Judge makes RULING and if Trump takes the stand...

QP!

QP!

Verified User
The Judge has now ruled, what questions and issues the Prosecution would be able to bring up, to challenge and attempt to impugn Trump's credibility, should he opt to take the stand...


Prosecutors Can Ask Trump About Fraud Case, E. Jean Carroll If He Testifies, Judge Rules

Prosecutors can question former President Donald Trump about the civil fraud case against him and his company if he takes the stand during his ongoing criminal trial, Judge Juan Merchan ruled Monday—though it's still unclear if Trump will decide to testify in the case.


- Merchan ruled prosecutors can ask Trump about the fraud case—in which he and his associates were found liable for fraudulently misstating the value of assets—and a gag order against him in that case, The New York Times reports, one of four cases the judge will allow prosecutors to ask about.

- Prosecutors can also ask about E. Jean Carroll’s two defamation cases against Trump, Merchan ruled, which concern her allegations that he raped her in the 1990s and his comments denying it—though the Times notes Merchan did not say prosecutors can ask about one of the juries ruling Trump sexually assaulted Carroll—and a civil case that resulted in Trump’s foundation being dissolved.

- The ruling took place after what’s known as a “Sandoval” hearing—named after a 1974 court case—was held Friday, in which prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers argued over the scope of what prosecutors can ask during cross-examination if Trump takes the stand.

- Prosecutors told the court in a Wednesday filing that they wanted to ask Trump about 13 court determinations from six different cases against the former president and his company, which also included Trump’s failed lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and a separate criminal case that found the Trump Organization guilty of tax fraud, neither of which Merchan is allowing to be brought up.

- Trump’s lawyers disputed prosecutors asking about the cases during Friday’s hearing, arguing that bringing up the fraud case would take the trial down a confusing “rabbit hole,” according to The New York Times, and Carroll’s allegations that Trump raped her in the 1990s would “[push] the salaciousness onto another level,” as quoted by The Hill.
Click to expand...

What i love is almost all of Trump's defenses CANNOT be offered if he does not take the stand and present them. His lawyers cannot speak to what Trump intended or believed if he does not state it on the stand.

And if Trump does take the Stand then everything above comes in against him and in that case...

1407817a-ec5e-4b80-93bb-6bc548b332a7_text.gif



:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
QP! said:
The Judge has now ruled, what questions and issues the Prosecution would be able to bring up, to challenge and attempt to impugn Trump's credibility, should he opt to take the stand...




What i love is almost all of Trump's defenses CANNOT be offered if he does not take the stand and present them. His lawyers cannot speak to what Trump intended or believed if he does not state it on the stand.

And if Trump does take the Stand then everything above comes in against him and in that case...

1407817a-ec5e-4b80-93bb-6bc548b332a7_text.gif



:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...
A guilty verdict doesn't even bring much of a penalty. There is no way trump was ever going to testify, as perjury is probably a worse offense than campaign finance fraud.

It's just nice that the prosecution is toying with him and there's nothing he can do about it.
 
Althea said:
A guilty verdict doesn't even bring much of a penalty. There is no way trump was ever going to testify, as perjury is probably a worse offense than campaign finance fraud.

It's just nice that the prosecution is toying with him and there's nothing he can do about it.
Click to expand...

yes. that's what nice people do. they cheer when government is being subverted for political persecution.
 
QP! said:
The Judge has now ruled, what questions and issues the Prosecution would be able to bring up, to challenge and attempt to impugn Trump's credibility, should he opt to take the stand...




What i love is almost all of Trump's defenses CANNOT be offered if he does not take the stand and present them. His lawyers cannot speak to what Trump intended or believed if he does not state it on the stand.

And if Trump does take the Stand then everything above comes in against him and in that case...

1407817a-ec5e-4b80-93bb-6bc548b332a7_text.gif



:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

They got Trump in a box,he has to testify and if he does, he’s screwed.
 
No way in hell Trump takes the stand, he never intended to, his army of attorneys known then stand ain’t Hannity, the prosecutor would rip him to share
 
you idiots have been attacking his credibility for seven years already and all that happens is it makes you look even more stupid.......
 
Trump always says he will testify, and them does not. Are rightys able to understand that ? Trump said anyone using the 5th in testimony must be guilty. Hillary testified 11 hours without using the 5th or saying she did not remember. When Trump was forced to testify he used the 5th over 400 times. Trump was right. It is an admission of guilt.
 
Althea said:
A guilty verdict doesn't even bring much of a penalty. There is no way trump was ever going to testify, as perjury is probably a worse offense than campaign finance fraud.

It's just nice that the prosecution is toying with him and there's nothing he can do about it.
Click to expand...

The fraudulent records are only misdemeanors, UNLESS they were used to cover up an underlying other crime. Then, they become felonies. So, they have two elements to prove.

That there was hush money fraudulently paid as legal expenses.

That they were paid to silence someone who had damaging information so as to influence the voting public.
 
domer76 said:
The fraudulent records are only misdemeanors, UNLESS they were used to cover up an underlying other crime. Then, they become felonies. So, they have two elements to prove.

That there was hush money fraudulently paid as legal expenses.

That they were paid to silence someone who had damaging information so as to influence the voting public.
Click to expand...

They were paid to 3 people. Paying off 3 people to influence an election is criminal. Falsifying the records and invoices is too.
 
QP! said:
The Judge has now ruled, what questions and issues the Prosecution would be able to bring up, to challenge and attempt to impugn Trump's credibility, should he opt to take the stand...




What i love is almost all of Trump's defenses CANNOT be offered if he does not take the stand and present them. His lawyers cannot speak to what Trump intended or believed if he does not state it on the stand.

And if Trump does take the Stand then everything above comes in against him and in that case...

1407817a-ec5e-4b80-93bb-6bc548b332a7_text.gif



:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Click to expand...

No point in pretending this has anything to do with a legitimate proceeding.
 
There is no way Trump will take the stand. Do rightys ever digest the past? Trump has claimed he will happily testify under oath, then he does not. Rightys just remember him saying he was going to. They forget that he did not, and for a good reason. He cannot handle a cross examination. He cannot tell the truth and he is mentally deficient. That is why when he said he would be happy to testify, only did it when subpoenaed and took the 5th over 400 times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top