On 5/25/2024 11:25 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
> news:v2ss22$2thq9$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 2024-05-25, Blue Lives Matter <Iron_White@Systemic_Patrriotism.KMA>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 May 2024 01:43:25 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in news:v2qstd$2fqlm$3@dont-
>>>> email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-05-24, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:v2qa62$2c1h7$7@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-24, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 23 May 2024 22:00:55 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> campaign finance expert Bradley A. Smith to testify
>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 May 2024 04:56:04 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2024 07:51:29 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No actual evidence, perjuring witnesses destroyed on cross
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a judge who lets the circus continue. The "right
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing" to do is quite obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is. After both rests and sum, give it to the jury to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> After not being instructed by the judge that "hush payments"
>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't illegal which they aren't. The judge's refusal to
>>>>>>>>>>>> inform the jury of this is the cherry on the top of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> kangaroo court sundae.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A remarkable analysis of jury instructions that haven't been
>>>>>>>>>>> written or deliverred.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We're talking about testimony. But hey, there's this:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'After not being instructed by the judge'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The judge gave testimony in the trial?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We're discussing jury instructions. Keep up would ya?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that he wanted the judge to
>>>>>>>>>> instruct the jury that hush money is not illegal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't know if they're still arguing instructions, but, yes,
>>>>>>>>> the defence does get to advocate for instructions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a no brainer of an instruction. It's an important legal
>>>>>>>> element in the trial and goes to the still unnamed "second
>>>>>>>> crime". Failure to provide basic guidance on the law makes the
>>>>>>>> judge in the bag for the prosecution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass opposed Bove's request and went
>>>>>>>>>> on to say the defense was asking the judge to make their legal
>>>>>>>>>> arguments for them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The prosecution also gets to advocate for instructions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shortly after, Judge Juan Merchan weighed in and said he would
>>>>>>>>>> not include it because it came out several times in testimony
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>> hush
>>>>>>>>>> money is not illegal."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The judge listens to both sides, consults precedents and
>>>>>>>>> legislated jury instructions, and then decides what the
>>>>>>>>> instructions will be, and gives them to the jury before giving
>>>>>>>>> the case to the jury. Adults in the room already know this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Same answer as above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So the judge won't include in the instructions that people
>>>>>>>>>> should remember the one thing the prosecution keeps harping on
>>>>>>>>>> isn't, in fact, illegal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The judge will give the instructions he decides to give.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes he will. And he will demonstrate just how in the bag for
>>>>>>>> the prosecution he is. Interesting that you wouldn't advocate
>>>>>>>> for the judge letting the jury know that what the prosecution
>>>>>>>> says is
>>>> illegal
>>>>>>>> actually isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no question about the judge being biased.
>>>>>>> That's the reason for the week delay in the trial. The defense
>>>>>>> was building momentum and he shut it down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember Trump's promise to testify?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Poof*.............
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which has nothing to do with the subject.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The thread is about the Trump trial,
>>>> the one he promised to testify in.
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't he testify?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Probably because he didn't need to testify, Dumbass.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
>
>
> Trump promised to testify.
>
> Trump backed out of that promise.
>
> Case closed.

Trump testifying would have been an even bigger debacle than Robert Costello
was, and Costello completely torpedoed the defense. A major element — *the
biggest* element — of Trump's defense is that Michael Cohen is a liar and
nothing he says can be believed. Costello testified under oath that he
*believed* a lot of things Cohen said. According to observers in the courtroom,
Todd Blanche, Emil Bove and Susan Necheles all looked like they wanted to jump
off the Empire State Building...and Costello was *their* witness.

"Robert Costello’s testimony in Trump criminal trial a ‘disaster,’ experts say"
https://www.courthousenews.com/robert-costellos-testimony-in-trumps-criminal-trial-was-a-disaster-experts-say/

Some clueless Fox blowhards said that Costello's testimony was "devastating,"
and it was: to the defense.