I just can't get over the defense not being able to have an expert witness to talk about the campaign finance crime - which is the entire reason the state is able to go after the "falsified business records" because it was supposedly done in furtherance of another crime. How can he not have an expert as a witness to say why he didn't commit a campaign finance crime? I'm at a loss for words.

ETA: I also don't remember the State using an expert to talk about campaign finance laws so essentially the judge is saying that since Trump was charged with that - nevermind the feds chose to not prosecute any alleged campaign finance crimes - it means he did it and is allowed no defense.

This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 8:15 am

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by teke184

Zachary, LA

Member since Jan 2007

96551 posts

Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:14 am to MFn GIMP

Not being allowed to have an expert because it would contradict the state’s expert. TF? Does he think this is a federal trial where the Feds win 90% of the cases because it is a stack deck?

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by SlowFlowPro

Simple Solutions to Complex Probs

Member since Jan 2004

424258 posts

Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:15 am to MFn GIMP

quote:

I just can't get over the defense not being able to have an expert witness to talk about the campaign finance crime

Yeah, I assume there is more to it than what's in OP (for obvious reasons), but that's a bad ruling almost universally.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by GumboPot

Member since Mar 2009

119074 posts

Posted on 5/20/24 at 8:15 am to MFn GIMP

In the final argument to the jury can Trump's defense team alert the jury that the Judge is conflicted in many ways and mention the defense testimony that was not allowed into the trial?

3 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board