Most legal experts see that Merchan went out of his way to give Trump and his lawyers every break he could. He was making sure the case would not be overturned. Trump's defense was weak because he was guilty as charged. The Appeals court will likely turn the case down.
Yes, It Was Rigged
- Thread starter ExpressLane
- Start date
QP!
Verified User
Can you be more specific because Trump claims a lot of things are some version of 'Rigged' when they go against him such as all of these...
- Polls he is losing are rigged
-The Emmy's were rigged when he did not win for the Apprentice
- Debate questions - rigged
- Obama winning in 2012 was rigged
- 2016 primary loss to Cruz in Iowa was rigged
- 2016 GE when polls showed Hillary would win, in the last days, was rigged
- 2016 GE winning the Electoral College but losing the Popular vote was rigged
- 2020 GE loss to Biden, just before it was official, Trump claims rigged
- Dozens of court cases losses against the 2016 GE results, rigged
- All these current court cases and losses Trump is having now, rigged
So ya, we need a bit more clarity as we KNOW Trump will proclaim EVERYTHING that does not go his way as rigged and his derps, the Magats, will just jump and believe it. That he just has this horrid luck that no one likes him and thus whether it is the Emmy's or Primary or GE or a Court case, they will all be 'rigged'.
(I want people to absorb the level of stupidity it takes to hear the boy who cried wolf and to swallow that each and every time)
Into the Night
Verified User
The Republic, actually. There United States is not and never was a democracy.
Democracies have no constitution and no representatives, like a republic does.
Into the Night
Verified User
It does not use the exact same system.
Into the Night
Verified User
You must've missed it.
His defense was also weak because it concentrated on Stormy and his claim he never fucked her (or at least got in bed with her), which no one believes instead of on the real issues in the case. Probably this was Trump's doing not his lawyers' who did as told against their better judgment.
QP!
Verified User
Yup.
Court experts like to say once a jury thinks a witness is lying on one thing, they will think he is lying on everything. IN fact, in law they are allowed to make that jump.
In this case, there simply was no reason, NONE, for Trumps lawyer to proclaim Stormy was lying about their sexual affair. His lawyer, on cross examination should have asked her one question only and that was 'do you have any knowledge, whatsoever on how how these payments were determined and carried out and then booked', and when STormy said 'no', then dismissed her.
BUt Trump wants to hit Stormy, just as he wanted to hit Cohen, and even if that meant sabotaging his own case, he could not help himself.
Once Trump's lawyer argued Trump had NOTHING to do with Stormy, he lost that jury and they knew his lawyer was lying to them at the very beginnings of the case. Hard for them then to not think they are lying about everything.
Into the Night
Verified User
Irrelevance fallacy.
You never provided a specification of the crime. What crime? You can't say 'falsification of business records' without a specification of the related crime.
Into the Night
Verified User
Irrelevance fallacy. The trial was not about and had nothing to do with alleged sexual activity with Stormy. Stormy herself denied that there was any sexual relations with Trump.
The jury was tainted by the judge. The judge broke the law when he did that.
You cannot justify a kangaroo court.