Hoke Hicks - Compelling words about her testimony

[Fuzzy1975]

The prosecution has had 2 weeks to prove their case.

The prosecution can have as many weeks as they like, and the defence can have as many weeks as they like to defend.

The case is about falsification of business records to influence an election.

Sort of, if the above is found true, then Trump is guilty, but if he falsified records to protect his family, then there was no criminal intent and he will at the most be fined. More likely it will just be a warning.
As to the rest of your bullshit,save it for one of your buddies, the rest of us are sick and tired of you MAGA's and your fucking constant whining.

 

[dmallord]

Democrat activist judges don’t have to follow *rules of evidence* got it!

Rules of evidence​

---

Courtrooms rely more and more on the information inside a mobile phone as vital evidence. Prevailing evidence in court requires a good understanding of the rules of evidence. Mobile forensics is a relatively new discipline and laws dictating the validity of evidence are not widely known. However, there are five general rules of evidence that apply to digital forensics and need to be followed in order for evidence to be useful. Ignoring these rules makes evidence inadmissible, and your case could be thrown out. These five rules are—admissible, authentic, complete, reliable, and believable.

Admissible​

This is the most basic rule and a measure of evidence validity and importance. The evidence must be preserved and gathered in such a way that it can be used in court or elsewhere. Many errors can be made that could cause a judge to rule a piece of evidence as inadmissible. For example, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible.

Authentic​

The evidence must be tied to the incident in a relevant way to prove something. The forensic examiner must be accountable for the origin of the evidence.

Complete​

When evidence is presented, it must be clear and complete and should reflect the whole story. It is not enough to collect evidence that just shows one perspective of the incident. Presenting incomplete evidence is more dangerous than not providing any evidence at all as it could lead to a different judgment.

Reliable​

Evidence collected from the device must be reliable. This depends on the tools and methodology used. The techniques used and evidence collected must not cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. If the examiner used some techniques that cannot be reproduced, the evidence is not considered unless they were directed to do so. This would include possible destructive methods such as chip-off extraction.

Believable​

A forensic examiner must be able to explain, with clarity and conciseness, what processes they used and the way the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The evidence presented by the examiner must be clear, easy to understand, and believable by jury.


RULE 403. EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON GROUNDS OF PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, OR WASTE OF TIME

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Got it. Doesn't cut it here. Democratic judges follow rules just like Republican judges. All of those have 'intepretations and judicial latitudes. Right?

Wait for the inevitable appeal process. Meanwhile, we wait for a real judge to preside over what will undoubtedly be the most historic criminal trial in our history up to this time against a former president.

 

[dmallord]

When a rogue DA and a bias judge poison the jury the defense will appeal the trial. This trial is not about a permanent conviction, it's about keeping Trump tied to a trial tainted with gobs of salacious material inappropriately presented in such a manner as to confuse a jury. Daniel's testimony was inappropriate, irrelevant and unrelated to this case. This was nothing short of character assassination and election interference.

This is your personal conviction. But none of this is true, nor does any of this have a legitimate foundation in this trial.

Trump does not possess a character worthy of assassination - he is narcissistic as well as a pathological liar on trial for things rational and moral individuals would never dream, let alone attempt to participate in.

Trying to confuse the jury? Horsesh*t.

 

[icanhelp1]

Got it. Doesn't cut it here. Democratic judges follow rules just like Republican judges. All of those have 'intepretations and judicial latitudes. Right?

Wait for the inevitable appeal process. Meanwhile, we wait for a real judge to preside over what will undoubtedly be the most historic criminal trial in our history up to this time against a former president.

Stormy Daniel’s testimony is irrelevant to the case. The judge allowing salacious testimony is damaging and biased, that’s the goal, damage Trump before the election, that is election interference. The judge didn’t follow the rules of evidence. He let his court get out of control.

 

[icanhelp1]

This is your personal conviction. But none of this is true, nor does any of this have a legitimate foundation in this trial.

Trump does not possess a character worthy of assassination - he is narcissistic as well as a pathological liar on trial for things rational and moral individuals would never dream, let alone attempt to participate in.

Trying to confuse the jury? Horsesh*t.

Maybe some day you’ll evaluate these proceedings based on law and not through the prism of hatred towards Trump. What’s on trial here is our judicial system. Criminal prosecutions are supposed to be clear statutory violations based on clear evidence, hard evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence. These prosecutors have yet to established the crime or statutory violation. Conspiracy to commit a future crime.. what criminal statute would that be? Using salacious biased irrelevant testimony to sway a jury is typical activist judicial behavior. The gag order for one and yet not applicable to other witnesses is abuse of power.

You talk a big story but your only concern is not for the proper and fair application of the law but to eliminate Trump and eliminate a choice for voters. This trial from its inception till now has been a clear case of *ABUSE OF POWER* Lititia James case same thing. Prosecuting a fraud case without a victim?

 

[Bn2f]

He (the judge) let his court get out of control.

I too agree trump should be jailed for his gag order violations as well as for contempt of court.

 

[icanhelp1]

I too agree trump should be jailed for his gag order violations as well as for contempt of court.

Hatred towards Trump is not justice and should never be used as a substitute for juris prudence. Applying the law fairly and judiciously is a tenet of our democracy, without it we are nothing more than a third world nation.

 

[Bn2f]

Hatred towards Trump is not justice and should never be used as a substitute for juris prudence. Applying the law fairly and judiciously is a tenet of our democracy, without it we are nothing more than a third world nation.

You addressed nothing I posted. I’m agreeing with your sentiments. Now try again to pay attention, to listen, and focus if you intend to engage with a reply. There’s no TDS in the judge jailing the defendant for violations and/or contempt. The judge should take more control of his chamber.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Hatred towards Trump

Always about emotions....what say's "cult member" more?

ican't "we love the leader"....

 

[icanhelp1]

You addressed nothing I posted. I’m agreeing with your sentiments. Now try again to pay attention, to listen, and focus if you intend to engage with a reply. There’s no TDS in the judge jailing the defendant for violations and/or contempt. The judge should take more control of his chamber.

What part of applying the law fairly and equally don’t you understand. The gag order only applies to Trump all the while Daniel’s and Cohen were talking out of school. Stop trying to be clever it makes you look stupid.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What part of applying the law fairly and equally don’t you understand. The gag order only applies to Trump all the while Daniel’s and Cohen were talking out of school. Stop trying to be clever it makes you look stupid.

Daniels and Cohen aren't on trial....pretty simple if you can detach the emotions and look objectively.

 

[Bn2f]

What part of applying the law fairly and equally don’t you understand. The gag order only applies to Trump all the while Daniel’s and Cohen were talking out of school. Stop trying to be clever it makes you look stupid.

Deflection. Daniels nor Cohen are mumbling in court or have a history of, oh, never mind. I think it’s clear between the two of us who has no problem playing the fool and who is the liar.

 

[icanhelp1]

Daniels and Cohen aren't on trial....pretty simple if you can detach the emotions and look objectively.

They’re witnesses for the prosecution you dumb fuck.

 

[icanhelp1]

Deflection. Daniels nor Cohen are mumbling in court or have a history of, oh, never mind. I think it’s clear between the two of us who has no problem playing the fool and who is the liar.

Take it up with someone else, you’re being purposely ignorant.

 

[Bn2f]

They’re witnesses for the prosecution you dumb fuck.

Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

 

[Bn2f]

Take it up with someone else, you’re being purposely ignorant.

Ok. Ya got me. Guilty. I suffer from TDS. As such, I believe he won’t be president. Please make me out to be the stupid idiot you believe me to be by taking me up on my election challenge and being the hero to RW’s here by banning my ignorant ass a whole year. Yes?!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

They’re witnesses for the prosecution you dumb fuck.

So? They are not on trial, nor under the thumb of the court. They, like you are free to express whatever they chose. Trump on the other hand is on trial and influencing or intimidating witnesses is illegal. Sucks for Trump, but hey, actions have consequences....who knew?

 

[icanhelp1]

So? They are not on trial, nor under the thumb of the court. They, like you are free to express whatever they chose. Trump on the other hand is on trial and influencing or intimidating witnesses is illegal. Sucks for Trump, but hey, actions have consequences....who knew?

You don’t understand our laws or our constitution so why don’t you just STFU. Hating Trump is not our legal system.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You don’t understand our laws or our constitution so why don’t you just STFU. Hating Trump is not our legal system.

No, it seems you're the one with the problem of understanding your own legal system. Cohen and Daniels are free to say what they wish. Trump had had a gag order placed upon him. That's how things work, who knew actions have consequences?

 

[Bn2f]

No, it seems you're the one with the problem of understanding your own legal system. Cohen and Daniels are free to say what they wish. Trump had had a gag order placed upon him. That's how things work, who knew actions have consequences?

He knows. He’s treading water BS’in.
So many graduates here from the Mark Levin school of pretend law.

 

[icanhelp1]

No, it seems you're the one with the problem of understanding your own legal system. Cohen and Daniels are free to say what they wish. Trump had had a gag order placed upon him. That's how things work, who knew actions have consequences?

They shouldn't be, they're witnesses for the prosecution.

 

[Bn2f]

They shouldn't be, they're witnesses for the prosecution.

Excuse me, but in between all this nonsense and mishegoss, you might have missed the challenge I issued to you.

 

[dmallord]

They shouldn't be, they're witnesses for the prosecution.

Stormy Daniel’s testimony is irrelevant to the case. The judge allowing salacious testimony is damaging and biased, that’s the goal, damage Trump before the election, that is election interference. The judge didn’t follow the rules of evidence. He let his court get out of control.

You don’t understand our laws or our constitution so why don’t you just STFU. Hating Trump is not our legal system.

Gag orders are typically imposed to prevent prejudicial publicity that could influence potential jurors or otherwise affect the fairness of a trial. While witnesses who are not accused of crimes are not typically subject to the same legal restrictions as the parties directly involved in the case, a judge may still choose to impose a gag order on witnesses if their public statements are deemed likely to interfere with the administration of justice.

The alleged criminal's public rants impact the safety of the jury and the witnesses he slanders. Trump is a threat and violates the gag order anyway–nine times now. He needs some jail time if it happens again.

The prosecutor's witnesses, crucial to the trial, are not on trial themselves. The jury members do not see the witnesses' public statements as per the judge's instructions. The discretion to impose a gag order lies with the presiding judge, not @icanhelp1 or anyone else.

Ultimately, a judge presiding over a case would decide whether to impose a gag order and its scope based on the specific facts and circumstances involved. That's the latitude given a judge. You can complain at the front door when you check in, but don't expect the judge in the case to hear a lecture from you on how he should rule.

You think 'the law' is a legal black-and-white non-emotional involvement. That's never the case. Laws are about people, designed for use in decisions, and subject to interpretation – not ridge format, never bending. You missed your class in law ethics it seems.

Sit back, like us non-legal beagles, and enjoy the comeuppance for Trump.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

They shouldn't be, they're witnesses for the prosecution.

lol and you're the one accusing me of not understand your legal system...

 

[dmallord]

Maybe some day you’ll evaluate these proceedings based on law and not through the prism of hatred towards Trump. What’s on trial here is our judicial system. Criminal prosecutions are supposed to be clear statutory violations based on clear evidence, hard evidence or compelling circumstantial evidence. These prosecutors have yet to established the crime or statutory violation. Conspiracy to commit a future crime.. what criminal statute would that be? Using salacious biased irrelevant testimony to sway a jury is typical activist judicial behavior. The gag order for one and yet not applicable to other witnesses is abuse of power.

You talk a big story but your only concern is not for the proper and fair application of the law but to eliminate Trump and eliminate a choice for voters. This trial from its inception till now has been a clear case of *ABUSE OF POWER* Lititia James case same thing. Prosecuting a fraud case without a victim?

I view Trump with some pretty clear lenses, and that is based on his actions and conduct, not hatred. This is my short list of reasons:

• 'Fought the Vietnam draft system' by eventually finding one out of six doctors to sign off on his bone spurs as a way to avoid service.
• Trump’s 25 million dollar payout for his fake online university targeting American soldiers and their GI Bill educational funding. [Thanks @Bn2f] A failed 'university' by Trump to taut his business acumen.
• Calls military heroes suckers and losers if they were caught or died - e.g., John McCain, whom he mocked derisively because he could not salute due to his torture in Hanoi Hilton prison. He questioned what was in the war for the dead soldiers as he stood supposedly honoring them at a ceremony. Couldn't bother to go to one cemetary there because it rained on him that day. Even wanted someone to acknowledge that he 'honored' McCain in his burial by allowing a proper ceremony at the Capitol. Idiot-Trump craving attention.
• Cannot handle military classified documents with the appropriate storage and shared those with others as some kind of bragging point without regard for the sources. He lies about keeping them. He refused to return them. He idiotically declared that he had declassified them.
• Shamefully slandered his bootlicking opponents by lying about their family members' involvement in JFK's assassination for another example. There's more, but one will do it here.
• There are volumes written about his failed businesses and corrupt business practices. [This trial is one of them.] No need to cite those - too numerous to count.
• Cheated on three wives who knows how many times?
• Dishonesty - goes without saying.
• Fostered a conspiracy using Fake electors - ring leader role.
• Marshalled a crowd on J6 and sent them to the Capitol and waited three hours to call them off. Said they were beautiful people and that perhaps Mike Pence deserved to be hung on that gallows.
• Grabbed pretty women by the pussy because he was entitled to do so with impunity.
• Lies about his weight, his health, and his hair.
• Cries because he is treated so unfairly - so next 'they' will come after the rest of us. [whoever they are.]
• He is known as a narcissistic bastard, pathological liar, and mentally in need of medical help, according to at least three psychiatric specialists, including Dr. Mary Trump, his niece.

This is just my short list of reasons that Trump is not ever going to get my vote, never mind his political bent ideologies. Those would take another longer list.

So, my distaste for Trump is not hatred. The man is not worthy of another Presidency. And the trial is evidence of this, one more case in point.