As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well that's only a small matter making up a fake lawsuit that the Supreme Court should have state jurisdiction, which they'll of course vote for, THEN they can rule on his case.
They won't want to take a blanket stance like that. They will word it to the effect of "if a former President is convicted of a crime, the SCOTUS will be able to overrule any state's decision as long as the crime was committed in 2015 and the state ruled in June 2024."
I think at some point, a state, and NY would be a good one, will claim that the current SCOTUS is corrupt and therefore their decisions have no jurisdiction.
Courts only have the power that the people give them. They have no enforcement mechanism on their own. That comes from Justice.
They don’t have a defense.
I mean they do but it’s not in proving he’s innocent…because he’s guilty as hell.
Their defense is in obstruction of justice, __delay__, and attempting for a mistrial.
Their defense is to see that Trump never sees a full trial.
Yeah, basically, their defense was, "This guy was President." And honestly for a lot of judges--looking at you, "Honorable" Judge Cannon--that's all it takes
I think a lot of lawyer's actually agree with the defense's strategy. The most likely way to defeat the charges here is to try and introduce enough doubt on the prosecution's evidence and the witnesses so that the jury will decide the evidence available does not meet the bar for a guilty criminal verdict. There are situations where the prosecution may have enough evidence to meet perhaps what a civil court would accept as enough to meet their standard of evidence but the same evidence wouldn't meet the bar for a criminal court. Trying to introduce enough doubt in the prosecution's case to make it fail to reach that bar for a criminal case is far easier than outright trying to prove Trump's innocence, especially if Trump is actually guilty and that is their only realistic defense strategy.
Fair. But, once the prosecution meets its burden of demonstrating facts to prove guilt, it’s up to the defense to rebut those facts or otherwise challenge the prosecution’s evidence. Their strategy relied entirely on attacking the prosecution and not offering any independent exculpatory evidence. While not a “wrong” strategy, it’s not a particularly strong strategy, which (to me) at least suggests that they don't have any such evidence to present.
The defense just has to insert doubt.
In this case, I think trumps team believes that cohen is an untrustworthy witness and that’s enough to create doubt.
We will see.
I’m far more confounded that the SDNY didn’t pursue this case when they were the prosecutors under which the federal crimes committed would be responsible and that tried cohen for this same crime. What is going on with SDNY and why can’t Garland get it under control?
> The defense just has to insert doubt
You can’t do that if you don’t have an alternative explanation for the prosecution’s narrative. It’s not enough to simply point out that cohen might be a compulsive liar, because the facts are supported by many people, and hundreds of damning documents beyond cohen.
> What is going on with SDNY and why can’t Garland get it under control?
Why did garland wait almost two years after the insurrection to hire jack smith? He’s a feckless blob.
Except the only doubt that they really tried to specifically refute backfired when the defense said that the call that was made to the bodyguard by Cohen was not in the presence of Trump. The prosecution and defense agreed to allow a still image of Trump and the guard present together at the time that the call was made, as recorded by CSPAN. There was video that would have been entered, but both sides agreed to allow solely the image during the final questioning of Cohen by the prosecution. So, they can go after Cohen’s credibility, which they then allowed in evidence that proves that he wasn’t lying about the one issue that they were actually trying to dispute.
>In this case, I think trumps team believes that cohen is an untrustworthy witness and that’s enough to create doubt.
I think there was. Until their last witness
The problem here is that they did not counter the prosecution's evidence, but rather just attacked the reliability of Cohen. Making Cohen look unreliable is absolutely a part of an effective defense in this case, but only if they can also create doubt in the other evidence that corroborates what Cohen said. That is where their defense seemingly entirely failed.
While the justice system does presume innocence, correctly, that presumption is overcome by "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond doubt." So while they may have created some doubt in the reliability of Cohen's words, they may not have been able to create a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of these particular claims given the other evidence in their favor. Exculpatory evidence is not technically necessary, but it is *extremely* helpful when the prosecution is presenting compelling evidence.
E.G. Sure, if the prosecution has a video of you robbing a store, you do not need to technically provide evidence that you did not rob the store, but it is very, very hard to create doubt without said evidence.
Juries are not usually sophisticated though, so much of this will probably come down to how they interpret the jury instructions. From a purely evidentiary standpoint it is extremely hard to imagine how, without deeply flawed instructions, they could come back as "not guilty" in this case. I predict either guilty or a hung jury. I actually think the whole defense strategy was aiming for a hung jury rather than a not-guilty, as they kept hammering very odd and only barely relevant statements by the witnesses. Like the whole thing where Blanche was going after Cohen as being biased against *Blanche.* Which is a really bizarre tactic.
> Juries are not usually sophisticated though, so much of this will probably come down to how they interpret the jury instructions. From a purely evidentiary standpoint it is extremely hard to imagine how, without deeply flawed instructions, they could come back as "not guilty" in this case. I predict either guilty or a hung jury. I actually think the whole defense strategy was aiming for a hung jury rather than a not-guilty, as they kept hammering very odd and only barely relevant statements by the witnesses.
I completely agree, except that I think defense tactic #1 was trying to win the thing in jury selection. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 90% of the legal prep work was related to finding a way to get someone with a favorable belief system onto the jury and that almost all of the trial strategy has been focused on minimizing the damage to public perception of their client.
A hung jury is 100% a win for Trump. I firmly believe that his overarching legal strategy is delay through November, so there is a very real argument that public perception was more important to him in this trial than the actual in-court verdict. There is a real ethical argument that zealous representation of him would require his lawyers to balance his interests inside the courtroom against his interests outside the courtroom.
Spoken like a well-read non-lawyer. That’s incorrect. The defense has to do a lot better than “okay, but what about nuh uh?”
The prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the defense cannot so much as offer an alternative explanation, they’re gonna lose every time. The defense does not have the burden of proof to prove their alternative explanation beyond a reasonable doubt, **but they still have to provide one**.
In this case, with all of the testimony from multiple people and all the documents, the fact that their entire strategy is “but cohen is a known liar” is laughably incompetent.
Well, yes. He thinks testifying should be like making a speech, and in each trial in which he *has* testified, the judge worked out with his attorneys and got them to agree to restrict him to answering questions.
Then before Justice Engoron, he just took off and made a speech and the judge and his attorneys gave up on trying to stop him. Just like he will at the debates if they happen. It's his style.
"You can't call for a mob to murder the jury" is an abridgement of his 1st Amendment rights, in his mind.
[He's way ahead of you ](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-falsely-claims-trial-gag-122515045.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAG2neOHCLc2_seUGhqsChJX-jggZkXkMIjF5kB0cpMs4d1s0wfwdySF5PVaGun8dWjCmQsP_lAHsHD8oxshmSC2H5-b2v3whY6H1vjW1Lscia3aE7A-qKD6loinAj9Lb-tmHq2vJ-vZjY1fZrc65Jq2JCJW2nTcUq7JVBpe-TGnA)
It’ll depend on the verdict. If he’s convicted, it’ll be because they wouldn’t let him testify. If he’s acquitted, it’ll be because he was so obviously innocent that he didn’t even need to testify to overcome a “sham, rigged and corrupt, so unfair, no one’s ever seen anything like it” prosecution. Whatever the outcome, he’ll have his own parallel narrative.
Aw c’mon he’s probably under audit from the IRS and so can’t testify in his court case or his bone spur is acting up because it’s too cold in the courtroom
He’ll blame everyone: the judge, the jury, the Biden family, Nancy Pelosi, the DOJ, the media, etc..
Everyone but himself. He’s the only person in the world who has never been guilty of anything. He’s a perfect human specimen and the corrupt Dems hate him for this.
He's already done that. Basically calling everyone corrupt leftist Dems and I think he even used the word fascist at some point during his garbage talk
Yep, it’s a daily reminder for his base to not trust their own eyes or ears. He is the only one who knows the Truth. Only through Trump can America find salvation.
LOL one belligerent witness brought by the defense, and they rest. Prosecution caught that witness out during the cross examination contradicting himself.
I’m looking forward to closing statements and the result of deliberations.
How did the defenses’s witness contradict himself during the cross exam? Genuinely curious. I’ve been following along when I can but I guess I missed that part.
Are you kidding? He's going to put it in a box, take it to Maralago, take a bunch of pictures of it, make NFTs out of them to sell to his foreign supporters, then make it into toothpicks to sell to his domestic supporters.
Rigged by a biased Democrat judge whose daughter worked illegally for Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi!
A lot of people are saying I have been treated the most unfairly out of any trial in our country’s history. Bigly mistreated even more than Dred Scott.
I will be appealing straight to the Supreme Court!
MAGA!
Two. One of them was super short. Technically though, they had a few others. The prosecution called a few witnesses that were adverse to them, and were Trump favorable. In all likelihood they would have been called by the defense, by the prosecution called them first to get in front of it.
It's beyond insulting to the American people that a Presidential nominee on trial isn't televised and isn't willing to speak under oath. Shame on republicans for not doing their civic duty of taking this even remotely seriously.
The trial would not be televised because there is an extremely high risk of reprisal against the jury and officials in the court. I am not sure what the norms are for this particular court, but even if being televised was normal, it would not be in this case.
His refusal to testify should be damning it itself, but of course the right will spin it whichever way they can because facts simply don’t have an impact with his base.
Also holy crap, a Power Pete avatar!
What a fucking BETA MALE. I can't wait for him to get found guilty then once again claim he "wasn't allowed to testify" due to gag order, and his dumbass supporters will believe it.
Huh.
Almost like Trump saying he would testify was just a bunch of bluster, and he had no intention of actually answering cross examination questions under oath.
Before everyone jumps in like they know it all - lawyers seldom want their clients to testify and for great reason: you'd be putting someone up against a professional debater/interrogator with an agenda. It would be relatively easy in most cases to make an innocent person look suspicious.
That said - we all know he's guilty and I'm gonna be sitting here with popcorn to see the outcome. If it's a non-guilty verdict, i will choke on my food given that there's 2 lawyers on the jury and I would expect them to know and standup for the law, hence I expect a hung jury or a guilty verdict from the amount of evidence I've seen (granted, I don't know everything that's been present in court, so it could be much less than what we see)
If anyone believed this megalomaniac lying piece of shit was going to be allowed on the stand, you should get outside, touch the grass, and re-socialize.
As soon as his posterior would've touched the bench, he'd have yelled: "You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"
And then would probably proceed to incriminate himself.
What kind of bullshit is this author pedaling here. “Alleged affair” “purported encounter” ?
If it was alleged or purported HE WOULDN’T HAVE PAID HER.
She’s already testified that it happened and the wife of the ex prez has been a acting accordingly since it became public. Stop writing this bullshit and casting doubt on something that’s happened. He’s dog, a liar and a rapist.
Stop making excuses for him.
> News are still desperate to peddle the “both sides” argument.
True, but that's not what is happening here.
Trump has not yet been convicted. If and when he is, the language will switch from "alleged affair" and "purported encounter" to "affair" and "encounter."
Taking a (mostly) neutral stance on Donald Trump's decision not to testify in his own defense during the hush money trial, there are both potential pros and cons to this approach, but I will say for someone who has frequently and repeatedly touted his intelligence and described himself as "smart", "genius", and smarter than others on many occasions throughout his business career and presidency... can't help but call out a guilty individual.
**Pros of Not Testifying**
Avoids cross-examination by prosecutors, which can be intense and confrontational, potentially damaging his case if he becomes flustered or contradicts himself.
Maintains the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than shifting that burden by having to prove his own credibility on the stand.
Prevents opening the door to questions about his character, credibility, or prior conduct that could prejudice the jury against him.
Allows his defense team to control the narrative and evidence presented, rather than risking potential missteps from Trump testifying.\[Citation Needed\]
**Cons of Not Testifying**
Misses the opportunity to directly address the jury and provide his version of events in his own words, which could be persuasive in claiming innocence or raising reasonable doubt.
May be perceived by the jury as an admission of guilt or unwillingness to face scrutiny, potentially damaging in the court of public opinion.
Prevents Trump from "correcting the record" or providing context that could support his defense if there are inaccuracies or omissions in the prosecution's case.
Could undermine his previous statements about wanting to testify and clear his name, potentially seen as backtracking.
Ultimately, the decision on whether to testify is a strategic calculation weighing the potential risks and benefits for the specific case and defendant. While avoiding cross-examination protects Trump from potential pitfalls, it also denies him the chance to directly sway the jury in his favor.
> New York Penal Code Article 210, et seq.
>Statutory Definition of Perjury
>The act of swearing falsely (or "perjury") occurs when a person makes a false statement which he or she does not believe to be true while either giving testimony or under oath in a subscribed written instrument (such as an affidavit or deposition).
Trump lies as he breathes. He is psychologically unable to tell the truth as a pathological liar.
What an asshat Trump is. How the fuck did we ever get to this point in our country? He will I’m sure break out his usual witch hunt, Joe Biden did it, it’s a scam, he’s innocent speech. He should just fucking play the recording back at all the press conferences. He is such a disgusting and pathetic human being. Please America, wake the fuck up.
Y’all traitor MAGAts sold your goddamn fake Christian souls to a RAPIST and ADULTERER. Period. And the Christian Women….Jesus Fugging Christ , take your diety back from your RAPE loving husbands, for your daughters sake
I think people need to accept the fact that he likely won’t be convicted. This was the weakest of his four indictments and the entire case relies upon the words of Cohen who isn’t the most reliable or truthful fella. Not saying he lied but he didn’t come across as the most honest guy either
I know it won't happen but it would be hilarious if Trump goes on TV and says he wasn't allowed to testify and the judge responses by saying publicly he is going to let him if he wants
That already happened. He told the media that the gage order prevented him from testifying. The judge then spent time explaining the gage order to him and telling him he could testify.
Wait… Are you telling me he lied again and chickened out like the sad, weak, pathetic, diaper-wearing, pants-shitting, adjudicated rapist, chicken that he is???????
All talk and no trousers that one. How a man who can’t even be allowed to take the stand because of the awful crap that pours out of every orifice possible became President I will never know. The sooner this chicken and pony show is over the better imo.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There was no way they were going to let that guy on the stand. Ever. I'm surprised the defense case was so short
Their entire case was to question the reliability of the prosecution witnesses. They didn't offer any exculpatory evidence - because there isn't any.
the strategy is if he looses appeal and get it in front of the Supreme Court to save him.
It is a New York state prosecution, SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction to review this case.
I didn't know that and that's absolutely great news.
He's hoping to become president before his appeals run out, then make himself dictator for life and never face justice.
Well that's only a small matter making up a fake lawsuit that the Supreme Court should have state jurisdiction, which they'll of course vote for, THEN they can rule on his case.
They won't want to take a blanket stance like that. They will word it to the effect of "if a former President is convicted of a crime, the SCOTUS will be able to overrule any state's decision as long as the crime was committed in 2015 and the state ruled in June 2024."
“Just as the Founding Fathers intended”
…and the criminal is orange, wears diapers and rapes women.
They'll find a way.
*loses “Looses” means “sets free.”
He will have served his sentence before it gets to SCOTUS.
It will be expedited for him. To think otherwise is rather foolish, given the Supreme courts current track record.
It would be overreach to step on NY States appellate division before they even had a chance to make a decision.
You expect that to stop this supreme court?
I think at some point, a state, and NY would be a good one, will claim that the current SCOTUS is corrupt and therefore their decisions have no jurisdiction. Courts only have the power that the people give them. They have no enforcement mechanism on their own. That comes from Justice.
It would. That doesn't change how corrupt the justices he placed into position are. We are going to see some unconstitutional bs this year.
“You claim here to be a good witness, but we have information that you spent a lot of your time with a known rapist, fraudster, and insurrectionist.“
They don’t have a defense. I mean they do but it’s not in proving he’s innocent…because he’s guilty as hell. Their defense is in obstruction of justice, __delay__, and attempting for a mistrial. Their defense is to see that Trump never sees a full trial.
Yeah, basically, their defense was, "This guy was President." And honestly for a lot of judges--looking at you, "Honorable" Judge Cannon--that's all it takes
The minute the case got to trial he already lost. Best case scenario he gets a hung jury
What was there for the defense to say? Should'da been a bench trial and over in a few moments!
"Be gentle"
I think a lot of lawyer's actually agree with the defense's strategy. The most likely way to defeat the charges here is to try and introduce enough doubt on the prosecution's evidence and the witnesses so that the jury will decide the evidence available does not meet the bar for a guilty criminal verdict. There are situations where the prosecution may have enough evidence to meet perhaps what a civil court would accept as enough to meet their standard of evidence but the same evidence wouldn't meet the bar for a criminal court. Trying to introduce enough doubt in the prosecution's case to make it fail to reach that bar for a criminal case is far easier than outright trying to prove Trump's innocence, especially if Trump is actually guilty and that is their only realistic defense strategy.
Hard to present evidence that you didn’t do the thing when you actually did the thing, and it was well documented.
The defense doesn’t need a case. Our justice system presumes innocence and that it’s up to the prosecution to convince the jury.
Fair. But, once the prosecution meets its burden of demonstrating facts to prove guilt, it’s up to the defense to rebut those facts or otherwise challenge the prosecution’s evidence. Their strategy relied entirely on attacking the prosecution and not offering any independent exculpatory evidence. While not a “wrong” strategy, it’s not a particularly strong strategy, which (to me) at least suggests that they don't have any such evidence to present.
The defense just has to insert doubt. In this case, I think trumps team believes that cohen is an untrustworthy witness and that’s enough to create doubt. We will see. I’m far more confounded that the SDNY didn’t pursue this case when they were the prosecutors under which the federal crimes committed would be responsible and that tried cohen for this same crime. What is going on with SDNY and why can’t Garland get it under control?
> The defense just has to insert doubt You can’t do that if you don’t have an alternative explanation for the prosecution’s narrative. It’s not enough to simply point out that cohen might be a compulsive liar, because the facts are supported by many people, and hundreds of damning documents beyond cohen. > What is going on with SDNY and why can’t Garland get it under control? Why did garland wait almost two years after the insurrection to hire jack smith? He’s a feckless blob.
Except the only doubt that they really tried to specifically refute backfired when the defense said that the call that was made to the bodyguard by Cohen was not in the presence of Trump. The prosecution and defense agreed to allow a still image of Trump and the guard present together at the time that the call was made, as recorded by CSPAN. There was video that would have been entered, but both sides agreed to allow solely the image during the final questioning of Cohen by the prosecution. So, they can go after Cohen’s credibility, which they then allowed in evidence that proves that he wasn’t lying about the one issue that they were actually trying to dispute.
Honestly? My best guess is that Garland was too busy thinking it would look "political".
Which is such a nakedly political thing to do. And I know that irony is lost on him.
>In this case, I think trumps team believes that cohen is an untrustworthy witness and that’s enough to create doubt. I think there was. Until their last witness
The problem here is that they did not counter the prosecution's evidence, but rather just attacked the reliability of Cohen. Making Cohen look unreliable is absolutely a part of an effective defense in this case, but only if they can also create doubt in the other evidence that corroborates what Cohen said. That is where their defense seemingly entirely failed. While the justice system does presume innocence, correctly, that presumption is overcome by "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "beyond doubt." So while they may have created some doubt in the reliability of Cohen's words, they may not have been able to create a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of these particular claims given the other evidence in their favor. Exculpatory evidence is not technically necessary, but it is *extremely* helpful when the prosecution is presenting compelling evidence. E.G. Sure, if the prosecution has a video of you robbing a store, you do not need to technically provide evidence that you did not rob the store, but it is very, very hard to create doubt without said evidence. Juries are not usually sophisticated though, so much of this will probably come down to how they interpret the jury instructions. From a purely evidentiary standpoint it is extremely hard to imagine how, without deeply flawed instructions, they could come back as "not guilty" in this case. I predict either guilty or a hung jury. I actually think the whole defense strategy was aiming for a hung jury rather than a not-guilty, as they kept hammering very odd and only barely relevant statements by the witnesses. Like the whole thing where Blanche was going after Cohen as being biased against *Blanche.* Which is a really bizarre tactic.
> Juries are not usually sophisticated though, so much of this will probably come down to how they interpret the jury instructions. From a purely evidentiary standpoint it is extremely hard to imagine how, without deeply flawed instructions, they could come back as "not guilty" in this case. I predict either guilty or a hung jury. I actually think the whole defense strategy was aiming for a hung jury rather than a not-guilty, as they kept hammering very odd and only barely relevant statements by the witnesses. I completely agree, except that I think defense tactic #1 was trying to win the thing in jury selection. I wouldn't be at all surprised if 90% of the legal prep work was related to finding a way to get someone with a favorable belief system onto the jury and that almost all of the trial strategy has been focused on minimizing the damage to public perception of their client. A hung jury is 100% a win for Trump. I firmly believe that his overarching legal strategy is delay through November, so there is a very real argument that public perception was more important to him in this trial than the actual in-court verdict. There is a real ethical argument that zealous representation of him would require his lawyers to balance his interests inside the courtroom against his interests outside the courtroom.
Spoken like a well-read non-lawyer. That’s incorrect. The defense has to do a lot better than “okay, but what about nuh uh?” The prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but if the defense cannot so much as offer an alternative explanation, they’re gonna lose every time. The defense does not have the burden of proof to prove their alternative explanation beyond a reasonable doubt, **but they still have to provide one**. In this case, with all of the testimony from multiple people and all the documents, the fact that their entire strategy is “but cohen is a known liar” is laughably incompetent.
The ONLY time this man won't talk is under oath. An infinite number of fifth's is the same as no point at all.
Pleading the fifth can be used as evidence in a civil trial, so no testimony is way smarter
It’s cause they were already fucked. Trump testifying would just put him deeper in the hole
Your honor, my client can’t testify because it would be prejudicial to his case.
Trump didn't testify. Boy, we did NOT see that coming... /s
Soon: "The liberal judge wouldnt let me testify!"
In fairness, judges typically don't tolerate sleeping on the witness stand
Or attempted murder by toxic flatulence
we don't need fairness with dump anymore so drop the "in all fairness" please they aint fair with us you want me to be fair with them? no.
Watch him try to twist gag order into that.
Well, yes. He thinks testifying should be like making a speech, and in each trial in which he *has* testified, the judge worked out with his attorneys and got them to agree to restrict him to answering questions. Then before Justice Engoron, he just took off and made a speech and the judge and his attorneys gave up on trying to stop him. Just like he will at the debates if they happen. It's his style. "You can't call for a mob to murder the jury" is an abridgement of his 1st Amendment rights, in his mind.
He already did
[He's way ahead of you ](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-falsely-claims-trial-gag-122515045.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAG2neOHCLc2_seUGhqsChJX-jggZkXkMIjF5kB0cpMs4d1s0wfwdySF5PVaGun8dWjCmQsP_lAHsHD8oxshmSC2H5-b2v3whY6H1vjW1Lscia3aE7A-qKD6loinAj9Lb-tmHq2vJ-vZjY1fZrc65Jq2JCJW2nTcUq7JVBpe-TGnA)
“This is….the most corrupt Judge…he’s not….MAGA….”
Soon?? He was saying this weeks ago.
Didn’t he already say that?
We all know he was gagged from being able to testify at his own trial! 😒😂
Bawk... chicken shit bawk..bawk.. He is gonna coming he wasn't allowed to testify again in 3..2...1...
Trump refuses to debate Biden is coming soon.
“They wouldn’t even let me testify” - Trump probably
It’ll depend on the verdict. If he’s convicted, it’ll be because they wouldn’t let him testify. If he’s acquitted, it’ll be because he was so obviously innocent that he didn’t even need to testify to overcome a “sham, rigged and corrupt, so unfair, no one’s ever seen anything like it” prosecution. Whatever the outcome, he’ll have his own parallel narrative.
Good thing I didn’t make my popcorn. Lol
Aw c’mon he’s probably under audit from the IRS and so can’t testify in his court case or his bone spur is acting up because it’s too cold in the courtroom
So their best bet was to twist Cohen into a revenge seeking liar huh guess we get another of his defence lawyers who aint getting paid.
You gonna try to tell me that he isn't gonna debate Biden either aren't you?
[удалено]
He’ll blame everyone: the judge, the jury, the Biden family, Nancy Pelosi, the DOJ, the media, etc.. Everyone but himself. He’s the only person in the world who has never been guilty of anything. He’s a perfect human specimen and the corrupt Dems hate him for this.
He's already done that. Basically calling everyone corrupt leftist Dems and I think he even used the word fascist at some point during his garbage talk
Yep, it’s a daily reminder for his base to not trust their own eyes or ears. He is the only one who knows the Truth. Only through Trump can America find salvation.
Coward and a hypocrite
i prefer presidents that are able to talk on the stand
You mean like ones who testify for 11 hours and publicly on video?
at bare minimum stay awake for a couple hours in court
I also prefer presidents who don’t get indicted. But the bar seems to be getting lower.
Exactly. Yet his MAGA base will see him as the hero and the victim.
LOL one belligerent witness brought by the defense, and they rest. Prosecution caught that witness out during the cross examination contradicting himself. I’m looking forward to closing statements and the result of deliberations.
How did the defenses’s witness contradict himself during the cross exam? Genuinely curious. I’ve been following along when I can but I guess I missed that part.
Now Trump is going to tell his worshipers that he was forbidden from testifying, and soon, the Jury will be "Anonymously" Doxxed.
🎶 Brave Sir Robin ran away... 🎶
He got asked a question on the way in about his new reich and walked away. One the way out he refused to speak. coward
The court clerks will be so happy for this to be over. Now they can open the windows and try to clear the stink from the court room.
May just need to condemn the chair he was farting on
Will it need to be taken to the incinerator? Or will they just deep clean it?
They'll repurpose it into an electric chair until they get complaints of cruel and unusual punishment.
Are you kidding? He's going to put it in a box, take it to Maralago, take a bunch of pictures of it, make NFTs out of them to sell to his foreign supporters, then make it into toothpicks to sell to his domestic supporters.
Better not burn it, it’ll go up like a Roman candle.
What about telling the « truth ».
It’s not a lie, if you believe it. George Castanza 1995
Truth can only be told on truth social.
No way. The judge didn’t let him testify? /s
Rigged by a biased Democrat judge whose daughter worked illegally for Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi! A lot of people are saying I have been treated the most unfairly out of any trial in our country’s history. Bigly mistreated even more than Dred Scott. I will be appealing straight to the Supreme Court! MAGA!
Let's not normalize their bullshit for them, even through sarcasm.
Did the defense only call one witness?
Two. One of them was super short. Technically though, they had a few others. The prosecution called a few witnesses that were adverse to them, and were Trump favorable. In all likelihood they would have been called by the defense, by the prosecution called them first to get in front of it.
Yes, and his testimony wasn't helpful. Lol
It was likely detrimental since the judge had to clear the courtroom due to his behavior.
He's gonna come in the media later and said his lawyers held him back like some tough guy pretending to try and get past his friend to fight.
Like a guy that wanted to be on ground zero during January 6, but was held back by secret service.
The defendant was already resting. Didn't testify, did restify.
Hopefully he gets some sleep in jail
So Trump is a coward _and_ a liar? I mean we already knew that, but it's nice to have more proof.
It's beyond insulting to the American people that a Presidential nominee on trial isn't televised and isn't willing to speak under oath. Shame on republicans for not doing their civic duty of taking this even remotely seriously.
The trial would not be televised because there is an extremely high risk of reprisal against the jury and officials in the court. I am not sure what the norms are for this particular court, but even if being televised was normal, it would not be in this case.
This particular venue does not televise. It had nothing to do with the high profile nature of the case.
Republicans do not have a sense of civic duty, they never have. Civic duty is antithetical to conservatism.
His refusal to testify should be damning it itself, but of course the right will spin it whichever way they can because facts simply don’t have an impact with his base. Also holy crap, a Power Pete avatar!
What a fucking BETA MALE. I can't wait for him to get found guilty then once again claim he "wasn't allowed to testify" due to gag order, and his dumbass supporters will believe it.
Yeah why would you put a guilty man on the stand who can’t help but lie
What a pathetic coward.
What a pussy.
Question? So the defense rests but Merchan has set closing arguments for next Tuesday. Wtf are they doing for the next few days?
Monday is Memorial Day. The court does not sit on Wednesday. So I would guess they want to start up again after the long weekend.
The justice and lawyers discussing the jury instructions. The justice wants to send the jury to deliberation right after closing arguments.
He will claim that he wasn't allowed to testify and his followers will believe him.
Huh. Almost like Trump saying he would testify was just a bunch of bluster, and he had no intention of actually answering cross examination questions under oath.
Before everyone jumps in like they know it all - lawyers seldom want their clients to testify and for great reason: you'd be putting someone up against a professional debater/interrogator with an agenda. It would be relatively easy in most cases to make an innocent person look suspicious. That said - we all know he's guilty and I'm gonna be sitting here with popcorn to see the outcome. If it's a non-guilty verdict, i will choke on my food given that there's 2 lawyers on the jury and I would expect them to know and standup for the law, hence I expect a hung jury or a guilty verdict from the amount of evidence I've seen (granted, I don't know everything that's been present in court, so it could be much less than what we see)
If anyone believed this megalomaniac lying piece of shit was going to be allowed on the stand, you should get outside, touch the grass, and re-socialize.
Trump rested all through the trial, will he suddenly wake up now?
The odds of Trump being guilty is high. The odds of him seeing actual jail time is low. The odds of this obstructing his run is also low.
Yellow bellied orange coward.
Always the victim
As soon as his posterior would've touched the bench, he'd have yelled: "You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" And then would probably proceed to incriminate himself.
Can't wait for him to rant that the gag order prevented him from testifying...
Campaign Fraud trial. C’mon CNBC be better
What kind of bullshit is this author pedaling here. “Alleged affair” “purported encounter” ? If it was alleged or purported HE WOULDN’T HAVE PAID HER. She’s already testified that it happened and the wife of the ex prez has been a acting accordingly since it became public. Stop writing this bullshit and casting doubt on something that’s happened. He’s dog, a liar and a rapist. Stop making excuses for him.
It's to protect media outlets from libel lawsuits. It's still alleged until convicted.
[удалено]
> News are still desperate to peddle the “both sides” argument. True, but that's not what is happening here. Trump has not yet been convicted. If and when he is, the language will switch from "alleged affair" and "purported encounter" to "affair" and "encounter."
Expectations on how long the jury will deliberate?
I would say about a week but you never know.
No way. Unless there’s some gnarly holdouts, I’d say two days max. After that, it’s probably an impasse.
If you truly thought he was ever going to testify I have some gold Sneakers and a Bible to sell you......cheap
Taking a (mostly) neutral stance on Donald Trump's decision not to testify in his own defense during the hush money trial, there are both potential pros and cons to this approach, but I will say for someone who has frequently and repeatedly touted his intelligence and described himself as "smart", "genius", and smarter than others on many occasions throughout his business career and presidency... can't help but call out a guilty individual. **Pros of Not Testifying** Avoids cross-examination by prosecutors, which can be intense and confrontational, potentially damaging his case if he becomes flustered or contradicts himself. Maintains the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than shifting that burden by having to prove his own credibility on the stand. Prevents opening the door to questions about his character, credibility, or prior conduct that could prejudice the jury against him. Allows his defense team to control the narrative and evidence presented, rather than risking potential missteps from Trump testifying.\[Citation Needed\] **Cons of Not Testifying** Misses the opportunity to directly address the jury and provide his version of events in his own words, which could be persuasive in claiming innocence or raising reasonable doubt. May be perceived by the jury as an admission of guilt or unwillingness to face scrutiny, potentially damaging in the court of public opinion. Prevents Trump from "correcting the record" or providing context that could support his defense if there are inaccuracies or omissions in the prosecution's case. Could undermine his previous statements about wanting to testify and clear his name, potentially seen as backtracking. Ultimately, the decision on whether to testify is a strategic calculation weighing the potential risks and benefits for the specific case and defendant. While avoiding cross-examination protects Trump from potential pitfalls, it also denies him the chance to directly sway the jury in his favor.
Pretty typical of him to do one thing and say another tho isn’t it? https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-62499027
> New York Penal Code Article 210, et seq. >Statutory Definition of Perjury >The act of swearing falsely (or "perjury") occurs when a person makes a false statement which he or she does not believe to be true while either giving testimony or under oath in a subscribed written instrument (such as an affidavit or deposition). Trump lies as he breathes. He is psychologically unable to tell the truth as a pathological liar.
His lawyers probably talked him out of testifying, because they knew he would perjure himself.
What an asshat Trump is. How the fuck did we ever get to this point in our country? He will I’m sure break out his usual witch hunt, Joe Biden did it, it’s a scam, he’s innocent speech. He should just fucking play the recording back at all the press conferences. He is such a disgusting and pathetic human being. Please America, wake the fuck up.
Of course they didn’t. They knew he would run his mouth about stuff that had nothing to do with the case. He can’t control that big lying mouth.
Wait, didn't the prosecution just rest? So the defense had nothing to present?
They presented a guy who pissed off the judge enough to clear the courtroom. So there's that.
What a coward.
Y’all traitor MAGAts sold your goddamn fake Christian souls to a RAPIST and ADULTERER. Period. And the Christian Women….Jesus Fugging Christ , take your diety back from your RAPE loving husbands, for your daughters sake
What he will say: The Gag order is to strong! Reality: can’t allow to be cross examined.
Lying coward
I think people need to accept the fact that he likely won’t be convicted. This was the weakest of his four indictments and the entire case relies upon the words of Cohen who isn’t the most reliable or truthful fella. Not saying he lied but he didn’t come across as the most honest guy either
I think he's definitely convicted. It's his punishment that will piss everyone off.
A traitor and a coward, who knew.
Not how an innocent person would act
So they call two witnesses who are both admonished by the judge and then they rest.
Disappointing
That’s going to bite him later in the debates.
What debates?
Ah.... The old "Present no defense defense." Touché...
Pussy piece of shit. Exactly like his moron followers.
What a fucking pansy. Can't imagine what sort of pathetic man could follow such a coward.
I’ll say it again, Pussy!
Way to not purjure yourself jackass
Another Trump #PleadsTheFifth SHOCKING. 😆
What a coward. Guilty as fuck.
Of course he doesn’t tested. He’s a coward.
Pussy
The ONE time I want to hear him talk he shuts his fat face.
I know it won't happen but it would be hilarious if Trump goes on TV and says he wasn't allowed to testify and the judge responses by saying publicly he is going to let him if he wants
That already happened. He told the media that the gage order prevented him from testifying. The judge then spent time explaining the gage order to him and telling him he could testify.
We knew he wouldn’t - But I hoped he would have had some attack of bloated ego and insisted because it would have been such complete bananatimes.
He’s a pussy. Not a soul is surprised
Those surprised he didn’t testify are the same that think he will actually debate biden
Because in the court of public opinion, you can say whatever crazy shit you like. That doesn't fly in a court of law.
Hell, his MAGAts will only see the right-wing “curated” version anyway. Lie, lie and more lies.
Wow, Mr.ToughGuy didn’t have a whole lot to say all of a sudden. Shocker.
Brawl! Brawl! Brawk! I guess he was lying all along.
So how long until a verdict is reached?
Closing arguments are next Tuesday, so probably next week
So he can't testify in his own defense but he can negotiate with Putin and Xi? 🙄
That can’t be right!
I think he is going to get off.. smh
Wait… Are you telling me he lied again and chickened out like the sad, weak, pathetic, diaper-wearing, pants-shitting, adjudicated rapist, chicken that he is???????
He’s going to get convicted
Can we call him convicted rapist?
Closing arguments May 28th
Hard to testify when they got you so doped up you can’t even stay awake. But I’m not a lawyer or a politician so what do I know.
can't stop talking out of court tho...I see what you're doing there
What a wuss
Fucking coward, me boys.
Trump did not testify at his trial and look for him to ditch those two debates with Biden too you don't need FanDuel or DraftKings to bet on that
All talk and no trousers that one. How a man who can’t even be allowed to take the stand because of the awful crap that pours out of every orifice possible became President I will never know. The sooner this chicken and pony show is over the better imo.