I Wonder if Americans Have Had Their Eyes Opened by the Verdict Today?

Esquire Tom needs to go back to law school. In a jury trial the judge decides what the law is. The jury decides what the facts of the case are after looking at the evidence presented. Having a witnesses testify to a jury as to what their interpretation of the law is isn't something a jury is allowed to consider in their deliberations.

The short hand way to remember the distinction as was explained to me in law school, so many years ago, is that the judge is the trier of law and the jury is the trier of fact.

In a bench trial, the judge acts as both the trier of law and fact.

I stand corrected.

Tom's unbelievably stupid pronouncement that the JUDGE had "prevented" the guy from testifying shows abysmal ignorance. Such a prohibition would lead to an automatic appeal, which would be successful.

The actuality is that the Orange Turd himself prevented witnesses whom his lawyer had prepared to support the argument that the charges should be reduced to misdemeanors. Analysts say that tactic would probably have succeeded.

So not only did Trumphole lose, he made a major contribution to the debacle.

Yep, because Trump's mental illnesses won't allow him to take the blame for doing anything wrong, he got felony convictions rather than misdemeanors.

Tom's unbelievably stupid pronouncement that the JUDGE had "prevented" the guy from testifying shows abysmal ignorance. Such a prohibition would lead to an automatic appeal, which would be successful.

kevin isn't to bright

munchies wouldn't allow the former chairman of the FEC be an expert witness and testify.  Since he was not allowed to testify about his area of expertise there was nothing left for him to testify about.  So by not allowing to testify about his area of expertise he essentially prevented him from testifying. 

The democrats don't care if te case is overturned.  All they want is the "felon" tag on Trump in the hope he will lose the election.  

Exactly, Tom. His area of expertise is election law with the emphisis on law.

If you actually understood law/criminal procedure or made an effort to do so you would understand that is an argument for the judge not the jury and as such it can't be considered by the jury.

The witnesses wasn't able to offer any testimony as to the facts of the case.  He was only able to offer testimony of his view of how to apply the law.  That testimony was rightfully excluded.

cohen was allowed to testify about election law; but the expert was not.

munchies has no experience in election law.

And nobody can explain when judges are supposed to be assigned randomly how munchies managed to get assigned to 4 Trump cases.

Cohen wasn't there to testify as to what the law is.  He was there to testify to what he and Trump did. In other words, he was there as an eye witness not an expert on the law.

In criminal trials in America you aren't allowed to have experts offer competing theories of what the law actually is to the jury.

 Those arguments are made through motions, briefs and often hearings that take place while the jury isn't present. If you don't like the judge's ruling or take on the law, you can appeal immediately or after the trial. That is the procedure.

Trump's attorneys brought up their take on the law via motions and had hearings in front of the judge to do so.  They lost.  They could have immediately appealed but his attorneys chose not to. However, I expect them to bring their take on the law up in their appeal.

BTW that's the purpose of the appeals court to correct mistakes in the application of the law. 

I know you guys hate Trump and wanted to see him convicted but I'm confused......wouldn't it be better for your side for him to continue to be the republican candidate and Old Joe wins easy?  If some other candidate takes Trump's spot, they'd probably have a hell of a chance against Joe.  

Tom, can you please give us the specifics of what Cohen testifed in the trial that was about general law and not his direct involvement in the case?  And if you cant do you have enough integrity to admit you made that up?

PS - I aleady know the answer to both questions.