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

[Born to Run 6364]

I hope they didn’t try to make you roll on Shabbos

Fuck that Kraut at the league office.

[Francisco 2.0 32226]

Blanche equates the “catch-and-kill” scheme involving The National Enquirer, alleged by prosecutors, to ordinary editorial decisions made by newspapers.

Blanche is now trying to portray The National Enquirer’s practices as similar to how other news outlets operate, in terms of deciding when and how to publish a story. That is not correct.

 

Now Blanche turns to Stormy Daniels, who he says is also “biased” against Trump. He narrates their meeting, saying at the time, Trump was working on a very popular tv show called “The Apprentice.”

“Ms. Clifford has made a life off these communications,” Blanche says, attacking Daniels by her government name, Stephanie Clifford. He says the money she made from the Cohen payoff was pure opportunism on her part, and adds that she has made a lot more money since the story came out.

It certainly sounds as if Blanche expects Daniels to testify. He says that “her testimony, while salacious, does not matter,” arguing that she knew nothing about the actual crimes charged here.

[Pancho 43020]

 

[Mdhorn 5838]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This likely means nothing from a legal perspective, but why would someone pay another $130K if they didn't have sex?

or $420k?

[TexArcher 37104]

14 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The choice of cloaked in innocence is odd to me. It suggests that though not innocent himself, Trump has a cloak of innocence protecting him. The idea of a cloak is most often associated with secrecy and deceit. Contrast it to, "He is innocent through and through." The usage just leapt out at me as a strange word choice for a carefully conceived presentation.

Agree 100%

Might as well have just come out and said, "You can't prove that he did what he did."

[Red Five 40455]

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 

[tx 3 putt 75570]

7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 

theY just Need one person out of 12 to agree with them

[Sawbonz 26904]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

theY just Need one person out of 12 to agree with them

That just gets them a mistrial. They will re try the case and he will have to sit through all this again. At some point during one of these trials he is going to have an epic meltdown 

[Red Five 40455]

Trump famously doesn't pay anyone. Are they going to claim that Stormy extorted him? And that he paid her? Ok.

[Gatorubet 29791]

2 hours ago, Pancho said:

if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump.   When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury as nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.

I have always told every witness in every trial or deposition I’ve been in that as we start the proceedings, there is a bucket of credibility filled to the brim that goes with them.    when they are found to be lying, the bucket gets kicked over.   And usually all of the credibility spills out on the floor.   If the jury thinks you are lying, they normally do not care if you are lying 20% of the time or 60% of the time, they know you were lying.   

I’m not talking about normal memory impaired things like the exact time or day exact words, but I’m talking about lying about important things. You normally either have credibility or you don’t.  there is very likely a pattern jury instruction telling the jury that if they find a witness non-credible, they can disregard everything that person says in their testimony. Not 20%, not 40%, but all of their testimony.    

That seems like a rookie mistake, or something they had to say to please the boss   it may be the best thing we have going for us is Trump will direct parts of the trial.

Edited April 22 by Gatorubet

[Captainant 26927]

7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump.   When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury has nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

[Pato del Muerto 52117]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Historically speaking, fascists really do their best work while in a comfortable jail cell surrounded by their friends. Sounds like a great fucking idea. 

How about we pick an American owned island in the pacific and drop him off, and have a one of those robot m donalds’ there to make his meals. 

[Goredho 17181]

10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump.   When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury has nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.

I have always told every witness in every trial or deposition I’ve been in that as we start the proceedings, there is a bucket of credibility filled to the brim that goes with them.    when they are found to be lying, the bucket gets kicked over.   And usually all of the credibility spills out on the floor.   If the jury thinks you are lying, they normally do not care if you are lying 20% of the time or 60% of the time, they know you were lying.   

I’m not talking about normal memory impaired things like the exact time or day exact words, but I’m talking about lying about important things. You normally either have credibility or you don’t.  there is very likely a pattern jury instruction telling the jury that if they find a witness non-credible, they can disregard everything that person says in their testimony. Not 20%, not 40%, but all of their testimony.    

That seems like a rookie mistake, or something they had to say to please the boss   it may be the best thing we have going for us is Trump will direct parts of the trial.

I think it's probably an attempt to muddy what is meant by "influencing an election."  Like, portraying yourself in your best light is technically an attempt to influence an election (I'm a stable genius!).  Portraying your opponent in their most negative light is as well (sleepy Joe).  Attempting to influence an election also covers paying off a porn star to avoid talking about an affair, and likewise stoking an insurrection at the capitol to stop certification.

I think they are trying to equate what Trump did with regards to Stormy as nothing more than successful campaigning.

[TexArcher 37104]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How about we pick an American owned island in the pacific and drop him off, and have a one of those robot m donalds’ there to make his meals. 

Or save a few bucks and shoot him against a wall?

[Pato del Muerto 52117]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

Well then all of these charges, indictments, and trials against Trump are just American patriots exercising their democratic right to influence elections.  So Trump can stop saying otherwise. 

[pyrohornIII 4772]

16 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Trump supporters have united behind their man.

 

This drives a lot of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  The idea of Trump's machismo.

13 hours ago, tx ind said:

Every time there's a story of him running out of cash it's not surprising, the best part is what happens next.  You move to the anticipation of what the next grift will be, we've gotten sneakers, bibles, 5% cuts from down ballot folks, what's next?

Women of Trump calendar?  

30 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 

I wonder if they intend to use the "definition of sex" defense Clinton used?

[Goredho 17181]

Just now, pyrohornIII said:

Women of Trump calendar?  

[Pato del Muerto 52117]

3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Or save a few bucks and shoot him against a wall?

The solitude, even in opulence, would torture him.  So while against the constitution for that reason, I’m still all for it in this singlular instance. 

[chainsaw 9668]

46 minutes ago, Born to Run said:

18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I hope they didn’t try to make you roll on Shabbos

Fuck that Kraut at the league office.

He's been told A THOUSAND TIMES

[Js1 83685]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

[Pato del Muerto 52117]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

the bond hearing is also going on. Here's where they are right now - meeting to see if they can reach a "settlement of sorts" on ensuring the bond collateral is kept in cash:

 

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

[The Dog 43491]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

it was Trump's attorneys who made the suggested remedy. I think it was on them to make it work. Also I think that the original bond was designed so that Trump could find a way to get out of paying it but it didn't work.

[Smax 3799]

I'm so tired of hearing his voice, bitching whining lying about being the victim here

[Captainant 26927]

18 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

 

12 minutes ago, The Dog said:

it was Trump's attorneys who made the suggested remedy. I think it was on them to make it work. Also I think that the original bond was designed so that Trump could find a way to get out of paying it but it didn't work.

trumpco is doing all this to throw sand in the gears and delaydelaydelay. Of course trumpco could have handled this outside of court, but then it would have been neat and tidy and expedient and completely counterproductive to their desired outcomes. 

[RomaVicta 29590]

Again, I'm a layperson, but I do know how to put together a rational argument. I think the assertion that Trump is influencing the statement is a sound one. If these are good lawyers, I'd be shocked if they created this statement in a vacuum.

Trump's basic defense against any accusation is to call the accuser a "never-Trumper." He's a never-Bidener, should we discount everything he says? I see strong Trump influence on that tack. I don't see myself using that as an argument. The "very popular tv show" also sounds like a Trump phrase as he is obsessed with ratings and lying about them.

Stormy made a life off these communications? She used "pure opportunism" to get Trump to fork over 6 figures? Huh? She's made money since on this story, so she must be evil. I still don't think that holds much sway in a trial. Who wouldn't cash in?

* I love this last sentence. She knew nothing about the actual crimes alleged here. Well, Blanche, she can confirm she got paid off and anything she may have witnessed indicating why.

 

[Rimbo 25254]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

"Nuh uh! Thank you your honor." (sits down)

 

 

 

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Two things from the defense presentation jump out at this layperson.

The choice of cloaked in innocence is odd to me. It suggests that though not innocent himself, Trump has a cloak of innocence protecting him. The idea of a cloak is most often associated with secrecy and deceit. Contrast it to, "He is innocent through and through." The usage just leapt out at me as a strange word choice for a carefully conceived presentation.

Second, the idea that evidence is too old to be valid made me laugh. I imagine a criminal appeal where the lawyer's argument is, "My client should be released! His signed confession is more than ten years old. You can't seriously consider that to be evidence!"

 

my halfling rogue had a Cloak of Innocence +2 in my last d&d campaign

[RomaVicta 29590]

8 minutes ago, Smax said:

I'm so tired of hearing his voice, bitching whining lying about being the victim here

I'M SO TIRED OF HEARING HIS VOICE, BITCHING WHINING LYING ABOUT BEING THE VICTIM HERE.

TRUTH!!!!!!!

[Surly Bevo 24608]

It’s gonna be so amusing to find out that Stormy’s knowledge of penis size was the main driver of the payoff…moreso than the sexual encounter itself.

[C-Man 26757]

24 minutes ago, Smax said:

I'm so tired of hearing his voice, bitching whining lying about being the victim here

Lies upon lies upon lies ad nauseum

['stache 21591]

17 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Again, I'm a layperson, but I do know how to put together a rational argument. I think the assertion that Trump is influencing the statement is a sound one. If these are good lawyers, I'd be shocked if they created this statement in a vacuum.

Trump's basic defense against any accusation is to call the accuser a "never-Trumper." He's a never-Bidener, should we discount everything he says? I see strong Trump influence on that tack. I don't see myself using that as an argument. The "very popular tv show" also sounds like a Trump phrase as he is obsessed with ratings and lying about them.

Stormy made a life off these communications? She used "pure opportunism" to get Trump to fork over 6 figures? Huh? She's made money since on this story, so she must be evil. I still don't think that holds much sway in a trial. Who wouldn't cash in?

* I love this last sentence. She knew nothing about the actual crimes alleged here. Well, Blanche, she can confirm she got paid off and anything she may have witnessed indicating why.

 

It reads to me like a typical opening statement when you have a weak case, you have to at least try to give the jury reasons to not believe the witnesses against the defendant. Saying that she is "biased" against Trump is consistent with ordinary jury instructions that the jury is to be the sole judge of credibility of a witness and can take any "biases" into consideration. He just needs one to buy into it for a mistrial but it does not read like an opening statement of a party that has a strong basis for acquittal. If Trump had written it, the term "whore" and "slut" would be all over it, regardless of legal rules or decorum.  

[TexLonghorn 5573]

"And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has never even met the plaintiff.  Well, maybe once or twice, I don't know, people say there are pictures.  Look, he meets a lot of people, ok? He's very popular and when you're popular everyone wants to meet you and get a picture and the flashes go off and it's like flash, pop, pop pop pop.  Like popcorn, right? All the popping and then you eat it and it's like you aren't eating anything at all, but it tastes so good.  So good.  But not the bailiff.  The bailiff, look, the bailiff, ahhhhhhh.   And the plaintiff.  Some very good people are saying that she isn't the plaintiff, but she is, and she isn't, she isn't even the defendant's type, and he never met her before.  Thank you."

[Surly Bevo 24608]

"And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has never even met the plaintiff.  Well, maybe once or twice, I don't know, people say there are pictures.  Look, he meets a lot of people, ok? He's very popular and when you're popular everyone wants to meet you and get a picture and the flashes go off and it's like flash, pop, pop pop pop.  Like popcorn, right? All the popping and then you eat it and it's like you aren't eating anything at all, but it tastes so good.  So good.  But not the bailiff.  The bailiff, look, the bailiff, ahhhhhhh.   And the plaintiff.  Some very good people are saying that she isn't the plaintiff, but she is, and she isn't, she isn't even the defendant's type, and he never met her before.  Thank you."

Donald Trump and Jerry Jones should be locked in a 12x12 padded cell and forced to talk to each other for the rest of their lives.

[Gatorubet 29791]

38 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

trumpco is doing all this to throw sand in the gears and delaydelaydelay. Of course trumpco could have handled this outside of court, but then it would have been neat and tidy and expedient and completely counterproductive to their desired outcomes. 

How many times do we have to tell you that the bond issue is not delaying anything. We understand your fever dream that this is a problem, but even after being told it’s not a problem you insist on saying the bond delays the appeal.  Just stop!

['stache 21591]

She has publicly described what his junk looks like, if he's going to deny sexual relations with her, it seems pretty obvious to me how to prove whether she's telling the truth, but please, please, please, no.

[Dnaguy 11599]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

This drives a lot of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  The idea of Trump's machismo.

Women of Trump calendar?  

I wonder if they intend to use the "definition of sex" defense Clinton used?

 

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

She has publicly described what his junk looks like, if he's going to deny sexual relations with her, it seems pretty obvious to me how to prove whether she's telling the truth, but please, please, please, no.

 

It wasn't sex b/c he's too small for actual penetration?

[SquishMitten 10373]

 

[The Dog 43491]

 

[Francisco 2.0 32226]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[locodos 5257]

32 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Lies upon lies upon lies ad nauseum

[RomaVicta 29590]

[locodos 5257]

10 minutes ago, 'stache said:

She has publicly described what his junk looks like, if he's going to deny sexual relations with her, it seems pretty obvious to me how to prove whether she's telling the truth, but please, please, please, no.

pubbeas chudus?

[TwiceHorn 30851]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

This drives a lot of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  The idea of Trump's machismo.

Women of Trump calendar?  

I wonder if they intend to use the "definition of sex" defense Clinton used?

Someone should check her papers.

[SmokeyTheBear 5555]

Are we going to have Trump drop his diaper and show his orange cashew to the jury?

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

[speed817 18926]

5 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Are we going to have Trump drop his diaper and show his orange cashew to the jury?

[TwiceHorn 30851]

Sustained objections, even objections at all, to an opening or closing statement are regarded as serious business by lawdogs.

Although the jury is not instructed, as gator notes, they seem to intuit that objections during such statements are rare and if sustained a bad sign for the party making the statement.

The thing about openings and closings is that they are one of the few opportunities either side gets to fully narrate a story, uninterrupted by the rules of direct and cross examination of witnesses.  An interruption endorsed by the judge is something.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13318]

Would someone pay off an extorter who was completely lying about an incident? It's possible to create a scenario where this would occur but it's far more likely to believe the opposite. 

I'm not close to the facts of this case, but isn't the entire case going to depend on Cohen's testimony and what Trump knew and arranged? Whether Trump had sex with Daniels just seems like salacious details but almost immaterial. I assume the defense isn't going to disagree that Daniels was paid off by Cohen, who may or may not have acted on Trump's explicit directions. 

If I'm the prosecutor, I would hate to have Cohen as one of my main witnesses. Sleazy, convicted lawyer who likes to go on TV slamming Trump but previously loved Trump when Trump was paying him. In almost every situation, Cohen has zero credibility.

[Red Five 40455]

So, this involved three people. One is on trial, and the other two are going to confirm all the shit they did? One of which already went to prison for it? Do I have that right?

[Blotto 23293]

14 hours ago, tx ind said:

Every time there's a story of him running out of cash it's not surprising, the best part is what happens next.  You move to the anticipation of what the next grift will be, we've gotten sneakers, bibles, 5% cuts from down ballot folks, what's next?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/business/trump-media-stock-truth-social/index.html

Getting another ~$1.3B+ today. That seems like a well run venture over there. I'd recommend he figure out how to dump that shit today. 

[HenryJames 65567]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

So, this involved three people. One is on trial, and the other two are going to confirm all the shit they did? One of which already went to prison for it? Do I have that right?