@sonhouse saidto cut it short …the doj got to cohen mafia style, threatened to go after his wife if he didn’t help them
@Mott-The-Hoople
In your wet dreams. Sure Cohen lied a lot, but you forget one fact, it was for your orange Jesus, not for some personal gain.
He also had to fight to get paid back because he took out a house loan to get that 130K.
The bad part for Trump was CORROBORATING evidence, something you in your infinitely stupid brain refuse to discuss, papers signed by Trump's C ...[text shortened]... ices, it was for hush money to Stormy.
You will never come out of your trump generated mental fog.
you are a pathetic POS for supporting such shyt…loser
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidNothing that Cohen said was refuted by anyone. He was just the tour guide during the trial but all of evidence was in paper. We don't need to trust him to know crimes were committed.
to cut it short …the doj got to cohen mafia style, threatened to go after his wife if he didn’t help them
you are a pathetic POS for supporting such shyt…loser
I read that "reliance on counsel" is a useful defense for these types of crimes. For whatever reason Trump's lawyers chose not to argue this, so there wasn't really any other rational explanation for what happened.
@wildgrass saidjudge would not allow Trump to have witnesses
Nothing that Cohen said was refuted by anyone. He was just the tour guide during the trial but all of evidence was in paper. We don't need to trust him to know crimes were committed.
@wildgrass saidmaybe you should not be commenting if you are ignorant of the facts
Huh? What witnesses?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/michael-cohen-face-grilling-trumps-hush-money-trial-110386770
@Mott-The-Hoople saidBS.
judge would not allow Trump to have witnesses
He could have called whatever witnesses he wanted.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWell that wasn't very nice of Trump's DOJ, was it?
to cut it short …the doj got to cohen mafia style, threatened to go after his wife if he didn’t help them
you are a pathetic POS for supporting such shyt…loser
@Mott-The-Hoople saidFrom your link:
maybe you should not be commenting if you are ignorant of the facts
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/michael-cohen-face-grilling-trumps-hush-money-trial-110386770
"Trump lawyer Emil Bove told the judge that the defense does not plan to call any other witnesses after Costello, though they may still call campaign-finance expert Bradley A. Smith for limited testimony. "
1 edit
@no1marauder saidbut could they testify without the judge interfering?
BS.
He could have called whatever witnesses he wanted.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/20/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/judge-limits-trumps-expert-00158857
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIf they followed the rules of the criminal justice system, sure. Costello kept refusing to do so and had to be put into his proper place i.e. a witness.
but could they testify without the judge interfering?
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/20/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/judge-limits-trumps-expert-00158857
@Mott-The-Hoople saidCan you name the blocked witnesses? I've heard an interview with trumps lawyer sounding super cagey about it. He was asked multiple times but never said there was anyone he wanted to call but couldn't.
maybe you should not be commenting if you are ignorant of the facts
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/michael-cohen-face-grilling-trumps-hush-money-trial-110386770
@wildgrass saidblocking the testimony, not the person
Can you name the blocked witnesses? I've heard an interview with trumps lawyer sounding super cagey about it. He was asked multiple times but never said there was anyone he wanted to call but couldn't.
@wildgrass saidLet me try to clear this up since Mott's doing such a poor job of it.
Whose testimony?
The defense wanted to call an "expert" on election finance law. In their proffer of what his testimony was to be, they said he would testify that Cohen paying the hush money to benefit Trump's campaign wasn't actually a violation of the law (mind you, Cohen pleaded guilty to that crime in a case brought by Trump's DOJ). The prosecution said that if such testimony was allowed, they would call multiple experts on their own on rebuttal to testify that Cohen's act was indeed a violation of campaign finance law. This is what is called a "battle of the experts" on an ultimate issue which few judges at a criminal trial will agree to.
So Merchan said he would limit the defense expert's testimony to general principles of campaign finance law and that he would in his jury instructions explain to the jury what the law was regarding a third party payment to benefit the campaign was (assuming the jury found it was meant to benefit the campaign).
The defense didn't like the ruling, so they didn't call the expert at all. Presumably they'll bring this up on appeal though NY law gives judges wide latitude in deciding what expert testimony can be included.
Hope that helps.