Comments by "M Simon" (@msimon6808) on "Analysis: Defense tries to poke holes in David Pecker's truthfulness" video.

  1. No. It is evidence that even the innocent would prefer to avoid the expense of proving it.
    2
  2. Of course there is incentive. Trials cost money - even if you are innocent. And of course such agreements if they are contingent will bias the witness.
    1
  3. The Prosecution is impeaching its own witness? The trial must be going really well for them.
    1
  4. And the facts are?
    1
  5. Trump is being accused of book keeping falsification to cover up - no crime so far. As soon as they get a crime Trump will be having serious problems. That is in fact impossible.
    1
  6. The deal is contingent. That means he must conform to the Prosecution. Truth is not material to what he says. Keeping the Prosecution happy is.
    1
  7. There has to be an underlying crime to obtain a certain conviction (all appeals fail). So far there is none. And no chance of one. It is the same defect the 14th Amendment issues were defeated on. No indictments and no convictions. In any case it is helping him in the polls. The Arizona case just brought up? I think it will only add a point to his polling. Alternate slates of electors are not unusual in Presidential Elections. It isn't a crime. Well OK Maybe two points.
    1
  8. Well the Prosecution has Cohen on tap for just that eventuality. He will be much more credible.
    1
  9. Lots of evidence of crimes to further - no crime so far - only accusations of crime. The 'hush money' has not been adjudicated. No hush money crime against the election has even been charged, let alone proved. Evidence of furthering no crime is going to be difficult to defeat.
    1
  10. With no underlying crime these acts were in furtherance of. Well it is a very weak case. Possibly non-existent. The lie making this possible is that there was an 'original crime'. No one was even indicted on the purported original crime. I do not think "press speculation" will hold up on appeal. It might not even be enough for a conviction.
    1
  11. Communist Show Trials is what happened. The Prosecution has yet to show the underlying crime this was in furtherance of.
    1
  12. The other thing they have going is "no underlying crime" all these actions were meant to hide. No one was even indicted let alone convicted. There is no case. And unless they can get the Feds to indict and convict some one in very short order - there is no chance they will have a case.
    1
  13. Didn't say what he was told to say invalidates immunity. Truth or lies are not the correct test in a Communist Show Trial.
    1