Ogee wrote: Sat May 18, 2024 5:30 pm
haha, I saw this the other day, here is a lawyer telling you that once the prosecution testimony has finished it's pretty much game over and that defence cross examination never really turns up anything so they may as well not bother.
Lawyer talking blatant BS to bolster a narrative for appearance money
On the one hand, no one can know exactly what the defense lawyers will do next week or more importantly, what the jury will do after that.
On the other hand, the defense lawyers have not committed to calling any witnesses on direct examination nor introducing any documentary evidence. In any court case of any kind, it's generally not good when only one side calls all of the witnesses and presents all of the evidence. This usually signals to the jury that the opposing side has no alternate explanation for the jury to even consider.
In another dimension of time and space...
If I were Don The Con's lawyer
, I would press him like mad to get his wife to testify. Imagine if she got on the witness stand and said, "I told my husband that if I ever caught him cheating on me, then I would divorce him. And by the way, he's aware that I have renegotiated our antenuptial agreement terms several times. As a result, I'm entitled to a substantial portion of his property if and when we divorce."
Strategically, this would diminish the jury's perceived intent of Trump to commit election and tax fraud--while refocusing the jury's attention upon the net worth destruction that would have resulted from a divorce.
Of course, getting Trump's wife to testify in the same case in which Trump's mistress already testified would require yet another dimension of time and space.
“[A]s we know, there are known knowns—there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns—that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”—Donald Rumsfeld, 2002