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

[WhatTheBuck 28616]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Always, remember this famous quote by an unnamed Bush admin official:

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.

The name was Karl Rove. 

[bolverk 29097]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The name was Karl Rove. 

Was that ever confirmed? I mean, I don't doubt it. Just curious.

But to reiterate, the moment that quote appeared, it signaled that the GOP was abandoning any pretense of having strongly held principled convictions other than the pursuit of raw power.

[YGIFS 19445]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

 

I know most of the books have been banned already.  But you’re likely well read enough to know that there are many instances of people administering mass extermination of political opponents.  We did if to the Brits, the Confederates, and American Nazis.  There are people all around you who could never take a human life and even if their own life was on the line.  I am one of them.  But some of us can easily liquidate a million MAGA lunatics and sleep a solid eight hours.  It has happened thousands of times throughout human history.  

i  can’t pull a trigger on another human. But there have always been for millennia men capable of exterminating enemies of the state en masse.    They walk amongst us in plain sight, most unaware of what they are capable of.  We have 25mm people that need to be evacuated.  The world will applaud us.  

[Born to Run 6356]

The jury is going to be out less than 4 hours, debating on one or two charges, Trump will be convicted on 30sih of 34 counts.  But there aren't teeth to this one really.  However, consider this a warmup act for the rest of his criminal trials, which will go equally badly for him, and the rest of them have teeth.  

They are not starting before the election so they are likely never happening. Scotus says WhatsUp?

[SydneyCarton 47486]

41 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I know most of the books have been banned already.  But you’re likely well read enough to know that there are many instances of people administering mass extermination of political opponents.  We did if to the Brits, the Confederates, and American Nazis.  There are people all around you who could never take a human life and even if their own life was on the line.  I am one of them.  But some of us can easily liquidate a million MAGA lunatics and sleep a solid eight hours.  It has happened thousands of times throughout human history.  

i  can’t pull a trigger on another human. But there have always been for millennia men capable of exterminating enemies of the state en masse.    They walk amongst us in plain sight, most unaware of what they are capable of.  We have 25mm people that need to be evacuated.  The world will applaud us.  

I don't think anyone here is going to applaud advocating for genocide of the stupid. 

[pyrohornIII 4772]

I say we develop some dark money PAC to fund a project called Clean Up America or some such nonsense.  Then use that money to recruit from the MAGA masses those that will come and build these camps of segregation they are pushing in project 2025.  Ship them off to the boonies and form them into work groups.  Give them the responsibility to design these camps, reminding them of who will be housed there, which should ensure that austerity and poor workmanship are the common thread of all these camps, considering they are building them for less than human life forms.  

Keep telling them their paychecks will be there in two weeks.  That TFG is taking time to sign each one because he is so proud of all their work.  

Then lock the gate with all of them inside.  Tell them it's a test to see if the conditions are truly horrific enough.   Then begin intervention classes to counter the MAGA mindset.  Those that can get clean can go, others stay.  

And yes, it seems drastic and ridiculous, but this is the sort of thing they intend for people of color who are legal citizens.  Just flip the table on them.  

[YGIFS 19445]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't think anyone here is going to applaud advocating for genocide of the stupid. 

You don't have to applaud it.  Just look the other way, go have an eskimo pie or something /roadtrip

[SydneyCarton 47486]

3 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

I say we develop some dark money PAC to fund a project called Clean Up America or some such nonsense.  Then use that money to recruit from the MAGA masses those that will come and build these camps of segregation they are pushing in project 2025.  Ship them off to the boonies and form them into work groups.  Give them the responsibility to design these camps, reminding them of who will be housed there, which should ensure that austerity and poor workmanship are the common thread of all these camps, considering they are building them for less than human life forms.  

Keep telling them their paychecks will be there in two weeks.  That TFG is taking time to sign each one because he is so proud of all their work.  

Then lock the gate with all of them inside.  Tell them it's a test to see if the conditions are truly horrific enough.   Then begin intervention classes to counter the MAGA mindset.  Those that can get clean can go, others stay.  

And yes, it seems drastic and ridiculous, but this is the sort of thing they intend for people of color who are legal citizens.  Just flip the table on them.  

Listen, this is a great scene. And it rings true. The fact that there are posts like yours, or YGIFS, even if not entirely serious, is still tragic. 
 

 

[YGIFS 19445]

That is a great scene.  Didn't realize until a second watch that it has hints of his roles from both "Good Will Hunting" and "Chernobyl."  

But political hyperbole aside, whatever rants we go on this forum...we must accept there has been mass extermination of enemies of the state all throughout human history.  That will never, ever change aside from who will be doing the hangings.  And like all evil people, they don't come with a sword or a gun.  They come with a smile.  They come as your friend.  

[pyrohornIII 4772]

Thing is back 40 years ago when I was a staunch Limbaugh listening and Conservative Chronicle subscriber, I used to think that taking inner city people out of their environs and setting up camps or communes for them to give them a chance to be productive was the answer.   And others felt the same way.   And we thought we were brilliant for having such ideas.  

But I looked at it from a perspective of helping them get a fresh start, gain some self-respect.   I think many others looked at it as a way to just get them out of sight and to gentrify those old neighborhoods.   They have been championing similar ideas for homeless all across the country.    Just expand the program and move out more undesirables.    It's one reason our US penal system is so big, and there aren't any serious attempts at decriminalizing MJ, because you put all those miscreants back on the street, and lose the income off their incarceration that lines the pockets of the private prison system.

[YGIFS 19445]

Remember before private prisons got so profitable and ubiquitous...one of the primary drivers of low level drug possession resulting in mandatory sentencing was because convicted felons can't vote.  

In some districts, voter turnout isn't low because of apathy or low information.  It's because they know they can't vote in the first place.  And so their siblings don't vote, and their children don't vote.  Etc.  It was a cruel, but elegant, play.  

 

[Rimbo 25247]

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

The jury is going to be out less than 4 hours, debating on one or two charges, Trump will be convicted on 30sih of 34 counts.  But there aren't teeth to this one really.  However, consider this a warmup act for the rest of his criminal trials, which will go equally badly for him, and the rest of them have teeth.  

This one is also fun because Trump has to sit there and listen to people call him names.

[Rimbo 25247]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

incredulous

... incredulous?

[Fudge Nuggets 18995]

17 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Thing is back 40 years ago when I was a staunch Limbaugh listening and Conservative Chronicle subscriber, I used to think that taking inner city people out of their environs and setting up camps or communes for them to give them a chance to be productive was the answer.   And others felt the same way.   And we thought we were brilliant for having such ideas.  

You were dumbass back then.  At least you woke up, but millions of others never did.

[SydneyCarton 47486]

29 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

That is a great scene.  Didn't realize until a second watch that it has hints of his roles from both "Good Will Hunting" and "Chernobyl."  

But political hyperbole aside, whatever rants we go on this forum...we must accept there has been mass extermination of enemies of the state all throughout human history.  That will never, ever change aside from who will be doing the hangings.  And like all evil people, they don't come with a sword or a gun.  They come with a smile.  They come as your friend.  

While I appreciate your efforts to quote Goodfellas, accepting there as been mass extermination all throughout history and citing it as a reason to shrug our shoulders isn't exactly evolution. It's what folks are encouraging people to do over Ukraine, and other places. Guess we shouldn't have gotten all up in arms over the Holocaust, I mean it's what humans do.

When we stop trying to do better, then we should just stop as a species. 

[Rimbo 25247]

17 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Thing is back 40 years ago when I was a staunch Limbaugh listening and Conservative Chronicle subscriber, I used to think that taking inner city people out of their environs and setting up camps or communes for them to give them a chance to be productive was the answer.   And others felt the same way.   And we thought we were brilliant for having such ideas.  

But I looked at it from a perspective of helping them get a fresh start, gain some self-respect.   I think many others looked at it as a way to just get them out of sight and to gentrify those old neighborhoods.   They have been championing similar ideas for homeless all across the country.    Just expand the program and move out more undesirables.    It's one reason our US penal system is so big, and there aren't any serious attempts at decriminalizing MJ, because you put all those miscreants back on the street, and lose the income off their incarceration that lines the pockets of the private prison system.

Been there. At first, Limbaugh's "owning the libs" act was, in my mind, done with a wink and a smile; it was clearly for entertainment purposes, if a bit mean-spirited. When I left Amarillo and Limbaugh went on Fox, it was then that I started thinking that maybe Limbaugh want actually joking, and I can't really tell you if that was him changing, or me.

In retrospect, the mean-spirited nature of the "entertainment" he provided is what turns me off. And now that we're looking at tens of millions of voters willing to destroy democracy just to "own the libs," it's even less funny, now.

 

And please... Reagan would've despised Trump with every bit of his being. While they might have agreed on rounding up anyone gay or dark-skinned and on cozying up to billionaires; the Russia thing, the end of democracy, the stupidity... were the antithesis of what Reagan was about.

5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You were dumbass back then.  At least you woke up, but millions of others never did.

hehehe we're "woke" hehehe

[BamaATL 16250]

1 hour ago, Born to Run said:

2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

The jury is going to be out less than 4 hours, debating on one or two charges, Trump will be convicted on 30sih of 34 counts.  But there aren't teeth to this one really.  However, consider this a warmup act for the rest of his criminal trials, which will go equally badly for him, and the rest of them have teeth.  

They are not starting before the election so they are likely never happening. Scotus says WhatsUp?

We shall see, I'm personally of the opinion that Scotus in the next week or so will reject the broad basis of the immunity claim and that the Chutkin case will proceed starting at the end of June/early July.  

However, it doesn't really matter to me, one way or the other this will see trial, either now or after the election, which Biden wins.  

[Gatorubet 29764]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't think anyone here is going to applaud advocating for genocide of the stupid. 

Point of order: do these hypothetical stupid people have attractive, intelligent girlfriends, and wives??

I’m just looking at all different angles here, people.

 

[YGIFS 19445]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

While I appreciate your efforts to quote Goodfellas, accepting there as been mass extermination all throughout history and citing it as a reason to shrug our shoulders isn't exactly evolution. It's what folks are encouraging people to do over Ukraine, and other places. Guess we shouldn't have gotten all up in arms over the Holocaust, I mean it's what humans do.

When we stop trying to do better, then we should just stop as a species. 

again, fair points.  I'm not eloquent, but long-winded obviously, to explain the difference between ethnic/racial/religious genocide and political persecution.  They are, despite our better angels, two separate things.  America, as well as hundreds of nations and thousands of tribes/bands/groups have done both.  Always.  Now sometimes they get conflated of course, "Oh this different looking group over here doesn't believe what we believe should be our foreign policy or economic doctrine."  But that's a relatively new phenomenon of horror.  It was mostly just "they look different, came from another direction, and don't believe in our God of Biscuits, Jeff.  Let's get 'em!"  But millions have been exterminated not for their appearance of heritage, but because of they stood in opposition of the State.  I'm not condoning it, particularly because it most often was persecution for wanting a freer and more inclusive state, not a more brutal one---hence the severity of the punishment.  But this country from the 1740's to the 1940's has eviscerated millions of political opponents, rebels, and seditionists.  200 years of laying waste to those who stood in the way of our desire for a Democracy.  I didn't create that history.  But let's be honest, we're due.  One side or another, something is coming.  

[jimmyjazz 45206]

32 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

convicted felons can't vote.  

Not true, although the laws vary by state.  Few states permanently disallow voting by convicted felons, though.

On another note, some of you people are fucking nuts.

Edited May 15 by jimmyjazz

[YGIFS 19445]

Yes, now.  But it was the case for many states many years ago.  

[C-Man 26739]

Mitt Romney says Biden should’ve pardoned Trump. I mean, WTAF?!?!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna152420

Quote

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, argued that President Joe Biden should have pardoned Donald Trump after the Justice Department brought indictments against the former president and pressured New York prosecutors not to pursue Trump's ongoing hush money trial.

In an exclusive interview on MSNBC’s “The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle,” Romney expressed his dismay in response to Republican lawmakers, including the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s vice presidential prospects, rallying to Trump’s defense outside of the Manhattan courthouse where Trump’s hush money trial is taking place.

“How does that make you feel about Republicans?” Ruhle asked Romney.

Romney, a vocal critic of Trump, said, “I think it’s a terrible fault, for our country to see people attacking our legal system — that’s an enormous mistake,” he said. “I think it’s also demeaning for people to quite, apparently, try and run for vice president by donning the red tie and standing outside the courthouse and it’s just — I felt awkward.”

The Utah Republican argued that Biden should have pardoned Trump when the Justice Department announced charges against him and that the president “made an enormous error” by not pressuring New York prosecutors to drop their case against Trump. (Presidents can only pardon in federal cases.)

"He should have fought like crazy to keep this prosecution from going forward,” Romney said, referring to Biden. “It was a win-win for Donald Trump.”

Pressed by Ruhle whether that is Biden’s job to pardon Trump, Romney said he believes that Biden should have taken a cue from former President Lyndon B. Johnson, saying that the president could have stepped in and urged New York prosecutors to drop the case.

“I’ve been around for a while, if LBJ had been president, and he didn’t want something like this to happen, he’d have been all over that prosecutor saying, ‘You better not bring that forward or I’m gonna drive you out of office,’” he said.

Ruhle then noted that Romney supports having separate but equal branches of government.

“I do. ... I mean, you may disagree with this, but had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him ... President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and several of Trump's potential vice presidential picks issued public remarks in front of the Manhattan courthouse where Trump is required to attend court proceedings in the hush money trial against him, expressing their support and loyalty for him as the trial limits his time on the campaign trail. The potential VP picks, which include Ohio Sen. JD Vance and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, have echoed, without evidence, Trump's accusations of the trial being a Democrat-led effort to interfere with his campaign.

Biden and Trump on Wednesday agreed to participate in general election debates in June and September, at least the first of which will not have a live audience. Asked whether debates matter today and if he thinks it would influence votes, Romney, who unsuccessfully ran for president against Barack Obama in 2012, said people have “low expectations” for Biden but “much higher expectations” about Trump.

“The image that comes to mind is those two old guys on the Muppets, you know, that sat in the back that — Statler and Waldorf — that comes to mind, but I actually think there’ll be a huge audience for these debates,” he said. “I think people have very low expectations as to what President Biden will do. I think they have much higher expectations about President Trump and his competitiveness.”

Romney added that he has had “good exchanges” with Biden and that Trump “seems energetic and forceful” during his rallies, but he’s unsure about what to expect when they go head-to-head in debates.

“You got a cheering crowd and you got teleprompters you could read, so how will they do in person?” Romney said, referring to presidential campaign rallies. “I don’t know the answer to that, but I think America will be watching.”

 

[Dnaguy 11598]

6 hours ago, BamaATL said:

The jury is going to be out less than 4 hours, debating on one or two charges, Trump will be convicted on 30sih of 34 counts.  But there aren't teeth to this one really.  However, consider this a warmup act for the rest of his criminal trials, which will go equally badly for him, and the rest of them have teeth.  

Assuming he ever actually goes to trial on those.....

[Red Five 40449]

11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Mitt Romney says Biden should’ve pardoned Trump. I mean, WTAF?!?!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna152420

 

WTF? 

“I do. ... I mean, you may disagree with this, but had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him ... President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy.”

I mean... WTF?? Is Romney familiar at all with Trump? "Biden pardoned me because I did nothing wrong and even he knows it! Now I'm going to kick his ass in the election and put him in jail!". (half the country agrees)

And Romney is about as good as it gets over on team (R). 

[BamaATL 16250]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

WTF? 

“I do. ... I mean, you may disagree with this, but had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him ... President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy.”

I mean... WTF?? Is Romney familiar at all with Trump? "Biden pardoned me because I did nothing wrong and even he knows it! Now I'm going to kick his ass in the election and put him in jail!". (half the country agrees)

And Romney is about as good as it gets over on team (R). 

The fact that you can point to Romney as being the "good guy" is pretty telling about the modern Republican Party.  

[Fudge Nuggets 18995]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not true, although the laws vary by state.  Few states permanently disallow voting by convicted felons, though.

On another note, some of you people are fucking nuts.

A convicted felon cannot vote in Florida until they serve their sentence. Hopefully dotard gets his four month sentence handed down after July 5. 

[Underdog 28231]

4 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

At least you woke up, but millions of others never did.

Fortunately for us neither will Mr. Limbaugh ever again. 

[Biff Tannen 45210]

6 hours ago, BamaATL said:

However, consider this a warmup act for the rest of his criminal trials, which will go equally badly for him, and the rest of them have teeth.  

They don't have teeth, or even exist, if they don't happen before the election.  Which they will not.

[elfenix 34123]

7 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 totally at odds of what the party once was 

[Dahobbs 17251]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

Fortunately for us neither will Mr. Limbaugh ever again. 

We hope. A few stakes to the heart to make sure would be ideal. 

[Rimbo 25247]

31 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Yeah, it is.

[scottsins 1928]

You are not wrong. 1 out of 12. 8%. That's all it takes. This is an easy, "Is paying her to not release her story really a felony?"
Hell, I wonder that.

How many times do people need to explain this to you? The question you ask is not none that is asked of the jury.

[Slacks 6722]

22 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You know that they will be asked to answer specific questions leading to his guilt or acquittal, questions preceded by pages of detailed instructions on the applicable law.

Your quoted question won't be anywhere in there. Now, it is possible that, under notions of jury nullification, one of the jurors says fuck all that instruction shit and tries to answer your question instead.

 

2 hours ago, scottsins said:

How many times do people need to explain this to you? The question you ask is not none that is asked of the jury.

How many times did I mention it? 

But man, y'all are discounting people's stubbornness. This isn't about the 34 questions.

There is a great chance that one person, maybe even two, are just going to say "No" because they've made up their minds, regardless of the question. 

 

[atomheartbevo 89044]

9 hours ago, Rimbo said:

This one is also fun because Trump has to sit there and listen to people call him names.

His own lawyer calling him an "orange turd"

[ChiTownDoc 20905]

5 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

A convicted felon cannot vote in Florida until they serve their sentence. Hopefully dotard gets his four month sentence handed down after July 5. 

You know he’s not gonna vote anyways.  Even if he steps in a voter booth he would just get confused, annoyed, then walk out without voting.  

[Dahobbs 17251]

31 minutes ago, Slacks said:

 

How many times did I mention it? 

But man, y'all are discounting people's stubbornness. This isn't about the 34 questions.

There is a great chance that one person, maybe even two, are just going to say "No" because they've made up their minds, regardless of the question. 

 

Everyone realizes that you're really stubborn. 

[A-Tex Devil 2418]

7 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

You know he’s not gonna vote anyways.  Even if he steps in a voter booth he would just get confused, annoyed, then walk out without voting.  

[Slacks 6722]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Everyone realizes that you're really stubborn. 

Suspiciously stubborn.

[WhatTheBuck 28616]

11 hours ago, bolverk said:

Was that ever confirmed? I mean, I don't doubt it. Just curious.

But to reiterate, the moment that quote appeared, it signaled that the GOP was abandoning any pretense of having strongly held principled convictions other than the pursuit of raw power.

It was confirmed to my satisfaction. The comments were made to Ron Suskind and he reported them in his book The Price of Loyalty about former Alcoa CEO Paul O’Neill’s stint as Bush’s first Sec. of the Treasury. If I recall it was a few years later when someone who was present for the conversation, one or two people, came out and named Rove as the person who said it. Rove denied it, of course. Suskind wouldn’t confirm it but he didn’t deny it either. I don’t see why anyone would be motivated to attribute the quote to Rove if he didn’t say it. Karl appears often enough in the book that I’m sure Suskind interviewed him, probably multiple times. And it certainly sounds like the sort of thing ol’ “Turd Blossom” would say. I’m convinced he said it.

That’s a great book, btw. O’Neill’s stay was brief in the Bush/Cheney administration and Suskind’s book gave us one of the first peaks behind the curtain. It caused a stir when it disclosed:

”O’Neill had been made to understand by various colleagues in the White House that the President should not be expected to read reports. In his personal experience, the President didn’t even appear to have read the short memos he sent over.

”That made it especially troubling that Bush did not ask any questions. There are so many worth asking about each of these areas, O’Neill thought as he sat quietly, dozens of queries running through his head.

”’This meeting was like many of the meetings I would go to over the course of two years,’ he recalled. ‘The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection.’”

O’Neill also shared that Iraq was on the itinerary at the very first cabinet meeting and quoted Dick Cheney as telling him, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” 
 

[bolverk 29097]

38 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It was confirmed to my satisfaction. The comments were made to Ron Suskind and he reported them in his book The Price of Loyalty about former Alcoa CEO Paul O’Neill’s stint as Bush’s first Sec. of the Treasury. If I recall it was a few years later when someone who was present for the conversation, one or two people, came out and named Rove as the person who said it. Rove denied it, of course. Suskind wouldn’t confirm it but he didn’t deny it either. I don’t see why anyone would be motivated to attribute the quote to Rove if he didn’t say it. Karl appears often enough in the book that I’m sure Suskind interviewed him, probably multiple times. And it certainly sounds like the sort of thing ol’ “Turd Blossom” would say. I’m convinced he said it.

That’s a great book, btw. O’Neill’s stay was brief in the Bush/Cheney administration and Suskind’s book gave us one of the first peaks behind the curtain. It caused a stir when it disclosed:

”O’Neill had been made to understand by various colleagues in the White House that the President should not be expected to read reports. In his personal experience, the President didn’t even appear to have read the short memos he sent over.

”That made it especially troubling that Bush did not ask any questions. There are so many worth asking about each of these areas, O’Neill thought as he sat quietly, dozens of queries running through his head.

”’This meeting was like many of the meetings I would go to over the course of two years,’ he recalled. ‘The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection.’”

O’Neill also shared that Iraq was on the itinerary at the very first cabinet meeting and quoted Dick Cheney as telling him, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” 
 

 

I never read the book but distinctly recall reading the very long piece by the NYTimes and other reviews/essays about it, which included extensive quotes, including at least a couple of the ones you just provided. And, yes, the quote sounds exactly like something he'd say.

Living in Austin during the Bush presidency was a trip, especially his first term, because so many of his people still lived here and you'd see them out and about sometimes, For example, once I had to sit across the aisle from the Turd Blossom himself on a Southwest flight (I think to Dallas). You could just feel the twisted vibes coming off him while he had his nose buried intently in a bunch of papers, likely conniving some strategy to disenfranchise more Blacks in Cleveland or to discredit John Kerry. 

There was also a time when my ex-wife, my 4 or 5-year-old daughter, and I were grocery shopping. I think my wife was over in the produce section while the kid and I were in the deli section when we ran across Karen Hughes. She was squatting down, inspecting some cheese, and my daughter saw me stop and just stand there, scowling at the back of Karen's head. My daughter asked me what was wrong, and I told her that Karen was a very bad person.

After that, my daughter ran off to go find my ex, to whom she frantically said, "Mommy! There's an evil old woman over there trying to steal cheese!"

Edited May 16 by bolverk
graimmer

[Rimbo 25247]

"I hear you're free on Wednesdays." --Joe Biden

Edited May 16 by Rimbo

[atomheartbevo 89044]

He's so rich and going to win all of his court cases, but the head of the RNC needs your money

 

[Willfully Horn 7890]

5 hours ago, bolverk said:

 

I never read the book but distinctly recall reading the very long piece by the NYTimes and other reviews/essays about it, which included extensive quotes, including at least a couple of the ones you just provided. And, yes, the quote sounds exactly like something he'd say.

Living in Austin during the Bush presidency was a trip, especially his first term, because so many of his people still lived here and you'd see them out and about sometimes, For example, once I had to sit across the aisle from the Turd Blossom himself on a Southwest flight (I think to Dallas). You could just feel the twisted vibes coming off him while he had his nose buried intently in a bunch of papers, likely conniving some strategy to disenfranchise more Blacks in Cleveland or to discredit John Kerry. 

There was also a time when my ex-wife, my 4 or 5-year-old daughter, and I were grocery shopping. I think my wife was over in the produce section while the kid and I were in the deli section when we ran across Karen Hughes. She was squatting down, inspecting some cheese, and my daughter saw me stop and just stand there, scowling at the back of Karen's head. My daughter asked me what was wrong, and I told her that Karen was a very bad person.

After that, my daughter ran off to go find my ex, to whom she frantically said, "Mommy! There's an evil old woman over there trying to steal cheese!"

One of my worries during those years was that he and I would end up eating at the same restaurant. Hitler as a baby conundrum. Using a fork and targeting his eye. That worry was premised on my belief about where our country was headed, and, damn it, those concerns were well founded.

Edited May 16 by Willfully Horn

[Francisco 2.0 32215]

Gametime:  Thursday morning

Todd Blanche, who is agitated, is seeking to set up a moment in which the jurors will have to choose whether to believe Cohen, who continues to say that during a relatively brief phone call, he both informed Trump's bodyguard of the teenage prankster and discussed the hush-money payment he planned to make to Stormy Daniels. It’s a really interesting moment, and that’s where we leave the trial for now. The jurors are excused for their lunch break.

Trump leaves the courtroom, his practiced scowl on his face, and winks at a reporter at the back of the room for no clear reason.

Todd Blanche, with a few minutes left to go before the lunch break, is emphasizing his point, raising his pointer finger as his voice hits a higher register. He is suggesting it is ridiculous that Michael Cohen might have simultaneously reported a prankster to Keith Schiller and talked to Trump about the hush-money payment.

Blanche is seeking to get Cohen to crack, but Cohen is holding firm. “You can admit,” Blanche says, that you lied. “No sir, I can’t,” Cohen responds, sticking to his story.

Blanche seeks to start scolding the witness on behalf of the jurors, saying, “This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.” There is an objection and it is sustained.

Todd Blanche has initiated a long sequence of questioning about whether Michael Cohen received harassing phone calls from a 14-year-old prankster in October 2016. He appears to be hoping to suggest an alternative reason for Michael Cohen's call to Keith Schiller, Trump’s bodyguard.

Cohen had testified he made that call to inform Trump of how he planned to make the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels. Blanche seems to want to suggest to jurors that Cohen lied about the call's purpose.

Earlier this morning, the jury was asked about scheduling matters for next week, a likely signal to them that the trial would end soon. Now they are hearing about harassing phone calls from a prankster who ended up being 14 years old. I genuinely wonder what they must be thinking right now.

As expected, Blanche has now suggested that Cohen was not, in fact, telling Trump about his plans to make the hush money payment to Trump but instead, simply reporting that he was being pranked by a teenager.

Todd Blanche has brought up a phone call that Michael Cohen talked about during direct testimony, when he spoke to Trump over Trump’s bodyguard’s cellphone. Cohen said that during this conversation, he told Trump that the payment to Stormy Daniels had been made. Blanche is trying to cast doubt on that account, saying it was the first time that Cohen had discussed this call.

Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, who has landed successful objections throughout the day, objects again, and asks to approach. The lawyers are now at the bench. Cohen is shaking his head, glancing at jurors. It appears that he began to crack a smile, but then he thought better of it. He accepts a new cup of water from a court officer.

After the sidebar conversation with the judge, Emil Bove, one of Trump's lawyers, returns to the defense table, sits down and whispers something to Trump. The former president shakes his head and grimaces.

Todd Blanche is now asking about an embarrassing episode for Michael Cohen, who used an artificial intelligence program to generate legal citations for his previous lawyer. The cases listed by the software were not real cases.

This made headlines, and was, as Jonah noted, embarrassing. But Cohen just explained what happened calmly, and I think it took some of the sting out of it.

And Blanche moves on quickly, barely pausing before moving onto another topic, which runs the risk of not punctuating the point for the jury.

Michael Cohen, now five hours into his cross-examination, has yet to lose control, even as Todd Blanche brings up a series of seeming slights and humiliations that Cohen suffered after Trump’s election in 2016.

Blanche is making clear that Cohen was less than candid when he said he didn’t want a job, as he walks through all the people to whom Cohen complained about being left behind. But it underscores a theme that’s been true for awhile — one I wrote about first in 2018 and repeatedly since — that Trump went out of his way to abuse Cohen.

Todd Blanche seemed briefly to have closed the loop here, as he raised his voice and noted that Michael Cohen had said he wanted to be chief of staff. “That was for my ego, yes,” Cohen admitted, and it appeared as if Blanche had landed a blow. But now Cohen is reiterating that he wanted to be Trump's personal attorney. This is the most direct combat we’ve seen between these two, and it’s not clear who is getting the better of whom.

It will be interesting to see how Michael Cohen squares his testimony that he did not want a White House role with the evidence he is responding to, which suggests he did. We saw a bit earlier that when Cohen is under pressure, he can split hairs, playing semantic games about past vs. present.

Cohen responds: “I wanted a hybrid position, one where I would have the access to President Trump but not be a White House employee.” It’s a helpful answer for prosecutors, underscoring, as they have said, that Cohen was bent on being close to Trump.

Trump, who has had his eyes closed through much of this trial so far, is now glaring at Cohen.

The theme of this line of questioning is that Michael Cohen was again rejected, this time for a job, and is seeking payback.

And that Cohen lied about this desire under oath.

Cohen has been standing firm in his testimony, refusing to give in to Todd Blanche. This appears to be frustrating Blanche, who just moments ago rubbed his forehead after one of Cohen’s answers.

Todd Blanche is now asking Michael Cohen if he wanted a job in the Trump White House. Cohen testified to the House in 2019 that he didn’t want one. But other witnesses, like Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels's former lawyer, have testified that Cohen was interested and sad he was being left behind. Blanche will try to frame this as another lie from Cohen.

“You really wanted to work in the White House, correct?” Blanche says, turning up the temperature. Cohen denies that he did: “No sir.” Blanche says that Cohen specifically wanted to be White House chief of staff, and Cohen again denies it.

Blanche is now asking Cohen about texts in which he discussed the possibility of being White House chief of staff. The texts themselves could be seen as someone merely kibbitzing, though they also undercut something Cohen has testified to previously.

Though none of the texts were definitive, there were a lot of them, and they do clearly show that Cohen was at least interested in the idea. When Reince Priebus was finally named chief of staff, Cohen told his daughter he was disappointed, Blanche shows. Cohen admits here that he was disappointed.

Todd Blanche, the defense lawyer, just tried a line of questioning that didn’t seem to land, having to do with whether Michael Cohen sought a letter in 2018 requesting leniency from federal prosecutors. Cohen says he told his lawyer that he “wasn’t interested” in such a letter, so “let’s not even talk about it.” It didn’t seem as if Blanche got the answer he expected during that exchange. He moved on.

This appears to be a reference to the fact that Cohen didn’t have a formal cooperation agreement with the Southern District of New York's prosecutors when he pleaded guilty in 2018, because he was unwilling to disclose everything he knew about any possible wrongdoing. He would have had to do so in order to get the letter. It seems like Blanche may have wanted to point out that Cohen wanted to keep some things hidden even as he pleaded guilty.

Todd Blanche is questioning Michael Cohen about his efforts, which began soon after he went to prison, to have his sentence reduced based on his cooperation with prosecutors working for the special counsel, Robert Mueller. Blanche will almost certainly ask Cohen about using his testimony in this trial to seek an end to his current supervised release.

It’s not clear that the jury is going to hold it against him that he tried to shorten his prison sentence and supervised release.

Susan Hoffinger, a prosecutor, prepared the jury for these questions, so they already know that Cohen has sought to use his cooperation to aid his own situation.

Todd Blanche, perhaps realizing that Michael Cohen has met with many sets of prosecutors and his testimony about their conversations can become a bit confusing, seeks to have Cohen himself clear it up. “Help the jury understand that,” he says. “There’s two separate prosecutors?”

Cohen confirms that he met with both the special counsel’s office in Washington, during the Russia investigation, and Manhattan federal prosecutors, in the office where Blanche once worked.

And now, Blanche adds a third set of prosecutors with whom Cohen spoke: those in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, the prosecutors here at this trial, who are New York state prosecutors.

Justice Merchan begins the post-break session by saying there will be no court next Wednesday after all, because the jurors will not be free to convene then. This suggests the case may stretch past Memorial Day weekend.

After a brief break, the prosecutors are arguing that Todd Blanche, early in his questioning, asked questions that seemed to suggest that Trump's indictment was still sealed on March 30. The indictment was unsealed that evening, after The Times broke the news. The unsealing allowed the district attorney’s office to confirm that this news, of incredible public interest, was true.

Prosecutors ask Justice Merchan to explain this sequence to the jury. Merchan agrees that the jury should be advised, and that the question is how he should do so.

He decides that Blanche can do it in his own questioning. But one of the prosecutors, Matthew Colangelo — urged on by another prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, who is whispering loudly to him — says that it it should come from Merchan because the questions were misleading.

Merchan tells prosecutors that they can draft a version of an order that the judge himself would give if Blanche’s corrections end up being insufficient.

Earlier in his testimony, Michael Cohen made Robert Costello, a lawyer who approached him in 2018 when Cohen was under investigation, sound as though he were an emissary from the Trump team, seeking to keep Cohen loyal to the president. Blanche just sought to complicate that picture, asking Cohen if Costello told him he had the option to cooperate with law enforcement instead. Cohen's reponse to this was not clear.

Our reporting shows that Costello’s role was complex, and that Cohen did accept legal advice from him during that time.

We’re coming up on about an hour and 45 minutes of cross-examination this morning. We're near the time that Trump’s surrogates have typically been going outside to speak to the public, slamming the case and trial.

A key question the jurors will have to answer for themselves is on what date — if at all — they believe Michael Cohen began telling the truth. Was it this week, when he started testifying in this case? Or before then? Todd Blanche is demonstrating that Cohen told lies, big and small, over a long period of time and for various reasons.

At the same time, prosecutors have and will demonstrate in closing arguments that Trump has told lies, big and small, about a number of people and issues in this case.

Jurors might also need to consider a more philosophical question: can a liar sometimes tell the truth?

Michael Cohen appears less sad now, and he seems to be fighting back a bit. He tries to explain the disparity Todd Blanche has been harping on involving whether he sought a pardon. Cohen says a pardon was dangled, and he asked his lawyers, “Is this really something that they’re talking about? Can you find out?” But Blanche, using a quiet voice, is continuing to focus on what he says were Cohen’s lies about this episode.

Blanche may have successfully made Cohen come across as dishonest. But he has yet to succeed in the goal of getting under Cohen’s skin.

Todd Blanche seems to have seized on another lie: Michael Cohen had testified years ago that he had never asked for a pardon, but testifies here today — as he did in a deposition — that he did, in fact, direct his lawyers to explore the possibility of a pardon.

Trump squinted as Cohen as he answered questions about the pardon and shook his head a bit at Cohen’s response.

Blanche says that Cohen has explained the distance between the two statements in different ways. At one point, under oath, he said that he had not explored a pardon, his lawyers had. At another point, also apparently under oath, he said that that the seeming disparity stemmed from a semantic distinction between the past and present tenses.

Blanche is pushing Cohen on whether he played semantics about whether he sought a pardon from Trump or not. Cohen admits he asked his lawyers to explore the possibility, although he testified before a House panel that he would never have accepted one. Cohen points out — correctly, as we broke the story — that Trump was dangling pardons to people connected to the special counsel's investigation into the Trump campaign's possible ties to Russia.

Todd Blanche is now going over the complex financial transactions that allowed Michael Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels, perhaps the closest he’s gotten to the subject matter of this particular case all day.

He notes that Cohen hid those transactions from his wife, apparently seeking to call into question whether Cohen was really as concerned about his family — and his wife — as he suggested when explaining his federal guilty plea.

Blanche just asked Cohen about a number of different events, including an exchange of public statements with Michael Avenatti, one of Stormy Daniels's lawyers, and conversations with his wife. He ended by asking Cohen if he had deleted his communications with his wife around that time, and Cohen seemed genuinely stumped. Then Blanche asks if Cohen, around this time, had taken to deleting his texts more generally.

The defense is trying to suggest that Cohen has a history of manipulating the types of phone records that prosecutors have used here to bolster their case.

This line of questioning also has the effect of reinforcing that Cohen has been routinely deceptive and focused on concealment.

Throughout his cross-examination today, Michael Cohen has remained even-keeled on the witness stand. He appeared mildly frustrated a few moments ago and just shook his head after he answered one of Todd Blanche’s most recent questions.

He notes that Cohen hid those transactions from his wife, apparently seeking to call into question whether Cohen was really as concerned about his family — and his wife — as he suggested when explaining his federal guilty plea.

And as expected, Todd Blanche moves to connect Michael Cohen having lied in his federal sentencing, when the outcome affected him personally, to his testimony here. “Do you have any doubt in your mind that the outcome of this trial affects you personally?” Blanche asks.

Todd Blanche is dragging out of Michael Cohen a lack of remorse. Cohen has talked publicly about wanting to right the wrongs he committed while working for Trump. Blanche is getting him to acknowledge he doesn’t think he should have been charged.

Blanche asks Cohen about blaming a lot of people for the conduct for which he was convicted. Cohen freely acknowledges he has.

Tension was missing from Todd Blanche’s questioning of Cohen on Tuesday. But here, today, the room feels tense to me. This is a compelling question-and-answer session, and the jurors appear to be responding, paying close attention.

So many House Republicans have gone to New York to support Trump at his trial that it’s gumming up the works for G.O.P. priorities on Capitol Hill, including some of their most partisan plans.

With Representatives Andy Biggs of Arizona and Anna Paulina Luna and Mike Waltz of Florida all at the trial, the House Oversight Committee has been forced to postpone its planned vote to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress. Today’s vote has been pushed back from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. to allow members to return to Washington from New York.

Todd Blanche is now demonstrating for the jury that Michael Cohen lied under oath for different reasons. By his own admission, it wasn’t only to demonstrate his loyalty to Trump. He lied also, Cohen admits, because the stakes affected him personally.

As Blanche continues to hammer home what Cohen says were his lies to a federal judge, a prosecutor objects several times. The judge sustains the objections. The objections may have been made because Blanche had already asked a version of the same questions.

That admission could cause some problems for the prosecution. Blanche has already shown vividly through Cohen's podcast clips that this case affects Cohen in a deeply personal way and that he’s desperate for revenge against Trump. This may cause jurors to wonder whether Cohen might be willing to stretch the truth to get it.

Todd Blanche continues to press his complicated point, about what Michael Cohen has said about his previous guilty pleas. Blanche notes that Cohen was asked if he lied because the stakes affected him personally. Cohen says yes. Blanche then asks if that is still true. Cohen says yes, again, but his voice breaks a little. He looks tired, and shifts his body briefly on the stand. His voice sounds husky.

One — or several — falsehoods under oath can last a lifetime.  Blanche is taking what Cohen has said were lies to a federal judge and seeking to impeach the other testimony he has given under oath, including to Congress. And of course, he seems likely to move on to trying to impeach Cohen's testimony at this trial soon.

Todd Blanche has now, on a couple of occasions, listened as Michael Cohen has explained, in long form, some of his prior actions, before asking him, sharply, if he was “finished.” Finally, he seems to get annoyed with Cohen, and snaps, “Please don’t make a speech.”

Michael Cohen is a disbarred lawyer, and he does not always speak precisely, as lawyers are trained to do. Todd Blanche took advantage of that throughout this most recent line of questioning. Now, he finally arrives at the moment that prosecutors sought to prepare this jury for: That Cohen said under oath at Trump's civil fraud trial that he had lied to a federal judge. It’s unclear whether prosecutors’ attempt will stay in the jurors’ heads, or whether they’ll find this convincing.

This could be compelling — or confusing. It's really hard to know how jurors, including the two lawyers on the panel, are taking it. They look engaged, but there are no other obvious signs of the impression Blanche is making right now.

Todd Blanche is using Michael Cohen’s sweeping claims of widespread corruption — in which Cohen has accused not just Manhattan federal prosecutors but the judge in his case of being out to get him — against him. He is also using his previous testimony that he didn’t commit the crimes to which he pleaded against him.

Todd Blanche is seeking to show the jury that Michael Cohen has not fully taken responsibility for his crimes and still blames a range of people, quite implausibly, for being corrupt. The irony is that by showing that Cohen lashing out at the judge and prosecutors, Blanche is making him sound a lot like his former boss, and Blanche’s current client, Donald Trump.

This is a delicate moment for Michael Cohen, and the prosecution. This case largely rests on Cohen tying Trump to knowledge of how the false business records at the center of the case were structured. Todd Blanche is creating a portrait of Cohen as an indiscriminate liar who changes his story situationally.

Todd Blanche is now focusing on Michael Cohen’s guilty plea in August 2018, and gets Cohen to say that he “never denied the underlying facts” of the plea, and that he simply thought he shouldn’t have been charged. Blanche then asks if prosecutors pressured him to plead guilty, and Cohen says his lawyer conveyed that he had only 48 hours to decide.

Blanche uses the language of the law. When Cohen pleaded, he was asked whether anyone had “threatened or induced you to plead guilty.” Blanche links that to Cohen saying his lawyer told him his wife was under threat, and suggests that when Cohen said no to that question, he lied. Cohen agrees that he did.

Blanche is now gaining some steam with his cross-examination, noting that Cohen has said under oath that he accepted responsibility and then later undermined that outside of court.

This is very similar to what tripped Cohen up when he was questioned about his federal guilty pleas at Trump’s civil fraud trial. He was led into saying he had lied about one of the pleas itself. But earlier in the trial he clarified that he thought he had not been charged, but was not objecting to the underlying facts. Ever since, Trump’s lawyers have accused Cohen of perjury in that moment.

Todd Blanche is now asking about the F.B.I. search of Michael Cohen’s phones and his apartment, hotel room and office in April 2018, and the investigation into taxi medallions that Cohen had. Cohen walks through his partnership with a man who cooperated with the investigation, coherently. The jurors are paying close attention to Cohen right now.

Cohen is coming across as knowledgeable and articulate about the arcane corners of the New York City taxi industry. He even provided what he said was the exact number of the medallions that allow taxis to operate here.

This is a strange and seemingly irrelevant cul-de-sac, as Blanche invites Cohen to explain how the taxi medallion business works. The question in my mind listening to this right now is: Why do I care?

Blanche is hopefully building to some questions about the actual case at hand.

Part of Todd Blanche's strategy seems to be repeating the word “lie” in every other sentence. If you’re a bored juror right now, you are hearing lie, lie, lie, lie. Even if you’re having trouble following the substance of Cohen's various lies, you are hearing an overall picture of dishonesty.

The risk for the defense here is that the jurors are reminded during closing arguments that Trump hired this self-acknowledged liar and made him his lawyer, and hold Trump accountable for that.

So far today, Todd Blanche has yet to ask Michael Cohen about anything in connection to the actual case that's on trial.

Trump's lawyers have focused on impeaching the credibility of the prosecution's two biggest witnesses, Stormy Daniels and Cohen. Susan Necheles’s cross-examination of Daniels was largely focused and had an arc. Blanche’s cross-examination of Cohen has been all over the place.

Todd Blanche is now having Michael Cohen recall the lies he told to Congress about how many times he spoke to Trump about a possible Trump Tower project in Moscow. Blanche’s goal is to show the jury Cohen is opportunistic even under oath. However, these were lies that Cohen has said he told to protect Trump.

Even though Cohen has said he was lying to protect Trump, that’s not what Blanche is focused on here. “You knew you were lying, correct?” Blanche says. “Yes,” Cohen responds.

Todd Blanche, referring to Michael Cohen’s many instances of testifying in the past, in courts and in Congress, asks him if he swore an oath when he testified. It seems as if Blanche is warming up to call Cohen’s past testimony into question, in hopes of casting doubt on his testimony at this trial. Trump’s lawyers have accused Cohen of lying under oath, as recently as in Trump’s civil fraud trial late last year.

Prosecutors had done a kind of controlled-burn of this territory on Tuesday, walking Cohen through many of his previous lies.

Michael Cohen is asked if he responded to a post on Truth Social, Trump's social media platform, in which Trump attacked Cohen and Stormy Daniels. He responds: “I’m not on Truth Social, sir.” But when asked if he responded elsewhere by calling Trump “dumbass Donald,” he agrees that he did.

Keep in mind that the prosecution used earlier witnesses to introduce Michael Cohen to the jury as an outsized personality. And Cohen has not been shy on the stand about his hatred of Trump. These clips, while entertaining, might not come as a huge shock to the jury.

While the clips may not shock the jury, they do underscore why prosecutors repeatedly implored Cohen to stop talking before — and during — the trial.

Todd Blanche asks Michael Cohen if he believes his podcasts and media interviews played a role in Trump's indictment. “I took some credit, yes,” he says

Unlike on Tuesday, when Trump had his eyes closed and appeared to be dozing through much of Cohen's cross-examination, he is now paying close attention, as clips play of Cohen describing how much he hates Trump and wants him to rot in prison.

Todd Blanche plays a second clip of Michael Cohen from his podcast, in which he says he hopes “that this man ends up in prison,” and “revenge is a dish best served cold,” and “you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to me and my family.”

Cohen's New York accent — he is from the Five Towns, on Long Island — is very pronounced in the podcast clips.

Michael Cohen’s voice sounded truly bizarre in that podcast clip celebrating Trump's indictment on March 30 last year. Giddy, high-pitched, and he was speaking so fast that if you didn’t know better you’d think the tape had been artificially sped up.

It also offered jurors a completely different version of the Cohen they are seeing on the witness stand, where he has remained calm and deliberate with every word.

We are now hearing a recording of Michael Cohen celebrating Trump's indictment on his podcast. His voice is loud, over-energized, enthusiastic to the point of seeming off-putting.

Some of the jurors peered up at Cohen, almost seeming a little embarrassed.

Cohen’s face sinks as he hears that clip of his voice. Blanche asks him if that was the first time that he had said he wanted Trump to feel what Cohen himself had felt when he was prosecuted. Cohen says that he had expressed that sentiment before.

In the overflow room, laughter is heard as Justice Merchan shoots down Todd Blanche, Trump’s lawyer. Blanche asked for a sidebar and got a dismissive “no” from Merchan.

We’ve now had 10 objections in less than 20 minutes.

Todd Blanche began questioning Michael Cohen about his texts with an investigator with the Manhattan district attorney's office, Jeremy Rosenberg, who was reportedly suspended for his interactions with Cohen. Blanche was going to ask Cohen about those texts, but Susan Hoffinger, one of the prosecutors, stood up and asked for a mid-cross voir dire, so she could question Cohen about the evidence in the middle of his cross-examination.

When she established that the texts had been taken out of context, she called for a sidebar. Her objection was sustained, so Blanche may be prevented from doing what he was trying to do with these texts. Now, he’s starting another attempt.

Cohen says that he learned that Trump was indicted before the indictment was unsealed in the courtroom, when The New York Times broke that news in 2023. He says Rosenberg alerted him to that article.

A team of six reporters broke that story. Five of us are covering the trial for The Times: Kate Christobek, Ben Protess, Willy Rashbaum, Nate Schweber and me.

Blanche’s point here seems to be that Rosenberg, the investigator, did something inappropriate, alerting Cohen to the fact that the indictment had been handed up. But we broke that news widely before the indictment was unsealed; Cohen was certainly not alone in having learned it.

For those of you keeping score at home, we’re now on our third sidebar already.

The jurors, who have been attending this trial since the week of April 15, are staring ahead or out into the courtroom during the latest sidebar. On Tuesday, as Blanche delivered a fairly meandering cross-examination of Cohen, they started to seem bored.

Todd Blanche, leading the cross-examination for the defense, came out of the gate firing on Tuesday, with a furious accusation — involving a profane insult he said Cohen had directed at him online. (The prosecution objected and it was sustained.) Today, in the early going, he is much less intense.

We just got a hint as to what the long sidebar may have been about: scheduling issues. The judge just told the jurors that, if they are OK with it, court may be in session next Wednesday, despite the fact that the trial is usually off on Wednesdays.

This suggests that the prosecutors and the defense were quibbling over the calendar. The defense sought to delay the trial many times before it started, and Trump has complained that it was going too fast.

Michael Cohen has been called back to the stand. He ambles past the defense table, as we wait for the jury to be brought in.

A very long sidebar is finally over. We do not know what it was about, but the jurors were summoned almost 18 minutes late this morning. When the transcript is sent later in the day, we'll find out what was discussed.

Trump’s lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, leans over after the sidebar and whispers something to the former president, covering up his mouth so no one can see his lips move. Trump nods once at the end of their short conversation.

Outside in the hallway, before entering the courtroom, Trump seemed to potentially violate the gag order that forbids him from talking about prosecutors in the case, other than Alvin Bragg. He made what sounded like a reference to Matthew Colangelo, one of the prosecutors here, saying, “a lead person from the D.O.J. is running the trial,” and baselessly adding, “So Biden’s office is running this trial.” Colangelo used to work at the Department of Justice, and Trump has used similar language to describe him in the past.

It’s not clear, given what Trump said, that prosecutors would be able to show that it was a clear violation of his gag order. We will watch to see whether they seek to push the issue. Justice Merchan has warned Trump that he could go to jail if he violates the order again, but he is unlikely to act unless prosecutors press him on the matter.

The lawyers and the judge are having one of the longest sidebars that have taken place during this trial, if not the longest. Their voices are louder than usual, though the words they're saying aren't clear.

Although Trump has a large group of supporters sitting behind him, he is nearly alone at the defense table as most of his lawyers participate in the sidebar. Susan Necheles, the longest-serving lawyer on his team, is at the table but seated at a distance from him.

The overflow courtroom down the hall from the courtroom where the trial is taking place is at capacity, every seat taken. As the trial moves towards its conclusion, interest seems to be peaking.

Court officers are currently explaining, yet again, the courtroom's no-cellphone policy to the people here with Trump.

 

Edited May 16 by Francisco 2.0

[BamaATL 16250]

4 minutes into Trump being in court, CNN is reporting that Trump is already asleep.  

[Red Five 40449]

Stupid non-lawyer question. If the defense doesn't call a single person to the stand, isn't that kind of a message to the jury that they have no defense?

In reality, I guess they couldn't find someone willing to perjure themselves?

[Dahobbs 17251]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Stupid non-lawyer question. If the defense doesn't call a single person to the stand, isn't that kind of a message to the jury that they have no defense?

In reality, I guess they couldn't find someone willing to perjure themselves?

Not necessarily. Often times the prosecutor and the defense would call many of the same witnesses. The defense can either insert its case into cross-examination of the witnesses in the prosecution's case or it can recall the witnesses after the prosecution rests. It isn't clear in this case that Trump is going to have any other witnesses, so his legal team may just be going with the former strategy. 

[DaysOff 7698]

4 minutes into Trump being in court, CNN is reporting that Trump is already asleep.  

Imagine how early he has to get up to change his diaper and do hair and makeup.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11561]

it happens more often than you'd think.  the defense can still be a number of different things: "that stuff you said i did doesn't meet the statute." "that guy that is the lynchpin to the whole thing just misremembered the conversation." whatever. those sorts of defenses don't lend themselves to witnesses for the defense.  

[Biff Tannen 45210]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

He's so rich and going to win all of his court cases, but the head of the RNC needs your money

 

Maybe it's just me, but if your campaign fundraising message begins with "We're here in court [to support our 4x indicted, 90+ felony candidate]", it seems like probably not the best thing.