reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In my 30 years as a prosecutor, judge, and DA, I have never seen a witness torn apart like Michael Cohen. He lies constantly, including to congress, judges, and in court. Cohen claimed to have resolved an issue with Trump in 2016, but evidence showed otherwise. This case is a circus led by a liar. A judge should dismiss it before going to a jury.

Juries often make mistakes in civil trials, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker struggles to separate their emotions from following the law impartially. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and being criticized for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

I used to have more respect for the United States, but they indicted me for a fake, broken, and corrupt election. Yesterday, Rasmussen released a poll.

Republicans claim that I got off easy and that Jim Comey let me off. It's absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else. It's disturbing to see them defend this man. They had the opportunity to acknowledge his actions and move on, but they're still defending him. I find it hard to understand their psychology.

The president and his lawyers asked me to reject votes, which would have caused chaos by turning the issue over to the House of Representatives. I hope the government can prove criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt, but it's important for the American people to know that they didn't just ask me to pause. They wanted me to overturn the election by returning and rejecting votes.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. The speaker acknowledges the challenge of separating their emotions from the law. They mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and facing criticism for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to those who defame others in court.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker who specializes in civil trials. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. However, it's challenging for the speaker to separate their emotions from the law. They also mention a personal experience working for a newspaper and being criticized for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that they should have absolute immunity when it comes to defamation cases in court.

There are no coincidences. Judge Mershan has handled many cases, including Donald Trump's and soon Steve Bannon's. It's suspicious that they keep getting the same judge in New York County. I don't believe in coincidences.

'What Benedict has now left us with is is very, very scary for the entire American judicial system.' 'they broke their own rules' at the pleading stage, noting that 'when a plaintiff files a complaint, the court is required to accept all of their plausible claims as true and to give them the opportunity to prove their case in court.' 'The Ninth Circuit has completely violated that precept of the court' and that 'There is nothing that we have said that is implausible.' In fact, we have all the evidence that we need. They just don't want the truth to come out, and so they are twisting their own in fact, they're just breaking their own rules in doing so. 'We can appeal to the Supreme Court. We absolutely can.' 'I think we'd get three justices for sure' but 'I'm not sure we would get five.'

Before entering the court, it was clear that we were already losing. Throughout the 11-week trial, there was no evidence or paper showing fraud by President Trump or the Trump Organization. The use of a consumer fraud statute against my innocent client and the Trump Organization, which has transformed the New York skyline, is unjust. This is a political move to discredit Trump because they couldn't defeat him in the polls. After three years, it has been concluded that he did nothing wrong. The Trump Organization and the children have been unfairly implicated. America needs Donald Trump to step up and lead.

I chose to go to trial instead of taking a plea deal, even though it would have been easier. The government offered me a lesser charge, but I saw it as a lie that would harm others. I refused to be a part of that deception.

Before entering the courtroom, it was clear that we were already at a disadvantage. However, throughout the 11-week trial, no evidence was presented against President Trump or the Trump Organization regarding fraud. The use of a consumer fraud statute against my innocent client and the organization, which has greatly impacted the New York skyline, is unjust. This is a politically motivated attempt to portray Donald Trump as a fraudster because his opponents cannot defeat him in the polls. After three years and 11 weeks of trial, it has been concluded that he and the Trump Organization have committed no wrongdoing. It is unfair that even the children have been dragged into this. It is time for America to step up, and only my client, Donald Trump, can lead the way.

I'm here instead of campaigning due to a court case. The prosecution has no evidence of a crime, and experts believe the case should be dismissed. The trial is seen as an attack on Biden and a political move. The justice system is being questioned, and the judge is criticized for bias. Many feel it's a miscarriage of justice and a disgrace to the court system. The trial is viewed as corrupt and unfair. Thank you. Translation: The speaker is not campaigning due to a court case where the prosecution lacks evidence of a crime. Experts suggest dismissing the case. The trial is seen as a political attack on Biden, questioning the justice system and criticizing the biased judge. Many view it as unjust and a disgrace to the court system. The trial is perceived as corrupt and unfair. Thank you.

We often rely on stereotypes, like judges should have no opinions. That's false. If it were true, computers could run our justice system. Input the facts, spin the wheel, and get the correct decision. But that's not how justice works, nor should it. People who know me know I have opinions about many things.

I gave a speech outside the Capitol, assuming the building was mostly inactive due to the rally. I never considered entering, as the crowd couldn't force open the heavy doors. However, closed-circuit footage revealed the doors were opened from the inside. During my trial, the prosecutor misled the jury by showing a clip of a hand waving towards the door, claiming it was mine and portraying me as an aggressive mob member. This was deceptive, as I had worn black gloves all day, which the prosecutor was aware of.

The judge's ruling against using executive privilege as a defense sealed our fate. We expected this outcome and will be appealing the decision. We have always known that this case would eventually reach the Supreme Court. I have been clear from the start that I am prepared to go to prison to resolve this matter.

Our adversaries are using the indictments against me to claim that the United States is a corrupt and failing democracy. They are using it extensively, making us appear like a third world country or a banana republic.

Doing business this way is very difficult, and I can tell you who to thank. Thank you, I've said it many times. To the American... Except when there are disagreements, let's litigate those disagreements rather than fighting it out in the American media when you're wrong. We know that you're wrong. But you see I...

Juries often make mistakes, in my opinion. As a civil trial judge, I have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to address this. It allows me to question if a reasonable jury would have reached the same conclusion. However, it's challenging to separate my emotions from the process. Sometimes, someone may argue that a case is similar to another, but I have to consider even minor differences, like the color of clothing. In the past, I worked briefly as a journalist and faced criticism for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. People questioned my credibility since I wasn't present, but that was the general belief at the time.

All things that are wrong are not illegal. And I'm not standing before you today telling you that what happened in that park was wrong. But I am standing before you today telling you that I trust the word of the attorney who was assigned to this case when he said, although those actions were wrong, he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were illegal.

Republicans claim that I got off easy and that Jim Comey let me off. It's absurd how that's their only response. They refuse to read the indictment or engage with the facts. This is about me, not anyone else. It's disturbing to see them defend this man. This could have been the opportunity to say thank you, but they're all in again. I find it hard to fully grasp the psychology behind it.

Judge Wilson asks about the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor in New York—one year. The business records case is a misdemeanor, correct? The underlying crime, the falsified business records, yes. That’s a misdemeanor charge. The only way to reach a felony is by concealing another crime, right? Correct. Each crime has specific elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict at trial. Right? That is the right way to do it. In the indictment, did they specify the underlying crime? No. They only described it as other crimes. In the jury instructions, did they specify the specific underlying crime? No. The falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions, with some brief description of a New York state election law violation, but there was no description of the three underlying crimes. There was a description given of falsifying business records, which was ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records. So, and that’s also a misdemeanor, right? That should be. So you have two plus two equals six: if you commit two misdemeanors, you get to the felony statute of limitations, which they had to get—or they could have never brought the case. That’s correct. But there are more questions about the statute of limitations. It’s not cut and dry because the time Donald Trump spent out of New York could be used to toll the statute of limitations. That was the Harvey Weinstein ruling in the court of appeals. He argued that the time he spent out of New York, while in California, should have tolled the time limitations, but the court of appeals ruled against him on that issue. So that’s how they may get around the statute of limitations problem in this case. Was the election law case a federal or state underlying crime? It seemed charged as both; when we got to the jury instructions, there’s a violation of New York election law charged, but then one of the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law. And then the third one was a tax violation, right? Also unspecified. So all three underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime. Were any of the elements listed? No. Not at all. And this matters for defense: if you don’t know the elements of the crime you’re defending, how do you mount a defense? You can’t. That’s the very issue of fundamental fairness referenced here: a defendant is entitled to know what the charges are against them so you can defend against those charges. Trump was never made aware of the extent of the charges until the end of the trial. Elements of the crime go in jury instructions. Traditionally you get the elements of the underlying crime. Instead, in this case, they got a grab bag: a choice of three underlying crimes, and we don’t even know which ones they chose or whether they could have been unanimous on those three. So not only were the elements of the crime missing, but there were three different crimes with three vastly different elements, all unspecified. Neither the indictment nor the bill of particulars lists the elements. The statement of facts merely describes a series of allegations and actions believed to have been taken by Trump, none of which describe any criminal activity or elements of any crime. Therefore, on appeal there may be significant legal issues arguing the jury never actually had the elements put in front of them. There’s little doubt this matter could be reversed on appeal based on these issues. Jury trials are still the best way to determine guilt or innocence, but juries are only as good as the information put in front of them. With that, the speakers yield.

I can't explain because the judge is corrupt. His ruling is a disgrace. Everyone saw what happened. I'm innocent, but held by a corrupt judge who's conflicted. It's a disgrace to New York and the country. I need to get back to the campaign trail. Thank you.

I am proud to represent President Trump and stand with him, but I have concerns about the unfairness I witnessed in the courtroom. The judge denied us the opportunity to present important evidence and witnesses, and manipulated the questions and answers during the trial. This is a violation of our justice system. We will appeal the verdict and fight for everyone's right to speak and defend themselves. Despite the challenges, President Trump remains determined to fight for Americans. Thank you.

Juries often make mistakes, according to the speaker. They have a tool called "jury notwithstanding the verdict judgment" to challenge a jury's decision if they believe it is unreasonable. The speaker acknowledges the difficulty of separating their emotions from the law. They mention a personal experience at the Columbia Daily Spectator where they were criticized for reporting on Ku Klux Klan murders. The speaker believes that absolute immunity should be granted to journalists when it comes to defamation cases in court.