cavalier willingness” to hide this payoff and “unequivocally shows a presidential candidate actively engaging in a scheme to influence the election.”
It is not a crime to influence an election. If it was, the entire NYT staff should be in jail for "a scheme to influence the election." That whore Maggie Haberman should get 10 years in the slammer.
EVERYTHING a candidate does is to influence their election. But to the Left, everything the other side does is potentially a crime, including breathing, smiling, waving and walking without tripping over shit.
If Trump isn't convicted and he wins the election, he needs to get revenge on all these people. All of them. They all need to be ruined. Otherwise, the Dems will practice lawfare on the next GOP candidate.
The Dems have traded "our democracy" for lawfare on your political opponents.
NYT, "Joshua Steinglass resumes after the break with the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape in October 2016, and describes Trump’s comments in that tape as having discussed “grabbing women by the genitals.”
And how is this relevant to the crime charged?
The State is just trying to inflame the jury. What a disgrace.
Can't wait to watch MSNBC tonight. This whole affair is pure Soviet "justice."
Dave Begley said...
NYT, "Joshua Steinglass is playing a recording the jurors heard earlier in the trial — a conversation that Cohen secretly recorded between himself and Trump discussing the Karen McDougal deal in September 2016.
Steinglass argues that the conversation shows Trump’s “cavalier willingness” to hide this payoff and “unequivocally shows a presidential candidate actively engaging in a scheme to influence the election.”
It is not a crime to influence an election. If it was, the entire NYT staff should be in jail for "a scheme to influence the election." That whore Maggie Haberman should get 10 years in the slammer.
5/28/24, 3:07 PM
Actually, Dave, depending on the evidence, it can be.
Consolidated Laws of New York Chapter 17; 17-152:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152
Happy reading. And have a nice week.
Joe Biden's campaign shows up at the Trump trial.
"We're not here today because of what's going on over there."
So dishonest!
Scattershot, kitchen sink arguments are rarely effective. But no doubt the defendant was delighted with the ranting and raving.
Lefty Mark, please tell us what the crime was ? And you could explain why a state court is trying an alleged federal crime.
A true blot on America whatever happens.
§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Chuck: But the criminal law is strictly construed against the State. That's the law. And what exactly are "the unlawful means?" Killing a bad story that also affected the candidate's personal life?
The theory of the State's case is that the bookkeeping entries were illegal but were morphed into a felony because of another underlying crime. I thought the underlying crime were federal election law felonies. But we've never been told what the other crimes are.
Dave I suggest that you and I both read the transcript of Steinglass’ summation tonight.
If you want to read Blanche’s closing, you can fill me because I can’t imagine that there is anything of interest to me in there. Although I confess here as I have elsewhere, that I’d be fascinated if anyone could supply a clear, concise, simple explanation of what Trump’s basic factual story is in this case.
Shorter Steinglass: Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
The live updates would seem to be interesting, but the Jonah Bromwich fella is so biased in his commentary that it's maddening. I guess not being a reader of the NYT, I'm not inoculated against the rabid prejudice.
“He should be blamed, and he will be blamed.”
P0TATUS Biden should be prosecuted and held to account.
Maggie Haberman, "But Blanche didn’t ultimately get what he wanted with Cohen, which was to get under his skin. Cohen had a rough few days on the stand, but largely held it together and didn’t lose his temper. And that may matter to the jury."
Yeah, just put aside that he's a disbarred lawyer, convicted felon and admitted thief. He didn't lose his temper on the stand. Form over substance.
Maggie Haberman is the worst.
If you dont know what felony he intended to commit, how can you say that he intended to commit a felony?
LW blog, "Who is helping OUR side tell our story? Are they using the same psyops techniques against the right that are used on the left?"
NYT, WaPo, NPR, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. Did I miss anyone?
Blogger Dave Begley quoting the NYT...
"Joshua Steinglass, by contrast, is telling a sweeping story about a fraud on the American people, and using some of the lofty language that you would associate with such an argument. He argues that the American people in 2016 had the right to determine whether they cared that Trump had slept with a porn star or not, and that the conspiracy prevented them from doing so."
We had a right to know the origins of COVID in 2020, but NHS and CDC lied to us.
We had a right to know that it was actually Hunter Biden's laptop, but the FBI and Obama Intel officials lied to us.
We had the right to know if we liked our doctor, we would probably lose our doctor.
"Meanwhile, I fail to see why everyone here should have to be exposed to extremely offensive and misogynistic profanity in making your points."
Nazi left: Uses lawfare in an attempt to bankrupt and imprison political opponents.
Non-crazy people: Say mean things about the left.
So...
Mark: Criticizes the non-crazy people.
Yep, sounds about right.
After six hours of listening to those blowhards I'd vote for all of them to go to hell.
I mean sit there for over SIX HOURS!!!
The Daniels/Cohen NDA is useless nonsense. The other letter that supposedly amends the NDA to provide the real names amends the wrong paragraph, so if it was ever executed it wouldn't make sense. I don't blame any client for not signing a document with errors, and apparently Cohen had problems getting Trump to pay for Cohen's garbage. I have no idea why Cohen making a deal with Daniels, filing bad paperwork, and sending an invoice to Trump with supposedly fraudulent information constitutes fraud by Trump.
The NDA also has nothing to do with why Daniels owes Trump. Trump called Daniels a "con-job", and Daniels sued Trump for defamation. The case was rightfully dismissed as Trump's comments were rhetorical, and Daniels was ordered to pay for Trump's legal fees, which the 9th Circuit upheld.
One issue here is the difficulty Trump, as a public figure, has in suing for defamation on the claim he had sex with Daniels. The only evidence of it is Daniels claim that it happened, and her story has changed with each retelling. This is important, because the prosecutor in closing arguments is suggesting as fact that the sex happened, and again that's only based on her testimony which is irrelevant to this trial. That testimony and the prosecutor's use of it to claim a fact not established is what overturned Weinstein's conviction in New York.
I beginning to think Merchan is trying to stick so many reversible errors in the case so that the appellant court will have to take time tearing apart everything Merchan did wrong. If the NY Bar remains silent, it will become a joke.
I've read a good number of the NYT's biased updates of the State's closing. For the life of me, I don't see where Trump committed any crime. But I'll be watching MSNBC tonight to get the straight story.
If the Judge was cruelly neutral, as he's supposed to be, he'd grant a directed verdict and take the case from the jury.
This trial is one of the most depraved and corrupt in American legal history. Straight out of the USSR.
Now Trump knows what it is like to be the Black defendant in the criminal trial depicted in "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Wow, it gets worse. I read a Turley X post. Apparently the Prosecution in closing arguments suggested that Trump gave Weisselberg an order, except there is no testimony to support this statement as Weisselberg was never called as a witness and Trump didn't testify that gave such an order. The Prosecution is just allowed to make the claim, and since Merchan has given the Prosecution the right to speak last and not allowed a Defense rebuttal; that suggestion by the Prosecution will go unchallenged, in this trial.
Dave Begley said...
Now Trump knows what it is like to be the Black defendant in the criminal trial depicted in "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Well Dave, Trump is lucky that at least no one is calling for his execution.
Agita dialed to 11. I hope the jury makes a quick decision. I would hate to think what it will do to the collective blood pressure if they're out for a long extended period of time.
Virginia Mark,
Sorry, I call a cunt a cunt when someone is an actual cunt. Chuck is a cunt.
Anyone who really wants to know just how awful and unjust this entire trial is should just follow Turley's twitter feed this afternoon- he lays it all out in no uncertain terms.
"This trial is one of the most depraved and corrupt in American legal history."
The left (in unison): Hold my beer!
§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Without other qualifiers, that would seem to make any campaign an illegal conspiracy as its intent would be to prevent the opposition from being elected. Alas, I suspect election doesn’t mean electing of someone, but the ability to have an election.
Leland,
To read the law the way the prosecution wants to read it, it would literally make illegal any negative secret kept between two or more people about a candidate for office.
If, for example, someone knew Joe Biden was a pedophile and agreed to not to go to the press because Jill Biden only asked that person not to do so, that would be a conspiracy to prevent the election of Joe Biden's opponent for the same office.
It is a ridiculous interpretation on its face- full stop.
In his landmark exploration of Soviet totalitarianism, The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn notes that the Soviet AUTHORITIES WOULD OFTEN ARREST ENTIRELY INNOCENT PEOPLE. These were not mistakes that were acknowledged and rectified.
Its always been a core part of The New Soviet Democratical/LLR-democratical plan.
What is astonishing, and is likely to be the exact issue that gets a conviction in this case overturned is that Merchan barred the defense from calling expert witnesses to argue against this kind of interpretation. In essence, Trump wasn't allowed to offer a defense against the crime the prosecution is only now outlining for the jury in its closing argument.
I never thought I would live to see a Soviet trial in the U.S., but here we are.
Or to give another example, pressuring social media companies to censor mention of the Hunter Biden laptop is a conspiracy to prevent the election of Donald Trump.
I could go on, but I think the point is so blindingly obvious that only the dishonest and the idiots can't understand it.
“Steinglass just said that Hope Hicks burst into tears "because she realized" that her testimony destroyed Trump's case. What is the basis for that claim? Steinglass is now testifying on what was going through the mind of a witness?”
Professor Turley on X.
Astounding.
And Trump has no rebuttal right. Even more astounding. That has to be an unconstitutional due process violation.
The astonishing thing is the people cheering on Merchan don't realize how this precedent will be used against them. It is not like people in Florida and Texas are worried about Merchan. However, there is already a NY Democrat State Senator learning belatedly that the all out effort "to get Trump" will affect them. If they think, "oh, this will only be used on Trump", then they are admitting their purpose is to interfere with an election.
Two different but fundamentally similar orders for summations in criminal trials:
1. Most common in my experience; Prosecution closes first, then Defense, then Prosecution rebuttal.
2. Alternatively (and happening in this case, because it is standard in NY), Defense goes first, then Prosecution. There is no rebuttal.
Who here needed to hear that from me?
IANAL, but... as you said earlier, aren't these two closing orders as they are in order to give the party with the greater burden of proof the last word? And, in a criminal trial, isn't the prosecution the party with the greater burden of proof?
And isn't it usual, in a criminal trial, for the court to allow the defense quite a lot of leeway because the standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and because our system of criminal jurisprudence affords the defense very broad grounds for making its case - if it chooses to present one, which it doesn't have to - and the prosecution considerably narrower grounds in order to provide a systemic defense advantage?
But look what's been going on here: the defense has been prevented from presenting exculpatory evidence from the FEC. The prosecution has not had to confront the defendant with the crime of which he's been accused nor his accuser. (And by the way, if you had to present the defense closing argument in a trial in which no one has even spelled out the charge, and therefore you can't know what you're defending against, do you think your closing might be a little "scattershot"?) The defendant, and the defendant alone, has been threatened with imprisonment if he comments publicly on his case, despite the fact that the venue is very unfavorable to him (it seems patent to me that that gag order, when Trump's public statements wouldn't move the needle in NY but could affect people's perceptions of him in, oh, swing state PA, is actual election interference). The expectations for jury instructions are apparently that the jury won't even have to agree on what the defendant did - only that he's guilty.
Tell me who has the greater burden. In this case.
But the prosecution, and evidently the judge, are perfectly willing to exploit the American system of criminal jurisprudence to get that last word, beating their breasts about the Holy Rule of Law, while disadvantaging the defense at every turn.
Jamie,
Chuck will give you no answers. I mostly credit him for knowing the prosecutors and judge are abusing their power in this case, which is why I treat him with such a heightened level of utter contempt.
I have asked him repeatedly to outline the theory of the criminal act here, and he has repeatedly refused to do so.
I never thought I would live to see a Soviet trial in the U.S., but here we are
I am older than you Yancey. As Ayn Rand predicted, all is going true to Marxist form.
The irony is that thousands ofBlacks and Illegals are regularly railroaded by the "criminal" justice system with planted evidence and bogus bite mark testimony, you Trhumpers applaud and justify it because they were probably 'guilty of something.'
Now that it's your Lord and Savior in the frame, you can't stop whining crying and blathering it's the brown shirt gulag Kristallnacht end times come to Amerika.
You people are so weak and consistently pathetic, you have completely ruined Schadenfreude.
According to the MSNBC crew, Trump is guilty.
They completely blow past intent and the follow-on crime about Trump acted to influence an election; the law Chuck cited.
It can’t be a crime to influence an election.
"It can’t be a crime to influence an election."
Sure it can, if you're a Republican. "Rules for thee, but not for me."
Howard said...
“The irony is that thousands ofBlacks and Illegals are regularly railroaded by the "criminal" justice system with planted evidence and bogus bite mark testimony”
If you believe this then you see the justice system as corrupt and you agree that Trump couldn’t get a fair trial. The justice system is either corrupt or it’s not. It can’t be fair when you don’t like the defendant but unfair when you do.
The irony is that thousands ofBlacks and Illegals are regularly railroaded by the "criminal" justice system with planted evidence and bogus bite mark testimony, you Trhumpers applaud and justify it because they were probably 'guilty of something.'
Absolutely no joke at all:
How dare you?
I thought the "ruined Schadenfreude" punchline was funny
um, no
“You people are so weak and consistently pathetic, you have completely ruined Schadenfreude.”
Oh man Howard, truer words, etc. It doesn't give me any satisfaction to see the ruination of Trump, his dynasty, Trumpism and the Trumpublican party. It’s been long in coming, but come it has. It’s sad to know that so many Americans have been under the spell of a cult leader and still are hanging on to it with their fingernails. You are not stupid people, why are you still bamboozled by this loser?
I couldn’t even truly find Trump getting booed mercilessly at the Libertaraian convention humerous. The sad pathetic man standing there with his face getting redder by the moment tugged at my heartstrings.
Dave Begley said...
“Steinglass just said that Hope Hicks burst into tears "because she realized" that her testimony destroyed Trump's case. What is the basis for that claim? Steinglass is now testifying on what was going through the mind of a witness?”
Professor Turley on X.
Astounding.
And Trump has no rebuttal right. Even more astounding. That has to be an unconstitutional due process violation.
(Emphasis added.)
Dave; would a defendant be granted a right to rebuttal in summation in a contested criminal trial? In Nebraska?
No; not in Nebraska.
Not here in Michigan. Maybe we should poll every lawyer here on their respective states of practice to see where a criminal defendant would enjoy the right of final rebuttal in a trial like that which we are seeing in New York with Trump. It's nowhere that I know of.
You are not stupid people, why are you still bamboozled by this loser?
Not a Trump fan here but your man Biden is much much worse than Trump is any day. Moreover, I think Biden's only in it long to get the wholly unelectable Harris poised as VP so that she can take over the husk-puppet job. The current Dem thinking that it doesn't matter is POTUS because others are willing and able to call the shots behind the scenes is anathema to American politics. The DNC is the most crime-ridden and corrupt political organization on earth. It deserves to go down in flames.
Once I was a law clerk at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice in Detroit. I saw a lot of trials, all felony trials. Never did I see a trial where the underlying felony was speculative to the point that the prosecution couldn't articulate what that felony was. "We aren't sure, but we know he was going to commit a felony" wouldn't have cut it. No judge there would have tolerated such nonsense.
Chuck:
I’ve never tried a criminal case but plenty of civil cases. There is always a rebuttal in civil cases.
You got me. BFD.
What Chickelit said @ 9:01
There's the letter, and there's the spirit.
I generally like our resident lefties; I disagree with them, but generally think most of them are arguing in good faith, most of the time.
But why aren't any of them - literally any one - willing to admit that to put the actual burden on the defendant in a criminal trial - say it was your aunt! Hell, say it was your stepdad whom you don't like very much! - is an inappropriate use of the letter of the law, to undermine the spirit?
No matter who is affected?
"But why aren't any of them - literally any one -"
Because the whole point is to get a conviction. Any way they can. Lefties don't need a reason.
Chuck the Cunt once again displaying either his staggering ignorance about the present case or his staggering dishonesty with this:
"Not here in Michigan. Maybe we should poll every lawyer here on their respective states of practice to see where a criminal defendant would enjoy the right of final rebuttal in a trial like that which we are seeing in New York with Trump. It's nowhere that I know of."
Did you read the link you provided to David Begley, Chuck the Cunt? In Nebraska criminal trials the prosecution goes first in closing arguments- the defense gets to listen to the prosecution make its final argument and then proceeds with its closing arguments taking into account the prosecution's final argument. The prosecution then gets a chance of rebuttal addressing specifically the items raised in the defense's final argument that it disagrees with- it can't normally introduce new material or arguments that don't directly address items rebuttal. This is a good system- both sides get to listen to the opposing counsel's full arguments and address them directly in front of the jury. As you pointed out yourself- the counsel with the burden of proof is normally the one who argues first- which is just fucking fair- it prevents the prosecution from doing what it did today- introducing arguments to the jury that the defense didn't have the ability rebut in their argument since they had to present first, something I still think you are either deliberately avoiding to admit or just don't understand the point. This order in today's trial would have been properly balanced with a rebuttal for the defense after the prosecution spent 6 hours making their closing argument.
David Begley is too nice to call you out on this stunt you pulled with the comment at 8:56 PM, but I am not a nice guy when dealing with morons and/or liars like you. The entire point of asking why the defense didn't get a chance at rebuttal rests entirely on the fact that in New York, the defense has to make its final argument first. The prosecution had the chance to listen to the defense's argument and construct its own full argument around that all the while being able to raise whatever items it wanted without the defense getting to rebut any of it. David's point about the civil trials in Nebraska is completely on point- the defense doesn't get a chance at rebuttal precisely because the plaintiff, the party with the burden of proof, makes its argument first- then defense makes its argument and rebuttal in its main closing, with the plaintiff getting the rebuttal of that second closing argument. Today's trial should have had a rebuttal for the defense precisely because they were forced to make their final argument first. Rebuttal should be right for whichever party has to make the first argument. This is a standard part of debate procedure and I believed was a standard for criminal and civil cases in U.S. federal and state courts, but apparently not in New York, or at least not in this particular trial. The way it was done today is gross injustice to any defendant.
I am simply astonished to find self-claimed attorneys (like Chuck the Cunt) who seemingly don't understand the fundamental purpose of a rebuttal argument and why it exists in debates and criminal/civil trials. Have our law professions fallen this far?
It is simple logic- when two people or groups have a debate, there is the fundamental issue that the person or group going first is at a disadvantage. The group that goes second gets to construct its argument while knowing all of the arguments made by the first group by the simple fact that they were in the room when those arguments were made, but the first group didn't get that chance to construct their arguments with that same kind of knowledge. This is addressed by offering the first group the right of rebuttal- they get to listen to the second groups arguments and directly counter those, but in debate you usually have to be very, very specific and address only those topics for which you have asked for rebuttal.
Chuck repeatedly above mocked the idea that the defense gets a chance at rebuttal. That isn't the issue and apparently Chuck doesn't understand that the party that goes first is the one that gets a rebuttal. In most states that is the prosecution- but in New York it should have been the defense, but they don't get the right of rebuttal. This is fundamentally unfair to the party that goes first.
You are not stupid people, why are you still bamboozled by this loser?
Because he's still far, far better than the pieces of shit you run out there.
Hope that helps.
A simple rule of thumb for good outcomes is to vote for whoever Inga is voting against. You literally can't go wrong.
Excellent comment(s) by Yancey regarding the procedure for closing arguments. Explains it perfectly. (Insert here a comment about some people being so daft that they cannot, or refuse to, understand this simple logic). It works for most states (I didn't do any research as to what other states use the inherently unfair - and, unconstitutional IMO, method that NY has used in this "trial"), but apparently NY statutes were enacted to prohibit the accused from getting a fair trial.
Scattershot, kitchen sink arguments are rarely effective. But no doubt the defendant was delighted with the ranting and raving.
Lefty Mark, please tell us what the crime was ?
In addition to your non sequitur question, Abortionist Mike, once again you mistake me for someone else.
To expand on what Yancy wrote:
In front of SCOTUS, and in every other place where I've heard trials, the order of closing arguments is this:
1: Plaintiff (prosecutor in criminal case)
2: Other side
3: First side's rebuttal
The rule for the "rebuttal" is that you can ONLY address things said by the other side in their closing argument, with a possible exception of you can point out the things from your original statement that the other side never addressed ("we said X. They never responded to this because they know it's true")
So the one who bears the burden of proof goes first, and makes their case for why the court / jury should act
The other side then gets to make their case as to what's wrong with the first side, and when the court / jury shouldn't act
The first side then gets to call out any false claims / arguments by the other side, but is not allowed to introduce anything new
This is far and away the fairest approach to a trial. The fact that NY doesn't do it this was is just another way that NY is completely f'ed up
Post a Comment