BMX Bandit said:
TXAggie2011 said:
Bryanisbest said:
TXAggie2011 said:
Bryanisbest said:
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.
Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.
So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.
Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.
There is no federal charge.
A violation of "federal election law" is not a federal charge?
Trump's not charged with violating a federal law, no.
The limits of using predicate federal crimes has been well litigated over the years as to this particular law and others.
I don't even think Trump's team has argued New York simply cannot use federal law as a predicate crime simply because it is federal. They tried to get the federal crime thrown aside for much nerdier and complex reasons.
it's always great when f16 tells us how something is illegal or unconstitutional when the Trump lawyers aren't even making the claims in court.
I think lay people can't believe a jury can just assume you were trying to commit a crime when you've never been charged with that crime, much less found guilty of it.
That is some banana republic BS.
I guess Trump's lawyers should go through theoretical defenses of the theoretical crimes the prosecutor listed out.
All I can do as a lay person is shake my head at the obvious political persecution and double-standard "justice" system. Oh, and at how unashamed leftist are that they are the fascists they claim Trump would be.
