Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[RDCanecutter 25777]

8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I would for once like to hear "I'm voting for Trump because I've been conditioned to vote for anyone with an R next to their name." Because that's the deal. 

It won't change until the Democrats hire the narrator from truck commercials for their ads.

But they can't, because they hate America and they talk like Nils from Frasier.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11492]

7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

By whom? You? I won’t let you tell me shit about what I should do with my life and my work. I can respect RGB’s choice to virtually tell you to fuck off as well.

Just a few months longer and it wouldn’t be an issue. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 but she took her shot.

I get it. You wanted her to appease your desires, not her own. I respect her right to do what SHE wants. Sue me. 

you tell 'em!

[YGIFS 19444]

5 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

It won't change until the Democrats hire the narrator from truck commercials for their ads.

But they can't, because they hate America and they talk like Nils from Frasier.

Wait, Imma/Surly is getting NIL money from those injured in a truck accident and Kelsey Grammer?  Fuck yeah!  Wreaths for everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gil Bang 25516]

4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

What are her “credibility issues?”

Many years ago, she signed a piece of paper saying that she she never had sex with him

[RDCanecutter 25777]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Wait, Imma/Surly is getting NIL money from those injured in a truck accident and Kelsey Grammer?  Fuck yeah!  Wreaths for everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not my fault they misspelled it. /NilesVoice

[The Dog 42763]

 

[Francisco 2.0 31592]

Stormy, Round 2:

We’re expecting court to go until 4:30 today. But Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, tells Justice Merchan that she will continue cross-examining Stormy Daniels into Thursday. And Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, says she will question Daniels again during re-direct. So there will be much more. The jury is back in the courtroom and Daniels is on the stand.

Trump told a group of pool reporters in the hallway that he thought the cross-examination was going “very well” as he walked back into the courtroom.

During Stormy Daniels's cross-examination so far, Trump's lawyer has hardly asked her about the matter at the heart of the case — whether there was a conspiracy to cover up a hush-money payment made to a porn star, Daniels, before an election, and whether business records were falsified in the process. Trump's lawyer has instead focused on whether Daniels embellished her story about having been threatened in Las Vegas by someone supposedly connected to Trump.

The lawyer, Susan Necheles, is seeking to attack Daniels's overall credibility. But Daniels told a very detailed story earlier in the morning about what she says was her sexual encounter with Trump, and it’s not clear how the jurors are processing what they're hearing right now, or whether it's affecting their views on Daniels.

It has been an interesting follow-up to the dry testimony we heard on Monday, where the prosecutors walked us through the 34 invoices, checks and ledger entries that underpin the charges in this case.

Susan Necheles is walking Stormy Daniels through specifics from her book and gets her to say that one thing she described in the book was incorrect. Daniels sticks to other parts of her story. One key moment was when Necheles, pushing Daniels about the threat she claims she encountered, challenged her about not telling her baby’s father about the alleged threat and implied it was made up. “Your daughter’s life was in jeopardy and you did not tell her father, right?” Necheles said.

Daniels is becoming indignant as Necheles continues to cast doubt on her story that a man approached her in a parking lot and threatened her to stay silent about Trump.

Necheles is now painting Daniels’ relationship with Cohen — she appeared on his podcast — in a sinister light.

The question of whether Daniels was threatened in a parking lot has come up at other points in testimony from different witnesses. Keith Davidson, her former lawyer, cast some doubt on the story as he read his previous texts with Michael Cohen.

Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, is trying to make Stormy Daniels look like a liar by bringing up her book excerpts, making it seem as if she has changed her story of having had sex with Trump. Daniels is fighting back and providing more context. The jurors are paying close attention and the courtroom is, to use the word of the day, tense.

The courthouse overflow room is decidedly less tense. Members of the public have been laughing along at Daniels's responses.

Susan Necheles tries something else, asking whether Stormy Daniels had talked to the lawyer Gloria Allred about potentially suing Trump. But again, Daniels fires back, saying that she also told Allred, “I had sex with Donald Trump.” Daniels seems to be locked in, and these questions don’t look to be going where Necheles expects. Prosecutors need Daniels to be consistent about having said she had sex with Trump. So far, she has been.

A little context here: Much of Allred’s legal practice consists of representing women with claims — often sexual harassment or assault claims — against powerful men.

Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, is moving on, saying that telling her story about having had sex with Trump has made Stormy Daniels a lot of money. Daniels hits back: “It has also cost me a lot of money.”

Stormy Daniels just fended off the implication that Susan Necheles was seeking to make, which is that Daniels hopes that Trump will be convicted so she doesn’t have to pay his legal fees from the earlier defamation case. “I hope i dont have to pay him no matter what happens,” Daniels parried.

Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, is trying to make Stormy Daniels look like a liar. But many of her questions have to do with money and Daniels is making it clear that she is not necessarily wealthy. So instead of this line of questioning working to impeach her credibility, as intended, it’s coming off as a lawyer for a very rich person going after someone with less money for having less money.

Trump has massively overstated his own wealth over the years, but so much of the attention on that overlooks the fact that he still has more money than the vast majority of the country. Which is why this line of questioning is so fraught.

It’s hard to know what effect this line of questioning will have on the jury. Trump’s lawyer, Susan Necheles, has successfully established that Stormy Daniels is refusing a court order to pay legal fees to Trump, which she was ordered to do six years ago after her defamation lawsuit against him was dismissed. But the jury knows that Trump is vastly wealthier than Daniels, so it is unclear how compelling they will find it that she has declined to give him money.

We just witnessed something that felt like a grade school back-and-forth. Susan Necheles gets Stormy Daniels to acknowledge she had mocked Trump’s looks on Twitter, and Daniels replies, “Because he made fun of me first.” Necheles says that one of them started it, but “you both continued it.”

Susan Necheles is continuing to push Stormy Daniels, who previously tweeted that she would not pay Trump “a penny” even after a federal court ordered her to cover his legal fees, as a result of a failed defamation lawsuit. A lawyer for Daniels has said that she does not, in fact, owe him any money.

I'm curious to know how the jurors — whose finances are likely closer to Daniels's than Trump’s — will feel about Necheles's focus on money as a motivator for her actions, or inaction, as is the case in the court settlement against her that she has not paid.

Once again, this is a cross-examination that doesn’t offer an alternative narrative about the heart of the case. This time, the focus is on Daniels’ refusal to pay Trump legal fees, aimed at damaging her credibility.

When I’ve seen Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, in the past, she has dropped aggressive characterizations into her questioning, all but daring prosecutors to object. She did it just now, mentioning what she characterized as Stormy Daniels’s “frivolous litigation against President Trump.” Prosecutors objected, as could have been expected, and Necheles immediately had a more acceptable substitute phrase on hand, referring instead to Daniels’s lawsuits as “cases you brought that were dismissed.”

This cross examination started at 11, to borrow a “Spinal Tap” reference, with aggressive questioning from Susan Nechles, and defiant answers from Stormy Daniels.

Fighting from the stand can be tricky as a witness. You can win the jury to your side, but you can also be seen as petulant or needlessly aggressive. It’s a very fine line to walk. Stormy Daniels is definitely ready for a fight during this intense cross-examination, but given that we can’t know what the jury is thinking, we’ll never quite be able to tell how this back-and-forth is landing with them.

Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, is now pushing Stormy Daniels on her desire for money. She says that Daniels went into pornography for money, and asks her, again, “You wanted more money, right?” “Don’t we all want to make more money in our jobs?” Daniels retorts.

Then Necheles moves on to posts that Daniels made about wanting Trump to be imprisoned, including one saying that she would “dance down the street” if he was selected to go to jail. Daniels says “selected” was the wrong word because she knows a person is not selected to go to jail.

Necheles asks Daniels: “Am I correct that you hate President Trump?” Daniels responds: “Yes.”  Necheles continues: “And you want him to go to jail?” Daniels responds: “I want him to be held accountable.”

Necheles is attempting to make Daniels look as if she is vindictive and seeking to damage Trump.

The direct examination is over and here comes what is liable to be a very tense cross-examination by Susan Necheles, one of Trump's lawyers. It’s been calmer during the afternoon session thus far. But we expect that to be disrupted now.

Daniels is sitting up straight and looks very ready for a fight here.

As the lawyers approach for a sidebar, Stormy Daniels audibly asks the court reporter trancribing the proceedings, “Is that better?” It’s a reference to how quickly she talked this morning. The court reporter said that it was.

A Trump post on Truth Social, in which he called Stormy Daniels “horseface,” is currently on the screens in the courtroom. It’s from March 2023, as the Manhattan district attorney's office was preparing to indict Trump in this case. Trump insists he hasn’t seen Daniels since encountering her on a golf course and taking a picture with her 18 years ago. Daniels is now reading the Truth post aloud.

Trump has long denied Daniels’s story. But now the jury is being asked to weigh his words against hers directly, as she reads his social media post, in which he says he hasn’t seen her since the golf course she described earlier. He also denies having had sex with her. Daniels testified otherwise this morning. Right now, she is reading aloud, rattling off the insults Trump uses for her, including “horseface” and “sleaze bag.” And she says the post is false, as Trump sits quietly at the defense table.

Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, asks Daniels who she understands Trump to have been calling “horseface.” “Me,” she replies. The same goes for “sleaze bag,” which he also called her in the post. Hoffinger is teasing out from Daniels that his statement that their only interaction was on that golf course is “false.”

Jurors heard last week from Trump’s former executive assistant, Rhona Graff, that Stormy Daniels showed up at Trump Tower in 2007, months after the golf course event, which he said was the only time he saw her.

 

Susan Hoffinger is walking Daniels, and by extension the jury, through some issues that are certain to come up in cross-examination: namely, her appearance on Michael Cohen’s podcast.

Stormy Daniels is saying her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, filed a defamation claim against Trump against her wishes. She says she wished he had not done so because she felt it was too risky. (Avenatti, a risk-taker by nature, was sentenced to prison in 2022 for stealing from Daniels.)

Justice Merchan, who seemed to get upset several times during the morning session, seems more measured this afternoon, parsing out decisions in a calm montone.

That may have something to do with Stormy Daniels herself, who has kept many of her answers brief.

As Stormy Daniels was testifying about her defamation claim against Trump, the former president appeared for a while to be solidly asleep.

Some of the jurors, while Trump rests, are taking detailed notes on Daniels’s testimony.

Stormy Daniels testifies that it was upsetting to her to hear Michael Cohen talking about the story in public, “because he could talk about it and i couldn’t.” She then testifies that Cohen filed a temporary restraining order against her, seeking to keep her from speaking. And around that time, she says, she hired another lawyer: Michael Avenatti.

Daniels is now walking through the portion of the story where Cohen tried to make her adhere to the non-disclosure agreement, while, she says, he was talking about the case to people. She hired Avenatti to get her out of the N.D.A. and she told her story to Anderson Cooper on "60 Minutes."

Trump is sitting still with his eyes closed.

Stormy Daniels says that once her story became public, her life exploded into “chaos — suddenly I was front and foremost everywhere,” she says. She says that the story “blew her cover,” to an extent, making her more public than she had been before. She starts to go on but the judge cuts her off and the testimony moves along, again.

Daniels has previously talked about the “chaos” that ensued after her allegations about Trump were made public. She has told reporters she was inundated by threats by Trump supporters, many of which were lurid and graphic. And she’s said she feared for her family's safety.

This really is like experiencing a different witness than we did this morning.

Stormy Daniels is now being asked about a statement she signed denying having had an affair with Trump, dated Jan. 10, 2018. This is the same statement that Trump recently posted on Truth Social had been "JUST FOUND."

After a morning filled with often uncomfortable testimony and graphic detail on a sexual tryst, the early direct examination this afternoon is considerably less dramatic. Prosecutors are leaning on documents, which may have the added benefit, for them, of limiting Daniels’ more freewheeling comments.

Daniels makes it clear that she didn’t want to sign the statement, and that it wasn’t true.

Todd Blanche struggled to defend the post last week in a contempt hearing related to Trump's gag order. The statement clearly had not just been found.

Stormy Daniels, referring to a Wall Street Journal article that mentioned her while discussing another hush-money deal, says she did not comment for the article, honoring the terms of the deal she had reached through her lawyer, Keith Davidson. She’s very different — and so far, more helpful to prosecutors — in this afternoon session. I imagine jurors will notice the difference, and they may wonder about it. It’s so odd to be a juror. You’re the decider, but so much goes on that you’re not allowed to see.

Stormy Daniels glanced toward the back of Trump's head as she was led into the courtroom. She’s now seated, and we’re waiting for the jury to return.

Daniels has begun to testify again. It’s clear that the prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, asked her behind closed doors to start giving shorter answers. She is sticking far more closely to the questions being asked, and her testimony — about the hush-money deal — is speeding along. She just testified that her lawyer, Keith Davidson, received $130,000. After he and her manager took fees, she ended up with about $96,000, she says.

The conferencing is over, but Justice Merchan says that, with the consent of the defense lawyers, Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, has stepped out to confer with Stormy Daniels about keeping her testimony within the confines set by the judge, and avoiding any “unnecessary” details.

The defense argued that certain testimony from Daniels was out of bounds: Her claim that Trump had not worn a condom, and her recounting of her specific feelings about the encounter — whether or not there was consent and whether she had been put in danger. These are some of the points, I believe, that the judge advised defense lawyers to deal with when they question Daniels themselves.

After the judge in his civil fraud trial refused to move for an immediate, favorable verdict after lawyers there called for a mistrial, Trump stormed out of the room. The stakes are higher in this case, with a jury present and a prison sentence on the table. But this is the type of development that has really bothered Trump in the past.

To that end, this is as angry as Trump has appeared all day — more so than at any point during Stormy Daniels’ testimony. He shook his head and glowered when the judge said a mistrial was not warranted.

The judge has declined to declare a mistrial. While he acknowledged that some of the evidence that came in was more than he would have liked — “better left unsaid,” is how he put it several times — he takes as much issue with the defense as with the prosecution. This must come as a major relief for prosecutors. And I can imagine that they might wish the jury was in the room right now. Justice Merchan reminds the defense that “the remedy is on cross-examination,” meaning that the defense will be able to make its own case as it questions Stormy Daniels.

After Merchan earlier seemed to side with the defense, this is not a great start for Trump’s team in the afternoon.

Justice Merchan says he’ll rule now. He says he agrees that it would have been better if Stormy Daniels hadn't gone in certain directions, and says as a witness she is “a little bit difficult to control.” He adds, “Having said that, I do think” that there were “guardrails in place.” He adds that he doesn’t believe we are at the point where a mistrial is warranted.

Merchan adds, “I was surprised that there were not more objections,” admonishing the defense team. “The defense has to take some responsibility for that,” he says, adding that he did all he could. “I objected on my own,” he says.

Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, says that the defense team had moved to strike so much of this beforehand and Justice Merchan still let it in. The judge bristles at the statement.

Challenging Stormy Daniels’s credibility has always been central for the defense, and Todd Blanche makes clear some of the ways in which they plan to do that as they argue for a mistrial.

Todd Blanche is done and Susan Hoffinger stands up. She says that Daniels's story is important story for motive and intent, to illustrate what the defendant, Trump, didn’t want the public to know before the election. This doubles as a chance for Hoffinger to explain to the press — sitting behind her in the courtroom, even as the jurors remain absent — why the prosecution felt Daniels’s testimony was important.

Hoffinger says that “we were extremely mindful of not eliciting too much testimony about the actual act.” Given Justice Merchan’s strong reaction to that testimony, I’m very curious to hear his response to that. He appears to be taking notes as Hoffinger speaks.

Among the issues that Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, brings up as he calls for a mistrial is Stormy Daniels’s testimony that Trump didn’t wear a condom. He argues that this testimony was deeply prejudicial to his client — and asked what the jury is supposed to do with much of the information they received from Daniels’ testimony. This is a Hail Mary for Blanche, but his arguments are substantive.

As Blanche continues to speak, Justice Merchan gazes at him, impassive, not giving anything away. The judge’s left pointer finger is covering his upper lip, as it often does when he is listening closely.

The judge is on the bench. The defense is moving for a mistrial. This is not unusual for Trump's lawyers — in his civil fraud trial, his lawyers asked that a mistrial be called several times. They were unsuccessful.

Todd Blanche, one of Trump's lawyers, argues that the testimony was overly prejudicial, and that the government was asking questions “to inflame this jury,” in addition to the “pure embarrassment” factor. He says there’s no way the court can instruct the jury in a way to “unring this bell.”

It would be a surprise for Justice Merchan to agree to a mistrial. But he also signaled displeasure with how the testimony was going several times this morning, sustaining multiple objections.

The judge was very unhappy with this morning’s testimony and Blanche is objecting to specific details. It’s not totally unreasonable to think we could see some scolding from the judge here.

Stormy Daniels’s testimony brings up an interesting question about what the public knows to be true at this point and what is still unproven. For example: It is an established fact that Daniels was paid $130,000 in hush money to keep silent about her story of having had sex with Trump. Michael Cohen paid her and was repaid, including with checks that were signed by Trump.

But various aspects of the story are not established fact: Trump denies that they had sex, and his lawyers have said different things about why exactly Cohen was repaid.

So even as the jurors seek to determine whether Trump is guilty of falsifying business records, there are plenty of matters they’ll have to wade through in which the truth is far from settled.

We’re about to begin the afternoon session of testimony from Stormy Daniels, who is being questioned by one of the prosecutors, Susan Hoffinger. Under questioning, Daniels has given prosecutors key pieces of information that they need, such as describing a sexual encounter with Trump and their interactions afterward. And she testified that that was the story she would have told in 2016, had she not entered into a hush-money agreement with Trump through his fixer, Michael Cohen.

At the same time, Daniels’ testimony was incredibly uncomfortable at various points — sometimes lurid in detail — and she repeatedly went further than the judge wanted her to, prompting him to curtly tell her, at least twice, to stick to the question. Daniels also mocked Trump several times, in ways that felt discordant to the story she was telling. Jurors watch judges closely, and it’s not at all clear how these jurors interpreted either Justice Merchan’s handling of the witness, or her presentation on the stand so far.

Edited May 7 by Francisco 2.0

[DixonHur 10829]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Many years ago, she signed a piece of paper saying that she she never had sex with him

For which, it wouldn't surprise anyone if she were paid or threatened into writing.

Edited May 7 by DixonHur

[Longhorn_Fan68 33699]

ohhhh fuuuuuck youuuuu

 

[locodos 5161]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

ohhhh fuuuuuck youuuuu

 

" A threat to our entire system?, That's OUR JOB!  We are being replaced! "  

-GOP

[TexasEd 8012]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Not true.  They have some policy positions.  They are just breathtakingly stupid and cruel.

[snip]

Your Trump friends and family are shitty people with shitty brains and shitty ideas who support shitty things.  You should spend your time convincing them that the most important Trump policy they should follow is chugging antifreeze.

I thought it was injecting Bleach

[YGIFS 19444]

Separation of Powers/Small Government/Local Control? 

NAH, that's for suckers!  

[Mole 4265]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Baptist shit usually 

It’s a good chance to remind them that family values and character in leadership used* to be core conservative values. This case lays bare the reality that conservatives have abandoned** their core values.

*in some mythical past, perhaps

**embraced, but we like to lie to ourselves 

[Red Five 40122]

There’s that super principled religious conservative Mike Johnson. It’s almost like he’s just entirely full of shit.

[TexasEd 8012]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

There’s that super principled religious conservative Mike Johnson. It’s almost like he’s just entirely full of shit.

Is he afraid his "stepson" will recount all the Stormy films they watched together?

[WhatTheBuck 28574]

31 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

And hubris by RBG and fuck off if you want to excuse her

Hang up your scalpel, doc. I’ve decided you’re too old to practice. That should be my decision and not yours, right?

i get the arguments. It’s easy to armchair QB the topic. But we have rights and freedoms in this country and RBG was totally within hers. If she only could’ve held on for a few more months.

Or better yet, if McConnell wasn’t a scurrilous, hypocritical scumbag. That’s the bigger issue. Ginsberg was a great person. McConnell is a massive piece of shit whom I can’t wait to talk about in the past tense. He deserves to die. She didn’t. C’est la vie. 

[Born to Run 6200]

It wasn't "her work." It was an appointed position on the highest court in our country, an enormously important seat of public trust, and she decided to risk that after having already been treated for cancer multiple times. It's a decision that should be criticized even stronger than it has been.

I felt compelled to throw out my RBG bobblehead, so I did my part.

[DixonHur 10829]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hang up your scalpel, doc. I’ve decided you’re too old to practice. That should be my decision and not yours, right?

Would you want to be operated on by an 87-year-old surgeon?

Common sense does need to come into play at some point.

[YGIFS 19444]

But if she does puncture your spleen, does she get to shake her booty and sing, "You done got Ginsburg'd?"  

[Pato del Muerto 51917]

22 minutes ago, locodos said:

" A threat to our entire system?, That's OUR JOB!  We are being replaced! "  

-GOP

THE DEMS WILL NOT REPLACE US!

[Huckleberry 32153]

54 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

By whom? You? I won’t let you tell me shit about what I should do with my life and my work. I can respect RGB’s choice to virtually tell you to fuck off as well.

Just a few months longer and it wouldn’t be an issue. Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 but she took her shot.

I get it. You wanted her to appease your desires, not her own. I respect her right to do what SHE wants. Sue me. 

Yes, me. Among others. Millions of others negatively affected by her stupid and selfish decision. 

I went ahead and bolded the part where you sound exactly like every single Trumpkin moron in America since you can't see it in yourself. 

[SimonBolivar 10648]

12 minutes ago, Mole said:

It’s a good chance to remind them that family values and character in leadership used* to be core conservative values. This case lays bare the reality that conservatives have abandoned** their core values.

*in some mythical past, perhaps

**embraced, but we like to lie to ourselves 

I grew up in the SBC and have a very typical family connection to the church (hell Ronnie Floyd married my parents when he was a young preacher) in that I am WASPy as hell and from a relatively monied family in a monied church. The values in our particular large church in the 90s/00s was absolutely about appearance and a large part of that appearance came from the political belief in American exceptionalism and white exceptionalism (not expressly of course). 

 

The fall of the SBC is interesting as the evangelical right have coalesced around a non-denominational banner in recent decades, but with the SBC political culture still being in charge of the movement. I'd argue this allows for theological mushiness in building the political coalition of the religious right which seems to outweigh their theological beliefs in importance of their self-image. 

 

Something for future historians to ponder for sure.

[Gatorubet 29423]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Two Corinthians.

 

1 hour ago, locodos said:

walk into a bar

They see Trump and go up to him, two big burly Corinthians with tears in their eyes, and tell him, “Sir, the Bible you are selling is the most spiritual copy we have ever seen…”

Trump says he’ll buy the bar a round of drinks, and then leaves without paying.

[Brisketexan 103179]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But we have rights and freedoms in this country and RBG was totally within hers. I

Lots of shit is 1) within your right to do, but 2) dumb as all fuck.  It is your right to eat your own shit.  The government can't raid your house and stop you from eating a WhatTheBuck turd club sandwich.  But goddamn, would that be a terrible decision on your part.

[Sawbonz 26741]

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Juan Merchan, the judge, has asked Daniels, who is on a long digression, to slow down

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

[Nivek 16643]

22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Look, I tried to explain the ex post facto issue. High school civics anyone? And I remind you that this is criminal contempt.   That means the full force of all the constitutional protections afforded a criminal defendant are in play in a criminal  contempt proceeding- including any ex post facto issues - and absolutely including the fact that you’re looking at the highest bar possible, beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that you want Trump in jail more than you want his hopeful conviction(s) to be upheld is a bit shortsighted. 

You are acting like the guy carrying a torch because little Debbie’s rapist murderer got off “on a technicality.” The fact that the technicality is a bad chain of custody, and without enforcing that law the entire criminal justice system would be polluted by corrupt cops and DAs planting evidence (which is more important to the system and the nation than convicting Lil Debbie’s murderer) does not occur to people when emotions are rightfully inflamed. Like little Debbie‘s father I want the guy in prison for life - or dead. But Lawyer Ubet understands that chain of custody is far more important.. 

I get that because you are not a lawyer you miss a bunch of the competing nuances of law and procedure and prisoners rights - and statutes and case law governing a trial court’s ability to impose criminal sanctions - and the court’s desire to protect innocent jurors and court employees from MAGA fanatics - and a judge who was put on a novel criminal case with an ex President wanting to do everything within his power to protect the chance of a verdict being overturned on appeal.   I get that you want a simple black-and-white resolution to the shit stain that is Donald Trump on trial. I get it. Everyone gets it.  And I also get that you think everything is simple.

I wish that the practice of law was as simple as ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’.   I hate to break it to you, but that simplistic catch phrase would exclude, for example, legitimate defenses like constitutional challenges to statutes (or gag orders) being vague and/or over-broad.   You wanting to dumb it down to simple black-and-white choices does not make it so.

Now, regarding the corrupt SCOTUS, I’d like to borrow that torch…

Meh, Wildcat understood my layman's perspective much better.  Let me liken it to something else.  A while ago, the NCAA dragged their ass for 2 years to decide if Aaron Ross was allowed him to be eligible to play football at UT.  A few weeks before the 2005 Title Game, the NCAA holds an emergency meeting to decide if Matt Leinart can play football in the title game.     This is the type of shit that causes people to question the organization's integrity.

I do not doubt there are reasons for what they are doing.  I also think the optics are horrible.   You see this as them trying to dot the i's and cross the t's, and I see it as them treating this case like something else.   Let me defer to David Chappelle's more humorous perspective on it:

Quote

 

 

[YGIFS 19444]

And this manly Corinthian, straight of central stone-casting, says to me.  With tears in his eyes.  He says, "Sir, what is your favorite letter of St. Paul to my peoples?"  And like Michael Bolton, I say to him...I say, "Oh, I like them all about the same I guess."  And he laughed heartily, and I did as well, as he said, "Oh Mr. President.  That's funny, I have the exact same problem."  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33699]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

If you've read francisco's summaries she has been speaking very quickly all day, rendering her hard to understand and has been making it hard for the court reporter to keep up. 

[BamaATL 15750]

49 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

ohhhh fuuuuuck youuuuu

 

If ever there was a man more deserving of the title "National Ass-Clown" I'd be surprised.  

[Sawbonz 26741]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

If you've read francisco's summaries she has been speaking very quickly all day, rendering her hard to understand and has been making it hard for the court reporter to keep up. 

Right but he also is admonishing the her and the prosecution for elaborating a questions asked and sustaining a lot of objections. Seems like a pearl clutcher

[SimonBolivar 10648]

He fell asleep again this afternoon.

[SydneyCarton 47107]

26 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, me. Among others. Millions of others negatively affected by her stupid and selfish decision. 

I went ahead and bolded the part where you sound exactly like every single Trumpkin moron in America since you can't see it in yourself. 

Come on now, the guy is from Ohio, and you're surprised he's got some right leaning take? It's a miracle he's where he is at politically to begin with..cut the guy some slack ok I can't even finish typing the sentence with a straight face. 

5 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

If ever there was a man more deserving of the title "National Ass-Clown" I'd be surprised.  

I can think of about 12 off the top of my head, easy. Becuase he pushed through support for Ukraine. 

[Nivek 16643]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

And hubris by RBG and fuck off if you want to excuse her

I will happily fuck off.   I don't know why she clung to it, I don't know if she had her wits about her at the time.  She praised Kavanaugh as fast as she possibly could for surrounding himself with all women, especially after that hearing of his when his accuser came forth.   Either way, her judgement was fucking awful and underscores another issue with our government.  

[Horn Dog 9464]

36 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hang up your scalpel, doc. I’ve decided you’re too old to practice. That should be my decision and not yours, right?

i get the arguments. It’s easy to armchair QB the topic. But we have rights and freedoms in this country and RBG was totally within hers. If she only could’ve held on for a few more months.

Or better yet, if McConnell wasn’t a scurrilous, hypocritical scumbag. That’s the bigger issue. Ginsberg was a great person. McConnell is a massive piece of shit whom I can’t wait to talk about in the past tense. He deserves to die. She didn’t. C’est la vie. 

Surgeon's ability to practice medicine are subject to approval by others, specifically hospital credentialing committees and licensing boards.  These privileges must by routinely renewed at which time their competencies are reviewed. Doctors are often forced into retirement in this way.  If Sawz decides he wants to perform surgery into his 80's, the credentialing committee must approve this.  If he fucks up and harms a patient, not only he, but entire hospital board and the members of that committees are subject to not just criticism, but significant legal action.  

RBG may have been a great person, but she fucked up, fucked a lot of people in the process, and it is rightfully a  stain on her legacy. 

[TexArcher 36907]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

He fell asleep again this afternoon.

 

You know, a lot of people are saying it was a perfect nap, maybe manliest nap of all time.  I don't know, but that's what they're saying.  Sleepy Joe Biden was never man enough to take a nap in public while facing almost a hundred felony charges, believe me.

 

[Surly Bevo 24265]

4 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

He fell asleep again this afternoon.

He probably came in his pants listening to the recounting of his little meenus getting the Stormy action and it's hard to stay awake after that.

[Sawbonz 26741]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

 

You know, a lot of people are saying it was a perfect nap, maybe manliest nap of all time.  I don't know, but that's what they're saying.  Sleepy Joe Biden was never man enough to take a nap in public while facing almost a hundred felony charges, believe me.

 

Two double quarter pounders and a large fry will put you in rest and digest mode though. I hated having early lunch in HS. Guaranteed to sleep through 4th period

[MrBig 5101]

Did any of you guys see the Stormy documentary on Peacock?

I believe the things she said about Trump and all the shit she’s gone through, but something about her (no pun intended) rubbed me the wrong way when I really wanted to like her for standing up to Trump. 

Spoiler

SPOILER: Halfway through the documentary she admits to having an affair with the filmmaker and her husband files for divorce. Her husband is also pissed she kept him in the dark about her whole involvement in the Trump scandal that was about to explode in the media. Her mother also berates her for lying about being mistreated as a child in an interview.

 

[dcbc 14193]

45 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

If you go back and read Brisket's post from the other day, the decision making fits.  The judge is protecting this record from appeal.  Assuming that the fact they had sex is relevant, I'm not sure there's any contrary evidence to that fact in evidence.  To the extent that's the case, any details about the encounter would only serve to bolster the veracity of her testimony.  But such details, inasmuch as they are salacious, might also be considered under the rules of evidence to be prejudicial to the point that such prejudice would outweigh their relevance to the issues in the case, which could be a potential ground for appeal that the judge wisely is trying to head off.  At this point, they got plenty in, and don't let the cries from the media that the judge "chided her" about staying on track.  That happens plenty, and it's unlikely to sway a jury.  

 

Now, if they challenge her veracity on cross or if Trump takes the stand and denies anything happened, it possibly opens the door for the rest of the story.

 

TLDR, this isn't a case of Ward being a little hard on the Beaver.  This is a judge who believes Trump is going to lose and who is protecting this record from reversible error.

 

And, of course, we all want to see Trump dragged down with this testimony.  But, ultimately, letting it get too bad may help him on appeal.

Edited May 7 by dcbc

[DigglerontheHoof 20456]

2 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Did any of you guys see the Stormy documentary on Peacock?

I believe the things she said about Trump and all the shit she’s gone through, but something about her (no pun intended) rubbed me the wrong way when I really wanted to like her for standing up to Trump. 

  Hide contents

SPOILER: Halfway through the documentary she admits to having an affair with the filmmaker and her husband files for divorce. Her husband is also pissed she kept him in the dark about her whole involvement in the Trump scandal that was about to explode in the media. Her mother also berates her for lying about being mistreated as a child in an interview.

 

She's an over-the-hill porn star; you were expecting Gandhi? 

[The Dog 42763]

 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5696]

Quote

We just witnessed something that felt like a grade school back-and-forth. Susan Necheles gets Stormy Daniels to acknowledge she had mocked Trump’s looks on Twitter, and Daniels replies, “Because he made fun of me first.” Necheles says that one of them started it, but “you both continued it.”

 

That's our Donald! 

[dcbc 14193]

8 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Did any of you guys see the Stormy documentary on Peacock?

 

I was about to make some crack about having seen some other short films about her.  Then, my inner Butthead took over and said:

 

[MrBig 5101]

10 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

She's an over-the-hill porn star; you were expecting Gandhi? 

I wanted to like her personality even if she’s not a saint.

[TwiceHorn 30734]

35 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

[Native Horn 3465]

29 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Surgeon's ability to practice medicine are subject to approval by others, specifically hospital credentialing committees and licensing boards.  These privileges must by routinely renewed at which time their competencies are reviewed. Doctors are often forced into retirement in this way.  If Sawz decides he wants to perform surgery into his 80's, the credentialing committee must approve this.  If he fucks up and harms a patient, not only he, but entire hospital board and the members of that committees are subject to not just criticism, but significant legal action.  

And the physician's professional liability carrier also has a say regarding whether they continue covering an aging physician.

[Nivek 16643]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

Is that not normal?

[dcbc 14193]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened

That's a good point, but It might be admissible as some sort of same transaction contextual evidence?  I get that that's more of a 404(b) (in Texas) exception and it still has to be relevant.  But saying it's not relevant leads us to a story where, once upon a time, Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels to sign a nondisclosure agreement about nothing.  The idea that their having sex isn't relevant is the type of technically-accurate discussion that makes people dislike lawyers.

Edited May 7 by dcbc

[locodos 5161]

Y'all got anymore of them updates?

[TwiceHorn 30734]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

Is that not normal?

Some time ago, I wrote that gamesmanship in litigation is common.  So, yeah, to an extent.  The better question is, is it right?  Situationally, here we love it.  Elsewhere, maybe not so much.

It becomes problematic when a win at all costs mentality in litigators, particularly criminal prosecutors, makes them lose sight of any notion of actual justice.