Tuesday, May 07, 2024

Stormy Daniels Testifies

Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who received $130,000 in 2016 in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Donald Trump, has been called to the stand to testify in the former president's trial.

More

Comments

Is the former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Avenatti going to be with her?

#1 | Posted by fishpaw at 2024-05-07 12:27 PM

The humiliation of The Don.

No wonder Melania won't show her face any where near that court house.

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 12:28 PM

What the hell is the use of writing a check to pay someone to keep their mouth shut, if they're just gonna get on the stand and blab about what you paid them off for?

Trump oughta get his money back from that forked tongue strumpet.

#3 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-05-07 12:41 PM

Stormy Daniels 'spanked' pajama-clad Donald Trump with Forbes magazine in secret hotel rendezvous

www.themirror.com

Donnie needs discipline? Bad Donnie!

Now, roll over and cry.

#4 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-05-07 12:50 PM

I wonder how Ivanka feels knowing that a sex worker her father had an affair with reminds him of her?

#5 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-05-07 01:00 PM

apnews.com

And this is the bomb shell witness?

#6 | Posted by fishpaw at 2024-05-07 01:14 PM

Trump is so low that a blackmailing porn star has the moral high ground.

#7 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-05-07 01:19 PM

The fat lady is warming up to sing Trump's swan song ...

What Daniels described was a Harvey Weinstein encounter, where Trump dangled an appearance on The Apprentice and Daniel felt she couldn't leave.

#8 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-05-07 01:22 PM

I wonder how Ivanka feels knowing that a sex worker her father had an affair with reminds him of her?

#5 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce

That's some creepy stuff.

Daniels was in her 20's and Trump in his 60's when this episode occurred.

Women voters are paying attention ...

#9 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-05-07 01:24 PM

Women voters are paying attention ...

#9 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Are they? I would bet maga husbands are making sure their maga wives don't care.

We will see how many paid attention after the verdict comes down.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 01:28 PM

Trump is so low that a blackmailing porn star has the moral high ground.

#7 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

She didn't blackmail him. Trump/Cohen reached out to her after the grab them by the kitty tape came out because they wanted to make sure she kept quiet.
She took the deal because she was worried for the safety of her and her family since she had already been threatened.

#11 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-05-07 01:29 PM

Okay,

Trump is so low that a porn star has the moral high ground.

Howzthat?

#12 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-05-07 01:37 PM

And this is the bomb shell witness?

#6 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

She is definitely A bombshell witness. It's up to you whether she is THE bombshell witness. It isn't over until it's over!

Bombshell - a person who is the cause and object of sensational and usually widespread attention, excitement, or attraction. a blonde bombshell [=a glamorously attractive blonde woman]

So Yeah. By definition she is a bombshell. And a witness that is testifying to Trumpy's lies and debauchery.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 01:42 PM

Howzthat?

#12 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

Lee is back in his idiot Maga mode.

#14 | Posted by kudzu at 2024-05-07 01:43 PM

It's up to you whether she is THE bombshell witness.

I don't think Fishy read the article he posted.

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-07 01:49 PM

Trump is so low that a porn star has the moral high ground.
Howzthat?

#12 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

I don't consider adult entertainment to be immoral. Do you?

#16 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-05-07 01:49 PM

Where's Fat Smelvis' loving wife?

#17 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-05-07 01:59 PM

I consider people in adult entertainment have higher morals than Donald Trump.

That's plainly spelled out in my post.

What do you think I said?

#18 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-05-07 02:05 PM

#3 Lee...

It just shows how powerless the Donald truly is.
He likes to imagine himself a Mafioso, a Don, but he
only is in his mind.

And Donald's Chumps would sell the farm to fund or support him...

#19 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-05-07 02:05 PM

And this is the bomb shell witness?

#6 | POSTED BY FISHPOOP AT 2024-05-07 01:14 PM | FLAG: PPPFFFTTTTTTT

you are such a effinidiot... I bet you thought it funny when Trumpanzee chose to flaunt Bill Clinton's mistresses in front of Hillary rather than discuss policy.
Trumpanzee tried to cover up his past trampiness while flaunting old news about Bill... I guess to make Hillary seem like less than a woman or whatever goes though republicl0wns minds.

You are aware that this cl0wnshow stems out of the 2016 election right? Trumpanzee the stable genius created this situation with his man hoe calling another man a hoe sillieness.

The republicl0wns haven't learned to stop using the sexual proclivities of Bill Clinton against them.

It ALWAYS turn out bad for republicl0wns....

#20 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-05-07 02:06 PM

#17

She's embarrassed. That's why his family isn't there. That's why his former cabinet isn't there. He's morally bankrupt.

#21 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-05-07 02:06 PM

Defense moves for a mistrial over Daniels' testimony
www.newsweek.com

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-07 02:14 PM

Defense moves for a mistrial

Of course they do.

#23 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-07 02:16 PM

Judge denies defense's motion for mistrial

Judge Juan Merchan has denied the defense's motion for a mistrial.

Merchan agreed with Trump's attorney Todd Blanche that "some things were better left unsaid," but notes that Daniels was "a little difficult to control" and that he does believe there were guardrails in place.

"I don't believe we're at a point where mistrial is warranted," the judge says.
www.newsweek.com

#24 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2024-05-07 02:20 PM

Defense moves for a mistrial over Daniels' testimony
www.newsweek.com
#22 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2024-05-07 02:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:OKAY

I watched this earlier today.
www.youtube.com
This guy produces interesting content. If you watch till the end he discusses what he thinks is the possibility of a mistrial in this case... around 13 minutes

#25 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-05-07 02:41 PM

Mistrial? Did she testify about the micro-shroom?

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-07 02:45 PM

"Merchan agreed with Trump's attorney Todd Blanche that "some things were better left unsaid," but notes that Daniels was "a little difficult to control" and that he does believe there were guardrails in place."

She is telling her story as she remembers it under oath. And Trumpy's attorneys could have objected to anything she said at any time.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 02:48 PM

The cl0wns are hoping for a mistrial using it as a delay tactic.

#28 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2024-05-07 02:52 PM

If you watch till the end he discusses what he thinks is the possibility of a mistrial in this case... around 13 minutes

He's talking about the defense causing a mistrial.

Not the Stormy testimony.

#29 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-05-07 02:53 PM

If I am reading this right, the defense is declaring her testimony (which went off the rails twice according to the newsweek article) as "prejudicial". I haven't heard it, but that is what Trumps defense is saying.

"A mistrial should be granted only when there are improprieties in the trial so serious
that they substantially and irreparably prejudice the defendant's case and make it
impossible for the defendant to receive a fair and impartial verdict.
defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu

RightisRight the video you gave was a mistrial for "Misconduct by the Defendant" - which he said wouldn't happen.

#30 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-05-07 02:59 PM

"A mistrial should be granted only when there are improprieties in the trial so serious.."

Trumpy's attorneys could have objected at anytime to anything she said. They choose not to. For whatever reason. That's on them.

#31 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 03:12 PM

------- MAGATs are the ------- on shoes of the Republic.

#32 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-07 03:13 PM

Dotard paid $130,000 to have sex with someone who reminds him of his daughter. What a degenerate.

#33 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2024-05-07 03:18 PM

Re 32

Funny! Yet. Not funny!

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 03:21 PM

A strong rumor has it that Orange Adolf had sex with a pre-teen and teenage Vanky.
He even impregnated her and she had to have an abortion. ... and she has used "going public" about it as leverage.

#35 | Posted by a_monson at 2024-05-07 03:26 PM

Your next president hooked up with a chick with a face piercing.

Ugh.

Welcome to the United States of Tik Tok.

#36 | Posted by madbomber at 2024-05-07 03:27 PM

Re 32

And Trumpy is like that piece of toilet paper you just cannot get off your shoes without touching the -------.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 03:31 PM

- Dotard paid $130,000 to have sex with someone

That's over $4k a second for DT... she must be a lot better than she looks!

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-07 03:48 PM

"I have just recently been told who the witness is today. This is unprecedented, no time for lawyers to prepare. No Judge has ever run a trial in such a biased and partisan way," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

"He is CROOKED & HIGHLY CONFLICTED, even taking away my First Amendment Rights. Now he's threatening me with JAIL, & THEY HAVE NO CASE - This according to virtually all Legal Scholars & Experts! Why isn't the Fake News Media reporting his Conflict?" he added.

The former president seems to have deleted the message from his Truth Social account shortly after posting it. Newsweek has reached out to Trump's spokesperson for comment via email."

www.newsweek.com

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-07 04:12 PM

I heard ------- gave her the whole 4 inches! Two on the way in and two on the way out!

#40 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-07 04:21 PM

Dotard paid $130,000 to have sex with someone who reminds him of his daughter. What a degenerate.

#33 | POSTED BY REINHEITSGEBOT

And Jr's wife looks exactly like Melania.

The whole family is ------- weird.

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-07 04:22 PM

Correction his girlfriend

#42 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-07 04:28 PM

And a witness that is testifying to Trumpy's lies and debauchery.

#13 | Posted by donnerboy

Trump denied knowing who she was, many times, despite his testifying - when Daniels took him to court to overturn her NDA- he knew her and signed the checks to her. There are others who witnessed other meetings between Daniels and Trump when he was dangling an appearance on The Apprentice in order to groom her for what came later in that hotel room.

An encounter she wasn't expecting, 60-year-old Trump and Daniels in her 20's; a powerful man lording over a struggling single mom. Also, Trump, dressed in boxer shorts and a tee shirt, stood in her way when she went to walk out of the hotel room. A Harvey Weinstein situation.

#43 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-05-07 07:01 PM

What Stormy Daniels described is a rape.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-07 10:41 PM

Fat Donnie Loser is a tiny-dicked ----. Oh,just likt Bo-ass.

#45 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-07 10:51 PM

Wait until McDougall testifies that Von ShizzInPants also told her that she reminded him of Ivanka, and that they carried out a lengthy affair while Melanie was pregnant and she stupidly had feelings for fat old pedo.

#46 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2024-05-07 11:01 PM

What Stormy Daniels described is a rape.

#44 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

My son said the same thing. But at the time I disagreed. But I did not hear the testimony that he blocked the door in his shorts. If he really did that then it sounds like rape to me, too.

And I still don't understand why his lawyers did not object more to limit this kind of damning testimony. Must be some kind of 4D lawyering voodoo.

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-07 11:32 PM

If someone can point to any part of her testimony (which was lead by the prosecution with the judge essentially facilitating) was in anyway germane to the actual charges in this case, I'm all ears.

#48 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-07 11:37 PM

What Stormy Daniels described is a rape.

Doesn't really matter. The issue is where the money came from to pay her to not talk about it in 2016.

#49 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-07 11:39 PM

If someone can point to any part of her testimony (which was lead by the prosecution with the judge essentially facilitating) was in anyway germane to the actual charges in this case, I'm all ears.

#48 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You mean...all of it?

She laid down what happened.

How is that not germane?

#50 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-05-08 12:25 AM

How is that not germane?

#50 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

The charges are accounting issues. He allegedly had a tryst with her - legal. He paid her a NDA - legal.

So, please explain how the lurid details of the alleged tryst have ANY bearing on the case at hand.

#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-08 12:56 AM

We are venturing into Jerry Springer territory in this case and even the judge, who has been facilitating all of this, is beginning to show a modicum of shame for how far this testimony went off the rails as it pertains to the actual charges (which STILL haven't been fully laid out - normally an indictment does that but apparently not in this case, but I digress). So, when confronted with that he blames the defense for not raising enough objections. In a vacuum - okay. But given his dismissiveness to other objections.....

#52 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-08 01:00 AM

REDIAL @ #49

The real issue that seems to be getting lost in the weeds is Trump fudging on his business records at Trump Org. to cover up a one-night stand which also qualifies as election interference.

The Defense can trash Stormy Daniels all they want but neither the one-night stand nor the NDA are illegal. Her testimony is just the lead ups to the testimony that Michael Cohen is going to deliver about his part in the how, what, when and why of the $130,000 and the conspiracy to falsify the invoices.

Alos, it's not helping Trump case that the judge had to reprimand Trump for cursing out loud from the defense table during Stormy Daniels testimony.

#53 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-08 01:01 AM

"We are venturing into Jerry Springer territory in this case and even the judge, who has been facilitating all of this, is beginning to show a modicum of shame for how far this testimony went off the rails as it pertains to the actual charges"

He chastised Trump's lawyers for not objecting more, indicating that if they had he would have sustained their objections.

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski
Trump's lawyer moved for a mistrial based on Stormy making editorial comments with her testimony. The judge denied the motion, and said something that won't make Trump happy - that Blanche should've objected more & he would've stopped her. But he didn't.

#54 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-08 01:13 AM

From what I've read and seen this judge has been shooting down objections left and right with minimal, if any, explanation. Maybe that's justified and maybe it isn't. What I find strange is the for the judge to admit that he allowed things to go too far during testimony, and even though he had ultimate control he blames the defense for things getting out of control.

#55 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-08 01:18 AM

So, please explain how the lurid details of the alleged tryst have ANY bearing on the case at hand.
POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The details explain why Trump paid her hush money. Those details are what Trump didn't want her talking about before the election. The devil is in the details as they say. The details also help corroborate her statement as being truthful and authentic.

#56 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-08 01:20 AM

I'm guessing Trump's lawyers didn't object because they want a mistrial so badly, and they figured by not objecting stuff would come out that they could then do just what they did: call for a mistrial over.

#57 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-08 01:24 AM

#56 Gal Tuesday,

NDA's are totally legal - the "Why" is totally irrelevant to the case. What is at trial here is the accounting behind the payment.

"Those details are what Trump didn't want her talking about before the election."

Trying to hide that IS NOT A CRIME. Sorry for the excessive caps. The accounting behind the transaction is the alleged crime, NOT the alleged tryst itself.

#58 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-08 01:26 AM

#57 I think that's a plausible interpretation. The theory being - if your opponent is trying to hang himself, keep feeding rope. In this case it is through inaction as opposed to action. I don't know how it will actually play out.

#59 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-08 01:29 AM

No, her testimony is not about the acccounting, but it explains why the accounting was mishandled the way it was. It explains why they were trying to hide the payment to her.

#60 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-08 01:30 AM

She had a salacious story to tell. They didn't want the story to get out before the election. They had her sign an NDA and paid her off for signing it. Then they lied about how Michael Cohen was reimbursed for being the one to pay her on Trump's behalf by creating false accounting records to make the repayment look legitimate and like it was for something else (legal services rendered). At least that's my general understanding of the case.

#61 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-08 01:36 AM

No, her testimony is not about the acccounting, but it explains why the accounting was mishandled the way it was. It explains why they were trying to hide the payment to her.

#60 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

From where I sit, the "why" is irrelevant.

The 34 indictments are all the same - accounting records were falsified - misdemeanor with a 2 year statute of limitations. 34 indictments over essentially one alleged crime...

The only way to turn that alleged misdemeanor into a Class E felony, thus extending the statute of limitations is to argue it was in the furtherance of "another misdemeanor", which is not even spelled out in the indictment.

This is becoming an absolute clown show. While it makes for good and entertaining drama, I fear the precedents that are being set.

#62 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-08 01:49 AM

...how far this testimony went off the rails as it pertains to the actual charges (which STILL haven't been fully laid out - normally an indictment does that but apparently not in this case, but I digress).

BELLRINGER

You didn't read the indictment, did you?

LINKS explaining the various charges can be found here:

manhattanda.org

#63 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-05-08 02:06 AM

GAL

Other than confirming that Trump is a sleezeball, I don't see how any of her testimony confirmed or denied the underlying charges against Trump.

Where Trump went off the rails is the falsification of documents to defraud the State of New York ~ 34 times in total.

Plus the intent to commit or conceal other crimes including State and Federal election laws.

The reasons he did these things is immaterial. The fact that he DID them, for whatever reason, is what's before the jury and nothing else.

I really don't understand why Stormy Daniels was even called to testify. She knew nothing about the crimes or the intent to commit the crimes for which Trump is charged.


#64 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-08 02:57 AM

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read that much about this case, but it seems to me most jurors would want to know why someone committed the crimes. You may say the why doesn't matter, but the prosecution is tellilng a story, and the defense is attempting to tell another one. Knowing Trump's motivation for falsifiying the records helps fill in the gaps in the prosecution's theory of the case. The jury will need to believe in that theory beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him. You may say why he falsified the records is immaterial, and from a legal standpoint that may be the case, but if the jury doesn't have a reasonable explanation as to why he did so, they are less likely to believe that he actually did. What is the difference between an accounting error and a falsified record? Motivation, the intention to deceive.

FWIW, I've never had high hopes for this prosecution or any of the potential prosecutions against Trump. As we all know, it only takes one juror to cause a hung jury. Odds are pretty good Trump can find one hold out at least.

#65 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-08 05:21 AM

Here's how one lawyer analyzed her appearance:

Opinion: Stormy Daniels clears up hush money events for jury while clouding Trump's defense

We can break down Daniels' testimony by five critical "C" components:

Curiosity: . . .Juries expect to meet the key players in a case and will reward the prosecution for providing them, as the district attorney's office did here.

www.cnn.com

All that aside, calling Stormy, like calling Michael Cohen, is not without risk for the prosecution.

#66 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-08 05:40 AM

FWIW, I've never had high hopes for this prosecution or any of the potential prosecutions against Trump. As we all know, it only takes one juror to cause a hung jury. Odds are pretty good Trump can find one hold out at least.

I agree completely. He has two ways out... a series of hung juries or just delay everything until he's back on the Iron Throne and then it doesn't matter any more.

#67 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-08 05:59 AM

I understand what everybody is saying. But I still think Stormy Daniels testimony was an overkill. In my opinion a motive is nothing but an excuse and there is NO acceptable excuse for falsifying corporate journal entries to deceive the State of New York. It can't even be called a bookkeeping error because it happened 34 times and involved several high level employees at Trump Org. to pull it off ~ according to their own testimony.

Michael Cohen had a slew of documented (not hearsay or circumstantial) evidence to cover the circuitous route Trump used to conceal a crime, evidence that involved all the players, including Stormy Daniels and the motive behind it all to satisfy the jury's curiosity.

#68 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-08 08:53 AM

"He allegedly had a tryst with her - legal"

What she described was being kidnapped and coerced.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-08 09:16 AM

If the Jury believes that the underlying act he intended to commit was a crime; against election laws, then they can convict him of this crime.... the victim being the voters.

This is not Jerry Springer territory; it is a method that has been used thousands of times.

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2024-05-08 09:33 AM

SNOOFY

"What she described was being kidnapped and coerced."

That would be a separate case. Unless Stormy Daniels filed a police report along with physical evidence, it was two consenting adults. She, herself, called it just bad judgement. Probably not the first time either for women who use their bodies to earn a living.

#71 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-08 09:35 AM

This could potentially backfire on Democrats. Clinton proved most people don't care if a politician breaks the law to cover up a personal affair.

#72 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-05-08 09:52 AM

"We are venturing into Jerry Springer territory in this case ... "

We are getting a glimpse of into Trumpy's life of disloyalty and debauchery. Trumpy whole life is Jerry Springer territory ... . Apparently.

...

This is becoming an absolute clown show. While it makes for good and entertaining drama, I fear the precedents that are being set.

#62 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You can blame Trumpy's lawyers for that. The defense lawyers could have objected to anything Stormy said at any time.

As for precedents the whole trial and everything that occurs in it is setting precedents in this case.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-08 10:54 AM

Jeff got his ass handed to him on this topic what? Yesterday? Day before? And here he is as predicted pushing the same lies

What a maroon!

#74 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-08 11:41 AM

From where I sit, the "why" is irrelevant.
The 34 indictments are all the same - accounting records were falsified - misdemeanor with a 2 year statute of limitations. 34 indictments over essentially one alleged crime...
The only way to turn that alleged misdemeanor into a Class E felony, thus extending the statute of limitations is to argue it was in the furtherance of "another misdemeanor", which is not even spelled out in the indictment.
This is becoming an absolute clown show. While it makes for good and entertaining drama, I fear the precedents that are being set.

#62 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

If the records were falsified to break another law, it's a felony. Period. End of Story.

The indictment is not required to list the separate law Trump was intending to break with falsified business documents. The Defense gets to force the Prosecution to limit that portion later before trial. Even the Defense is not whining about this. Why are you?

The Prosecution has made it clear which laws Trump was trying to break. And others have already gone to jail for this.

There are NO NEW PRECEDENTS here. This is all basic criminal law that was settled AGES AGO.

Get a refund on your Trump U Law Degree.

#75 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-05-08 11:54 AM

Ffs this argument that her testimony wasn't appropriate is --------
I wish people would argue in good faith
If ------- had just stipulated the affair occurred then daniels wouldn't have had to testify about it
The prosecution had to establish the affair to establish why the cover up happened

Otherwise -------'s attorneys would argue there was nothing to cover up

This is obvious

The problem is not the judge or the prosecutor but ------- is a horrible client. Stipulating the affair happened would likely have kept Daniels off the stand and all the horrible details out of the trial.

Now ------- looks like a sleazy liar and removes any possibility of his taking the stand given he would have to perjure himself denying the affair

#76 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-08 12:19 PM

Ballicker writes:

" From where I sit, the "why" is irrelevant."

What an ignorant ---- you are

The why is very important as it establishes -------- intent to commit a crime which is all the prosecutor has to establish

Oh and btw. Dumping the crime in cohen doesn't do ------- any good cause he falsifying the records even for crimes committed by others still meets the statutory definition for a felony

Iow ------- is cooked unless there is a tojan magat on the jury

#77 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-08 12:26 PM

...unless there is a tojan magat on the jury

There will be.

#78 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-08 01:15 PM

And Jr's wife looks exactly like Melania.

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-07 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag:| Newsworthy 1

You mean Gavin Newsome's ex-wife? (Just looking for another opportunity to bring up California tonight)

#79 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-09 12:29 AM

The reasons he did these things is immaterial. The fact that he DID them, for whatever reason, is what's before the jury and nothing else.

I really don't understand why Stormy Daniels was even called to testify. She knew nothing about the crimes or the intent to commit the crimes for which Trump is charged.

#64 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-08 02:57 AM | Reply | Flag:
IMO The reasons why he did these things is absolutely material. The prosecution's legal theory requires they prove the underlying election related crimes. Trumps defense is that it never happened, Stormy extorted him for money and he wanted the story killed for purely personal reasons, to protect his family from embarrassment, not because of the election. Stormy's testimony was intended to counter that, by demonstrating that her purpose was not to get money or expose him, but to keep the secret whilst creating a paper trail that would protect her from physical harm. She points out that he was not secretive about their encounter when it occurred, which supports the idea that silencing her was not necessary for personal reasons, it was only because of the election. I think it was a risky move for the prosecutor to have her go on at length about her bio and other unrelated matters. The purpose was to include detail to lend credence to her story, and make her likeable and relatable to the jury, but allowing it opened many new avenues for cross-examination that the defense will exploit to damage her credibility.

#80 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-09 01:06 AM

IOW proving intent is absolutely critical. Without it, you don't have the election crimes. Without the election crimes you don't have a conspiracy, and without the conspiracy, you don't have a felony, you just have a bunch of misdemeanors with expired statutes of limitation.

#81 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-09 01:13 AM

REDIAL

Maybe not. At, least I hope not. Trump was screaming ridiculous bloody murder that his team didn't get unlimited strikes. (He knew better) I took it that meant Trump was furious because they hadn't located a potential holdout yet to target in their summation.

#82 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-09 08:27 AM

NDA's are totally legal - the "Why" is totally irrelevant to the case. What is at trial here is the accounting behind the payment.
"Those details are what Trump didn't want her talking about before the election."
Trying to hide that IS NOT A CRIME. Sorry for the excessive caps. The accounting behind the transaction is the alleged crime, NOT the alleged tryst itself.

#58 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The "WHY" is related to the breaking of OTHER laws and WHY it's a felony.

In addition, details go towards credibility.

That you don't understand this fits perfectly with you not understanding the case.

You are CHOOSING not to understand the law and the case.

#83 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-05-09 10:04 AM

" 83 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2024-05-09 10:04 AM | FLAG: "

Her testimony had nothing to do with the alleged crime, which isn't even spelled out in the indictment.

You are not required to be a partisan hack. It's okay to call out obvious BS even if it's coming from your team.

#84 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-09 10:59 AM

" 83 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2024-05-09 10:04 AM | FLAG: "
Her testimony had nothing to do with the alleged crime, which isn't even spelled out in the indictment.
You are not required to be a partisan hack. It's okay to call out obvious BS even if it's coming from your team.

#84 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

I'll repeat what I wrote yesterday:

Ffs this argument that her testimony wasn't appropriate is --------
I wish people would argue in good faith
If ------- had just stipulated the affair occurred then daniels wouldn't have had to testify about it
The prosecution had to establish the affair to establish why the cover up happened
Otherwise -------'s attorneys would argue there was nothing to cover up
This is obvious
The problem is not the judge or the prosecutor but ------- is a horrible client. Stipulating the affair happened would likely have kept Daniels off the stand and all the horrible details out of the trial.
Now ------- looks like a sleazy liar and removes any possibility of his taking the stand given he would have to perjure himself denying the affair

and

" From where I sit, the "why" is irrelevant."
What an ignorant ---- you are
The why is very important as it establishes -------- intent to commit a crime which is all the prosecutor has to establish
{SNIP}

Daniel's testimony is a critical piece of testimony. It established the affair that was the subject of the NDA. Again if NOT established or stipulated, -------- lawyers could argue it didn't happen, thus providing reasonable doubt as to the whole thing.

Again, essential.

Again, ------- could have avoided her testimony and all the lurid details by just stipulating the affair happened, He didn't which means he intends(ed) to argue the affair didnt' happen.

This is obvious and basic crap

#85 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-09 11:12 AM

"Her testimony had nothing to do with the alleged crime, which isn't even spelled out in the indictment."

You lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie

The crimes WERE listed in the indictment-falsifying documents. The alleged crime being covered up/in furtherance of is NOT required to be listed in the indictment, it is an evidentiary part of the trial. And, again, the crime doesn't even have to be --------. If he falsified the documents to cover Cohen's crimes (of which he has been convicted) THAT is enough to make this a felony.

You have been told this.

Yet you like and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie

And you will continue to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie

#86 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-05-09 11:16 AM

You are not required to be a partisan hack. It's okay to call out obvious BS even if it's coming from your team.

#84 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Prosecutors are not there to help Trumpy. That's Trumpy's lawyers job.

So why didn't Trumpy's lawyers object?

And today they are trying to ---- shame Stormy. And prolonging the experience of being in that hotel room with Trumpy. Ewww!

I wish them luck with that dumb strategy of trying to please Trumpy rather than try and defend him properly.

#87 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-09 11:33 AM

" 83 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2024-05-09 10:04 AM | FLAG: "
Her testimony had nothing to do with the alleged crime, which isn't even spelled out in the indictment.
You are not required to be a partisan hack. It's okay to call out obvious BS even if it's coming from your team.

#84 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

The indictment doesn't need to spell out the alleged crime that the business records were meant to cover up. That's the law.

Her testimony had everything to do with why Trump would want to hide the incident.

In addition, the incident is allowed to be explored. And by the way, THE DEFENSE IS NOW QUESTIONING HER ABOUT ALL THE DETAILS ABOUT THE INCIDENT to go after credibility.

Why do both sides want details? Credibility. And the prosecution needs to prove Trump needed this covered up for the election so details are key there.

If you can't figure out that the payment was to cover up all the details of the event and not JUST the sex, you are beyond hopeless.

As I said, ask for a refund for your Trump U Law Degree.

#88 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-05-09 11:43 AM

"The indictment doesn't need to spell out the alleged crime that the business records were meant to cover up. That's the law."
You are correct, because the indictment must only establish probable cause, which is a very low threshold. The trial, on the other hand, MUST spell out the alleged crime that the business records are meant to cover up, and PROVE it, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, to the satisfaction of all twelve jurors. That is a very tall order.

#89 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2024-05-09 06:09 PM

#88 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Jeff gets Fact Checked.
Jeff runs away to spread the same lie another day.

#90 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-05-10 10:20 AM

"Jeff gets Fact Checked.
Jeff runs away to spread the same lie another day."

You missed the middle part:

Jeff refuses to educate himself, for fear of losing the talking point.

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-10 10:33 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Iran President Helicopter Crashes (43 comments)

'Bleach Blonde, Bad Built, Butch Body' (39 comments)

New Ad Dares Trump to Testify (19 comments)

5 Takeaways from Robert Menendez's Corruption Trial (12 comments)

Trump Wants to Control the Justice Department and FBI (11 comments)

Man Arrested After Threatening Biden (10 comments)

Giuliani Served with Indictment at His 80th Birthday Party (10 comments)

Scientists May Have Solved Mystery Behind Egypt's Pyramids (9 comments)