Trump indicates he'd testify in hush money trial, says a conviction could 'make me more popular'

I just did. THE BLM/ANTIFA protests across the country that Kamalah was calling for to continue, were full of goons attacking the outnumbered police defending democracy​

 

He's not charged with a federal crime. You've been told this dozens of times, yet you persist in this disinformation.

 

[facepalm] ... You just did so, earlier today.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-frame-trump.618571/page-9#post-1074802340

See post #212.

The least you can do is be aware of your own posts.

I've not made that claim, and if I did, it would be because I bothered to read the indictment.

 

I reckon the odds that Defence will call no witnesses are shortening.

 

The "filing" was his answer to a motion to dismiss, instead of the indictment where it is required. And we still dont know if these object offenses were committed, attempted or covered up. Dont know if they were object offenses by Trump, Cohen or Pecker

 

NY Law does not require it to be in the Indictment. That has already been stated to Merchan by Braggs.

We know it is alleged there was at least an attempt and that is all he needs. Humpty**** is accused as he**** is the Defendant, it goes without saying.

 

Who would they call?

The only witness who can challenge the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses is Trump himself. That won't happen, as much as I'd enjoy that spectacle. Even Trump isn't that stupid.

(Oh please, Donald, prove me wrong. Oh please oh please oh please ... )

 

Trump was never going to testify...
Even in his delusions...

 

As far as possible witnesses besides Trump they could call, though both Schiller and Costello could backfire' and it's been reported that Schiller is no where to be found.
When court ended yesterday Smith was being discussed/argued about his appearance as a witness and Merchan had read his prior ruling on him, so we should know on Tuesday what Merchan decided about him testifing.

Keith Schiller
Robert Costello
and

Bradley Smith—Smith is a law professor at Capital Law School and Trump might seek to call him as an expert witness regarding the Federal Election Commission and related matters. Smith was nominated to fill a Republican seat on the Federal Election Commission and he served from 2000 to 2005. On March 18, 2024, Merchan ruled that Smith lacked personal knowledge of the facts of the case, and so is not permitted to “offer opinion testimony regarding the interpretation and application of federal campaign finance laws and how they relate to the facts in the instant matter, nor may Smith testify or offer an opinion as to whether the alleged conduct in this case does or does not constitute a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.”

 

Yup...
Headed to closing arguments...

 

Bragg has no jurisdiction to bring such a charge. New York election law does not apply. Trump has never been charged by the ONLY agencies that have such jurisdiction. Even if Bragg could charge him under the federal laws there WAS NO CAMPAIGN FINANCE violation by Trump, he was concerned about his family and his public reputation as was proven in court, that is might have also influence the campaign does not make it illegal.

Enforcing federal campaign finance law

The FEC has exclusive jurisdiction over the civil enforcement of the federal campaign finance law.

By law, all enforcement cases must remain confidential until they’re closed. Closed enforcement cases can be accessed on this page and information about what documents are placed on the public record when cases are closed is available here.
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/enforcement/

 

BRAGG has not charged him with a FEDERAL ESPIONAGE ACT violation what on earth are you talking about? Quote from the indictment where he states this. As far as the docs YES the FBI planted those colorful sheets into the documents took the pictures and said "Look what we found". And have noted in the recent releases they lost track of those sheets and allowed two pallets of documents to be delivered and no one knows what they were or who packed them up. You can take this up in that thread.

Now if you have read the indictment as I have then do you admit that these "other crimes" are not explained and that is why you do not know what they are?

 

Look them up. Works for me.

 

How can I look them up where are they listed and why don't you already know what they are the trial is about to end have you not been keeping up?

If you know where they are listed give me a link.

 

The convictions and confessions of approximately a thousand Trump goons in their attack on outnumbered police at the Capitol aside, when will Trump express respect for the American electorate and acknowledge the certified election result in 2020?

 

So, if you are right, why has the point not been taken by Blanche and agreed to by Merchan?

 

I'm bored with this trial. So no, not really keeping up, not daily anyway. I'm trying to maintain a peaceful mood. I've read the indictment, and Googled several phrases that weren't clear. You can find the indictment on your own and Google anything that you don't understand.

And, until you start providing the many links that I've asked you for, you have no right to ask me for ****.

 

So, they have blown/wasted the chance to address the Jury last by calling a witness to say Cohen called Costello like any client of a Lawyer would, calls no-one ever said did not happen, and then they put Costello up, who turns out to be a clown, utterly nuking himself by so antagonising Merchan that the Jury will have lost all respect for him. As I anticipated, he cannot be used as a catalyst for a trial within a trial on the credibility of Cohen, and what he can say has been heavily restricted (rightly in Law) by Judge Merchan. Costello the Clown has been denied even 15 seconds of fame he was dressed to enjoy, and he has done no good whatsoever.

Another bad mistake made by Blanche.

 

Trump DOESN'T Testify...
As EXPECTED...

 

Text of CPL 200.50 (4), (7) and CPL 200.70

The language of the relevant statutes indicates that a count that omits an element of the [*2]offense in its factual allegations, but refers to the name and statutory citation of the offense in its accusatory portion, is defective under the pleading requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. The statute setting out the form and content requirements of indictments requires that every count contain an accusatory portionthat is, "[a] statement in each count that the grand jury . . . accuses the defendant . . . of a designated offense." (CPL 200.50 [4].) The statute also requires that each count contain a factual portionthat is, "[a] plain and concise factual statement in each count." (CPL 200.50 [7].) Further, the statute requires that this factual portion set out factual allegations making out the offense charged in its accusatory portionthat is, that it "assert[ ] facts supporting every element of the offense charged . . . with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant . . . of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation." (CPL 200.50 [7]
People v Santos :: 2008 :: New York Other Courts Decisions :: New York Case Law :: New York Law :: US Law :: Justia

Section 200.50 of the CPL sets forth the requisite form and content of an indictment and mandates that it contain a "plain and concise factual statement" which supports all elements of the crime charged with sufficient preciseness to afford the defendant notice of the conduct for which he stands accused. 26
CPL § 200.50: Court of Appeals Clarifies Requirements of Factual Statement in Indictment (stjohns.edu)

 

There it is yet again. That utter nonsense that the Orange Hindenberg didn't now what he was charged with.

 

Because Merchan has declared that HE is the expert on Federal Campaign Finance law. Even above the former chairman of the FEC.

 

Not at all. He knows he is charged with false business record keeping. The indictment must show the "elements" OF THAT CRIME.
"a count that omits an element of the [*2]offense in its factual allegations"
fails the requirement.
Here THE "element" that changes a false business record from a misdemeanor to a felony is that the record is falsified in the commission of a crime, an attempted commission of a crime or an attempt to cover up either. This is glaringly missing from the indictment.

 

No reason why he should since the Defense made their case.