Post #18555 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 8

If the the historical lies of Cohen are admissible and to be considered by the jury, why wasn't Trump's well-documented history of lying examined in court; his lies about election rigging/fraud are obviously relevant as to intent to lie and cheat to get reelected.

Because Trump did not testify. You can use a past history of lies to impeach a witness, to show that they are not credible. But as a general matter, you cannot use prior past acts of a defendant to try to show that they are more likely to have committed the crimes they are accused of.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (6)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.