“Nu skal De ikke gøre det værre for dem selv!” advarede notaren, da Josef K. spurgte, hvad han var anklaget for. Trump ved heller ikke, hvad han er anklaget for, og dommeren har givet ham mundkurv på. I vidneskranken i denne uge var anklagerens hovedvidne en mand, der har siddet i fængsel for mened, en seriel løgner, som en dommer beskrev ham og som lavede hemmelige lydoptagelser af sine klienter – noget der er svært ikke at se som afpresnings-potentiale.
Dommerens datter arbejder for Trumps fjender og havde endda et profilbillede af Trump bag tremmer. På Manhattan, hvor juryen er rekrutteret, stemte 85% af vælgerne på Biden, Anklageren, Alvin Bragg, er her gået til valg og vundet på, at få ram på Trump. Bragg får desuden hjælp fra en topjurist i justitsministeriet udpeget af præsident Biden. “If you can make it there…”
Og det burde Trump kunne, ifølge Andy McCarthy
Let’s stick with the relevant, undisputed facts of the case. Merchan should dismiss the case because it is already apparent that Bragg cannot prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt. After three weeks of the prosecution’s case, I now believe the evidence would be insufficient even if Bragg had charged only New York’s misdemeanor business-records-falsification offense. As for the felony offense, as to which prosecutors must prove willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt (a heightened standard of scienter, i.e., criminal intent), Bragg’s evidence is woefully inadequate.
Tidligere talsmand for justitsministeriet John Yoo mener at man aldrig burde have indledt “a prosecution like this that was so dependent on someone who has been convicted of federal crimes for lying” Og Jonathan Turley giver et lille uddrag af den måbende ekspert klasse
With the dramatic implosion of Michael Cohen on the stand on Thursday with the exposure of another alleged lie told under oath, even hosts and commentators on CNN are now criticizing the prosecution and doubting the basis for any conviction. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper admitted that he would “absolutely” have doubts after Cohen’s testimony. CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig declared “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically.” He previously stated that this case would never have been brought outside of a deep blue, anti-Trump district. Other legal experts, including on CNN and MSNBC, admitted that they did not get the legal theory of the prosecution or understand the still mysterious crime that was being concealed by the alleged book-keeping errors. The question is whether the jury itself is realizing that they are being played by the prosecution.
Ideen er, at Trump prøvede at dække over en egentlig forbrydelse, ved at betale Stormy Daniels for ikke at sprede rygter om et sexuelt møde. Men inden man kommer så langt, skal man først bevise at Trump, ikke blot var bevidst om, at han betalte for den historie, men at han var primus motor. Cohens rolle var at tilstå, at det var Trump, der fik ham til at betale Daniels og ikke noget, han gjorde selv, som en del af hans ‘fixer’ opgave – en slags juridisk vicevært, der selv ringer efter fornødne håndværkere og kompenseres økonomisk derefter.
Dershowitz påpeger, at et andet vidne, Allen Weiselberg, kan be- eller afkræfte Cohens vidneudsagn, og han sidder klar i fængsel. Men anklagemyndigheden har valgt ikke at indkalde ham som vidne. Anklagemyndigheden er forpligtet på, som alle vidnerne også bliver mindet om, at søge “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Og anklagemyndigheden har ingen undskyldninger for ikke at indkalde ham, da de kan give ham immunitet i denne sag, så han ikke inkriminerer sig selv. Hvis han ikke vil vidne, burde han alligevel indkaldes, så juryen kan høre ham nægte at udtale sig, eller “take the 5th” som de siger. Men det vil anklagemyndigheden ikke.
Cohens egen advokat siger, at Cohen er fuld af løgn, fortæller Jonathan Turley. Og Dershowitz mener derfor, at forsvaret skal presse Cohen til at forklare, hvorledes anklagemyndigheden har forberedt hans vidneudsagn, så juryen kan få en forståelse af, at Cohen kun er loyal overfor sine umiddelbare interesser. “It’s quite a difference” konstaterede en CNN vært da også om en kavalkade med Cohens lovprisninger af Trump, fra dengang han troede at han ville få et Job i Det Hvide Hus. Kontrasten står selvfølgelig til, at Trump nu, i Cohens øjne, er et usselt menneske og en trussel mod menneskeheden.
Og det er en skandale, mener Dershowitz videre, at offentligheden ikke kan se retssagen på TV, men må forlade sig på medier, som CNN og Fox, for at se absurditeterne. Han påpeger, at de to fortællinger er som nat og dag og at den ene halvdel af befolkningen vil få et føl, når en når der falder kendelse.
Now the trial of Senator Robert Menendez is starting. It, too, should be publicized so that the public can see how the judiciary deals with an important case involving a member of the legislative branch. Even the Supreme Court now permits live audio broadcasts of important appellate cases. Hopefully, they will soon allow telecasting since there is little difference between listening and seeing the justices and the lawyers.
The framers of the Constitution intended all judicial proceedings to be public – no secret trials. At the time of the framing, public meant open to print journalists. Today, public means audio and video publication.
The New York trial of Trump is a national scandal. There is no real crime. The judge has allowed testimony that is highly prejudicial and irrelevant. He has made numerous unfair rulings, of which the prosecution has taken advantage. The public has the right to see this abuse with their own eyes, so that we all can judge for ourselves and not allow possibly biased reporters to judge for us.
Now the government’s star witness is testifying. Michael Cohen’s credibility promises to be a key factor in the jury’s deliberation. Every citizen should have a right to make his or her own assessment of his credibility or lack thereof. There is no good argument for allowing CNN to tell us whether he is believable, when we might come to a different conclusion based on direct observation with our own eyes.
I second that! Hvem ville ikke gerne have set dette optrin?
While Michael Cohen was on the stand complaining about how he felt insulted by his bonus from Trump at Christmas, Trump looked up and laughed as he nodded. Cohen says he was angrier than he remembers ever being, and even went and complained to Weisselberg. Clearly, this man has a vengeance, so why is he allowed to remain a witness? I’m glad Trump laughed at him
I stedet bliver CNNs seere spist af med en lam dramatisering
Trump benyttede igen en pause til at underholde pressen med at citere andre for at have sagt om sagen og dommeren og således undgå, selv at blive taget til indtægt for forbudte ytringer. Og udenfor samledes republikanere i Trumps signatur røde slips, heriblandt Vivek Ramaswamy
“I would like for anybody here in the press, anybody at home, anybody at MSNBC or the media afterward to clearly state what exactly is the crime that Donald Trump committed? I’ll wait. We have not heard a good answer to that question”
I sin bog The Best Defence fra 1982, som en lytter gjorde opmærksom på, skrev Dershowitz
I believe the legal system has been distorted, perverted and abused in order to get Bergman [tidens røvhul i New York]. I still believe some of the prosecutors, especially some of the judges were caught up in a vigilante atmosphere and lacked the courage to decide the case on neutral principles of law. If the legal system could not resist a lynch mob in a case like that, how can it be counted on to resist even more intense pressures that would inevitably be confronted during times of crises.
Trump lader sig ikke true af en lommeprokurator!
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar