All true. But I'm afraid that phrase will be one that will hook the one juror the Defense needs. It won't be a complete waste of time, though. The whole tawdry affair will remind many people, and make plain, what a sleaze ball this guy is.
In line with your thought, and as I posted in today's NYT online: Everything I have read or heard about the jurors (most of it in this paper) convinces me that the defense demeaning the government case as "just 34 pieces of paper" may already be "off-putting" to them. They know what it means when they sign official "pieces of paper" and particularly what it should mean for a "self-made businessman". My scoreboard after hearing about opening statements: DA: 1, DT: 0
Thx for this. More on opening statements. I am getting my trial coverage from lawyers at the Meidas Touch Network (https://www.meidastouch.com/). They include Karen Friedman Agnifolo who is a legal analyst for CNN. She noted about the defense's opening statement that Blanche said Trump was innocent. She said it was an odd thing to say. The defense only has to discredit the prosecution's case enough to produce reasonable doubt that he's guilty, in which case, the jurors find him not guilty. Innocence has nothing to do with it. Now Blanche is on the hook to prove his claim of innocence. I'd give DT a -1 for that.
Blanche for sure; not sure TFG knew about it or caught it as you did, probably thinking that it was the right thing to say, knowing as much as about law and trial tactics as any stable genius would. I think that could also mean he knows his way around piles of horse manure, but that is probably not what he is contemplating at the moment. ЁЯШП
Which is why the prosecutor should point out the disconnect between LAWFUL influence and TFG's version of UNLAWFUL influence. The jury seems sophisticated enough to understand the difference and why the defense is arguing it: When the law is on your side, pound the law, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts, when neither is on your side, pound the table.
All true. But I'm afraid that phrase will be one that will hook the one juror the Defense needs. It won't be a complete waste of time, though. The whole tawdry affair will remind many people, and make plain, what a sleaze ball this guy is.
Then the prosecution has to show all the jurors what hogwash that statement is. Then that one juror can't hold on to it in deliberations.
In line with your thought, and as I posted in today's NYT online: Everything I have read or heard about the jurors (most of it in this paper) convinces me that the defense demeaning the government case as "just 34 pieces of paper" may already be "off-putting" to them. They know what it means when they sign official "pieces of paper" and particularly what it should mean for a "self-made businessman". My scoreboard after hearing about opening statements: DA: 1, DT: 0
Thx for this. More on opening statements. I am getting my trial coverage from lawyers at the Meidas Touch Network (https://www.meidastouch.com/). They include Karen Friedman Agnifolo who is a legal analyst for CNN. She noted about the defense's opening statement that Blanche said Trump was innocent. She said it was an odd thing to say. The defense only has to discredit the prosecution's case enough to produce reasonable doubt that he's guilty, in which case, the jurors find him not guilty. Innocence has nothing to do with it. Now Blanche is on the hook to prove his claim of innocence. I'd give DT a -1 for that.
Blanche for sure; not sure TFG knew about it or caught it as you did, probably thinking that it was the right thing to say, knowing as much as about law and trial tactics as any stable genius would. I think that could also mean he knows his way around piles of horse manure, but that is probably not what he is contemplating at the moment. ЁЯШП
I meant DT's Defense when I said DT. It was such a goofy thing for a defense atty to say, I figured Trump insisted he say it.
In that context, very likely so, but my "stable genius" comment still applies.ЁЯШП
Which is why the prosecutor should point out the disconnect between LAWFUL influence and TFG's version of UNLAWFUL influence. The jury seems sophisticated enough to understand the difference and why the defense is arguing it: When the law is on your side, pound the law, when the facts are on your side, pound the facts, when neither is on your side, pound the table.