If it never happened, why not prove that? Prove he was elsewhere. With other people. Call in his security detail under oath to testify to his whereabouts. Why pay her off if it never happened? Why pay such an enormous overage to cover Cohen’s payout? Ridiculous that ANYONE could believe him about anything-let alone this.
Right? Why not put the bodyguard that was standing guard 😳 outside the door on the stand to say Daniels is lying if it didn’t happen? He was practically in the room!!! 😳😳
Or paying your personal attorney (aka fixer) $420,000 to keep her from talking about her experience because since the sex years ago you’ve now decided you want to run for the highest office in the country 😳
turns out keeping the sex secret wasn’t even the most expensive part
How tRump could have expected his legal team to get any mileage out of the "She's lying, I never had sex with her" argument, when putting Stormy Daniels in the witness box opened up all matter of damaging testimony to his defense. I mean, they lost BIGLY in the E Jean Carroll defamation suit - "I don't know this woman, never met her in my life" - and all that I can postulate for dragging tRump's easily disproven denials into the courtroom is that this has been his public line for years, where PROOF is readily dismissed and DENIAL sets the framing. That mindset has apparently been drilled into tRump's legal team, despite surely their reservations - at least by the competent members - and tRump once again is finding out that what works in the public sphere utterly fails in a court of law.
He lost the defamation suit, he'll be found guilty in this case, and it's down to his reckless arrogance.
Basically, tRump is all about *revenge*...he wanted to slut-shame E Jean Carroll, had his lawyers attack her personally, and lost badly.
Here as well, he wanted revenge against Stormy Daniels for going public and "offending" his good character [ /sarc ] so he had this legal team to slut-shame the witness.
And when Michael Cohen sits in the witness box, the defense will rip his character to shreds, highlight his lies, etc., but won't shake the essence of his rôle in the coverup and campaign contributions fraud.
tRump ONLY cares about payback, it's one of the story-lines in several of his shitty books, coz that's ALL that matters for him, regardless how little that helps his defense in civil or criminal lawsuits...that's who he is, and he's proud of it.
If he wants to say something to refute her testimony then he could tell his team that he wants to testify. He could say anything he wants. No gag order can prevent him from talking.
Under Oath.
Yeah.
He could.
'BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS' he won't because he would bluster and attempt to turn the trial into one of his rallies. Then he would lie.
And the lies would be seen and called out. Which his lawyers know well, and will not permit, if at all possible. Getting him to listen to them, though...
If he perjures himself and if the timing is good he can with visit his good loyal employee Weisselberg. Weisselberg could give him pointers about surviving his time in jail.
And another thing! Why call Stormy Daniels a porn star when her actual highest level of professional achievement is adult film writer and director? It's like calling a lawyer a law clerk. So easy to degrade women by not acknowledging their highest levels.
How this is playing in right-wing circles: Yesterday the Denver Gazette, a right-wing online daily, posted an editorial say that having an affairs was not illegal, and paying someone to keep quiet was not either. I posted a comment explaining that a conspiracy to cover up a campaign donation and expenditure using falsified documents was illegal. Others immediately challenged my expertise; "where did you go to law school?" (Comments on this publication are all posted anonymously). I responded: George Washington University. They next responded that I must have flunked out. I responded: I did not flunk out; I was on the law review, top 5% of my class. Their final responses all accused me of lying about this. These people simply cannot accept the truth. They have an answer for everything (usually a false one). I suppose that if I had actually posted my transcript, they would have accused me of forging it.
Remember when Dumpy accused Pres Obama of not being born in the US, over and over again? After Pres Obama produced his short-form birth certificate, Dumpy accused him of forgery, so Pres Obama brought out his longer-form certificate. It still wasn't good enough for Dumpy. His MAGAts have learned his techniques well.
Apparently you have to understand the psychology of cult mentality. I don't. I can't imagine why people would possibly kill themselves so they could shed their physical bodies and hitch a ride with the comet aliens, just because some nutjob told them so. Relatively speaking, MAGAts are almost normal in what they've swallowed.
Thr Trumpet could lean in that direction & many of his Faithful would follow. I don't see many that would stop them. I got a shiver of shamep at that thought, but their family & the world would be better off. Imaging their day-to-day life!
I see the detailed description of how creepy Trump was in his behavior with Stormy Daniels as contributing to the idea that Trump wanted her hushed up to avoid public shame which could have cost him votes. He obviously didn't need to keep how creepy his sexuality is from his wife since she already is fully aware of that creepiness. So the description supports the notion of his intent to sway the election by illegal means, not just shielding his wife.
As always, I appreciate the analysis, as this is a lot to wade through, sometimes almost literally here.
I understand the defense lawyer also questioned her about monetizing the story and that she replied something along the lines of not unlike Trump. I know I’d far rather spend money buying her Patron Saint of Indictments devotional prayer candle than Trump’s bible or his mug shot trading cards (with a piece of the suit he wore for each attached). And getting her social media reference to Trump as an orange turd read into the court transcript is nothing short of delightful, since it was done by the defense attorney. Comedy orange if not comedy gold…
After I read your reply I could picture a Borowitz Report by Andy Borowitz where the defense team is accused of mixing up an SNL script with that day’s trial case notes… and SNL wants their script back.
Glad to read your assessment and know that the jury is smart enough to focus on the false business records charges. The other stuff was just tabloid entertainment basically. I thought starting with David Pecker’s testimony was brilliant.
We want to influence Dems, Independents and Swing R's. And white women (~38% of actual voters). That's the voting block. The Defendant's supporters (~25% of registered R's) are lost causes; let's not waste one second thinking about them.
He has been showing us what a disgusting person he is since well before 2016 yet he was voted in anyway. Good news is he is losing supporters, his handling of COVID topped by J6 and all these indictments is taking it's toll.
Almost everyone following this is hoping that any appeal is quickly denied and any conviction upheld. Whether or not that happens is hard to predict.
One thing does stand out. This country is populated with a lot of people that have no understanding of or patience for the law and its intricacies. What they do know and appreciate is the Jerry Springer Show. The defense opted for a "Jerry Springer" ploy with their handling of the Stormy Daniels testimony that, while not terribly significant in the context of a trial over election fraud, has a great deal of significance in the eyes of the wider voting public. It is very easy for pretty much anybody to see why Trump was willing to pay to keep this story out of the press prior to the election in 2016. The prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did just that. That may hurt Trump less in the greater scheme of things than so many of the unsettling details of the whole sordid mess finally becoming so-very-public.
I don't quite understand the concept of prejudicial testimony that could taint the jury.
Isn't testimony supposed to be truthful?
What if the truth is so compelling that the jury has no choice but to convict the defendant?
Isn't that the way it's supposed to go?
If I witnessed an ax murderer chopping up a person and spoke of this under oath in a courtroom telling all the gory details, how could my testimony NOT prejudice the jury?
If I was a credible witness whose story held up under cross examination the jury has no choice but to convict. This is the same as Stormy testifying that she got paid for her encounter with Trump.
How could this be less prejudicial testimony but still tell the truth?
I understand that her encounter and payoff is not the crime, but these actions led to the commission of a crime so these details need to be known.
It can be a bit confusing, that’s for sure! So, let’s take your example of you witnessing an ax murder. Your testimony would be prejudicial BUT it would also have strong probative value. It’s about what the case is about. But let’s say they brought in someone who testified that the defendant belongs to a group that advocates for right-wing Christian causes, like mandating the Old Testament be taught and evolution be banned from schools. That would be unduly prejudicial because it would have no relevance to what the jury is there to decide.
In Trump’s case, the jury is there to decide whether Trump falsified business records to help steal an election. Trump claims he never had sex with Stormy Daniels and therefore had nothing to hide. But does the jury really need to hear about the details of that sex? That’s not what the case is about. It’s a tangential question. The judge doesn’t want the jury prejudiced against Trump because they think he’s a creep.
Once again we have a perception problem. Looking at a situation with 2024 eyes at what happened in 1970. I can tell you that in that time period the idea of 'no' being no was definitely not a 'thing'. Many women were 'bullied' into doing stuff because it was just 'how it worked' in order to move ahead in business or a career. Promises made by the person in charge and then nothing. The news media and the defense are harping and leading thought. Was he an egotistical bastard - grab them by the pussy - guy. Yes. The crux of the case is that he denies the happening. How does one set the facts of the matter before the people without stating the facts at hand? She has said she was there. She decided like many women to tell her story. She told it to a news source. They did not then tell the story. Money was exchanged. The documenting of said monies and how it was handled is a fact. Was it done legally? That is what we are determining in this trial.
Yes and what I said continued to happen and in some cases still does, It really does not matter what time period in which it occurred. The 'me too' movement started in 2006..... The fact that a news media took the story in years later and then did not run it and they were paid for not doing it and all the documenting of monies for said story of said encounter and then the story teller was 'paid' to keep quiet and that exchange was hidden in fraudulent bookkeeping. The State of New York was looking into said bookkeeping account for fraud to the city said payments were found. It involved a number of people. Part of my point was the environment in which the said occurrence happened that lead to the exchange of money and the fact that the telling of the facts as being facts in truth is what the Defense is saying make x45 look 'bad' and will 'hurt' his standing. The media should stick to what this case is being tried for, fraud, which they are saying was not fraud.
The defense gets their turn to tell their version of the clients story and their client can take the stand to address anything he thinks he needs to say (under oath) to counter other testimony after the prosecution rests, so I'm puzzled why that wasn't the reply given by the judge (even though he knows they know that) when ruling on the gag order. "You're turn is available should your client choose to make statements disputing previous testimony" would have cornered the rats better, IMO. I feel that Karen should be called to firmly establish the MO payoff for dalliances by the Greedy Old Philanderer because they had a longer duration affair. Don't hold back offense, go for the vein/vain.
It would truly be a beautifully ironic turn of events if Trump overrode his defense team and took the stand because he was so provoked by Stormy Daniels that wanted a chance to refute her. The cross-examination would resemble the battle of Midway.
Truly, that is why I thought reminding them of their ability to go on the record in presenting a defense might goad the egomaniac into taking the stand...we can hope he continues to sink his own ship...destruction of things really is the only thing he is any good at, IMO.
McDougal can verify that he & Daniels were involved when she met him. I forget how she stated it in Anderson Cooper's interview, but she seemed very aware. Maybe she can share more details, something He said about it!
Your hot take makes total sense. I hope the prosecution can find a way to point this out to the jury. It sort of sickens me that this is our only chance out of all his legal troubles for him to see a jail cell before the election. Any of the rest of us would be looking at a hundred years of cumulative prison time.
Based on all of the potential grounds to have the verdict overruled and declared a mistrial, I'm surprised that anyone is ever convicted of anything. Unless, of course, they can't afford a stable of attorneys and must rely on an overworked public defender.
I know what you mean! Joyce Vance even said she's never seen a defendant get as many breaks as Trump has. I don't get it. What is so special about this jerk?
If it never happened, why not prove that? Prove he was elsewhere. With other people. Call in his security detail under oath to testify to his whereabouts. Why pay her off if it never happened? Why pay such an enormous overage to cover Cohen’s payout? Ridiculous that ANYONE could believe him about anything-let alone this.
Right? Why not put the bodyguard that was standing guard 😳 outside the door on the stand to say Daniels is lying if it didn’t happen? He was practically in the room!!! 😳😳
And why pay someone one hundred and thirty thousand dollars NOT to have sex with him??
I know people who would take $5 not to have sex with Donald J Trump.
I would pay not to have to ever hear his voice or see his face, let alone anything more 😳
Or paying your personal attorney (aka fixer) $420,000 to keep her from talking about her experience because since the sex years ago you’ve now decided you want to run for the highest office in the country 😳
turns out keeping the sex secret wasn’t even the most expensive part
How tRump could have expected his legal team to get any mileage out of the "She's lying, I never had sex with her" argument, when putting Stormy Daniels in the witness box opened up all matter of damaging testimony to his defense. I mean, they lost BIGLY in the E Jean Carroll defamation suit - "I don't know this woman, never met her in my life" - and all that I can postulate for dragging tRump's easily disproven denials into the courtroom is that this has been his public line for years, where PROOF is readily dismissed and DENIAL sets the framing. That mindset has apparently been drilled into tRump's legal team, despite surely their reservations - at least by the competent members - and tRump once again is finding out that what works in the public sphere utterly fails in a court of law.
He lost the defamation suit, he'll be found guilty in this case, and it's down to his reckless arrogance.
He got that from Roy Cohn. Deny, deny, deny.
Aren’t those Hope Hicks words? Was she raised by Roy Cohn too?
She probably got them from her boss.
No doubt! Her presentation in court certainly indicated she adored the orange turd
I still see the likelihood of a mistrial or a successful appeal. Certainly messy.
Basically, tRump is all about *revenge*...he wanted to slut-shame E Jean Carroll, had his lawyers attack her personally, and lost badly.
Here as well, he wanted revenge against Stormy Daniels for going public and "offending" his good character [ /sarc ] so he had this legal team to slut-shame the witness.
And when Michael Cohen sits in the witness box, the defense will rip his character to shreds, highlight his lies, etc., but won't shake the essence of his rôle in the coverup and campaign contributions fraud.
tRump ONLY cares about payback, it's one of the story-lines in several of his shitty books, coz that's ALL that matters for him, regardless how little that helps his defense in civil or criminal lawsuits...that's who he is, and he's proud of it.
If he wants to say something to refute her testimony then he could tell his team that he wants to testify. He could say anything he wants. No gag order can prevent him from talking.
Under Oath.
Yeah.
He could.
'BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS' he won't because he would bluster and attempt to turn the trial into one of his rallies. Then he would lie.
And the lies would be seen and called out. Which his lawyers know well, and will not permit, if at all possible. Getting him to listen to them, though...
If he perjures himself and if the timing is good he can with visit his good loyal employee Weisselberg. Weisselberg could give him pointers about surviving his time in jail.
One can dream, can't he.
And another thing! Why call Stormy Daniels a porn star when her actual highest level of professional achievement is adult film writer and director? It's like calling a lawyer a law clerk. So easy to degrade women by not acknowledging their highest levels.
How this is playing in right-wing circles: Yesterday the Denver Gazette, a right-wing online daily, posted an editorial say that having an affairs was not illegal, and paying someone to keep quiet was not either. I posted a comment explaining that a conspiracy to cover up a campaign donation and expenditure using falsified documents was illegal. Others immediately challenged my expertise; "where did you go to law school?" (Comments on this publication are all posted anonymously). I responded: George Washington University. They next responded that I must have flunked out. I responded: I did not flunk out; I was on the law review, top 5% of my class. Their final responses all accused me of lying about this. These people simply cannot accept the truth. They have an answer for everything (usually a false one). I suppose that if I had actually posted my transcript, they would have accused me of forging it.
Remember when Dumpy accused Pres Obama of not being born in the US, over and over again? After Pres Obama produced his short-form birth certificate, Dumpy accused him of forgery, so Pres Obama brought out his longer-form certificate. It still wasn't good enough for Dumpy. His MAGAts have learned his techniques well.
They aren't ones to let facts get in the way of a good narrative, after all.
Birtherism started with then-senior Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn, who was summarily sacked.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/birther-movement-founder-trump-clinton-228304
Thank you, Jerry. Hopefully the truth will finally prevail.
I am truly nauseated by the state of the MAGAts unwavering devotion to this sorry excuse for a human being.
same
Same same
Same same same
Same same same same
Same Same Same Same
Apparently you have to understand the psychology of cult mentality. I don't. I can't imagine why people would possibly kill themselves so they could shed their physical bodies and hitch a ride with the comet aliens, just because some nutjob told them so. Relatively speaking, MAGAts are almost normal in what they've swallowed.
Thr Trumpet could lean in that direction & many of his Faithful would follow. I don't see many that would stop them. I got a shiver of shamep at that thought, but their family & the world would be better off. Imaging their day-to-day life!
I see the detailed description of how creepy Trump was in his behavior with Stormy Daniels as contributing to the idea that Trump wanted her hushed up to avoid public shame which could have cost him votes. He obviously didn't need to keep how creepy his sexuality is from his wife since she already is fully aware of that creepiness. So the description supports the notion of his intent to sway the election by illegal means, not just shielding his wife.
As always, I appreciate the analysis, as this is a lot to wade through, sometimes almost literally here.
I understand the defense lawyer also questioned her about monetizing the story and that she replied something along the lines of not unlike Trump. I know I’d far rather spend money buying her Patron Saint of Indictments devotional prayer candle than Trump’s bible or his mug shot trading cards (with a piece of the suit he wore for each attached). And getting her social media reference to Trump as an orange turd read into the court transcript is nothing short of delightful, since it was done by the defense attorney. Comedy orange if not comedy gold…
It reads like an SNL script.
After I read your reply I could picture a Borowitz Report by Andy Borowitz where the defense team is accused of mixing up an SNL script with that day’s trial case notes… and SNL wants their script back.
LOVE this!!! Such a terrific idea (I hope Andy is stealth watching 😎)
Thanks for the reminder. I’ll need to watch SNL Saturday. I’m sure they’ll skit this.
Yeah that suit. He seems to think he's a saint selling relics. Nauseating.
I doubt if he actually cut up an expensive suit. He probably had an aid buy a few yards of wool cloth and cut it up to send to the suckers.
🤣🤣
Glad to read your assessment and know that the jury is smart enough to focus on the false business records charges. The other stuff was just tabloid entertainment basically. I thought starting with David Pecker’s testimony was brilliant.
Risky strategy by the defense, indeed. Bottom line…tRump will appeal and will not serve any time until the appeal is resolved.
But, the testimony so far has shown us (once again) what a disgusting human being he is. Will it have an impact on his supporters? I’m not so sure.
We want to influence Dems, Independents and Swing R's. And white women (~38% of actual voters). That's the voting block. The Defendant's supporters (~25% of registered R's) are lost causes; let's not waste one second thinking about them.
Also, read The Hopium Chronicle by Simon Rosenburg.
👏👏
He has been showing us what a disgusting person he is since well before 2016 yet he was voted in anyway. Good news is he is losing supporters, his handling of COVID topped by J6 and all these indictments is taking it's toll.
Your analysis is greatly appreciated.
Almost everyone following this is hoping that any appeal is quickly denied and any conviction upheld. Whether or not that happens is hard to predict.
One thing does stand out. This country is populated with a lot of people that have no understanding of or patience for the law and its intricacies. What they do know and appreciate is the Jerry Springer Show. The defense opted for a "Jerry Springer" ploy with their handling of the Stormy Daniels testimony that, while not terribly significant in the context of a trial over election fraud, has a great deal of significance in the eyes of the wider voting public. It is very easy for pretty much anybody to see why Trump was willing to pay to keep this story out of the press prior to the election in 2016. The prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did just that. That may hurt Trump less in the greater scheme of things than so many of the unsettling details of the whole sordid mess finally becoming so-very-public.
I think the judge is thinking 10 steps ahead in all of this. Good for him!
I don't quite understand the concept of prejudicial testimony that could taint the jury.
Isn't testimony supposed to be truthful?
What if the truth is so compelling that the jury has no choice but to convict the defendant?
Isn't that the way it's supposed to go?
If I witnessed an ax murderer chopping up a person and spoke of this under oath in a courtroom telling all the gory details, how could my testimony NOT prejudice the jury?
If I was a credible witness whose story held up under cross examination the jury has no choice but to convict. This is the same as Stormy testifying that she got paid for her encounter with Trump.
How could this be less prejudicial testimony but still tell the truth?
I understand that her encounter and payoff is not the crime, but these actions led to the commission of a crime so these details need to be known.
It can be a bit confusing, that’s for sure! So, let’s take your example of you witnessing an ax murder. Your testimony would be prejudicial BUT it would also have strong probative value. It’s about what the case is about. But let’s say they brought in someone who testified that the defendant belongs to a group that advocates for right-wing Christian causes, like mandating the Old Testament be taught and evolution be banned from schools. That would be unduly prejudicial because it would have no relevance to what the jury is there to decide.
In Trump’s case, the jury is there to decide whether Trump falsified business records to help steal an election. Trump claims he never had sex with Stormy Daniels and therefore had nothing to hide. But does the jury really need to hear about the details of that sex? That’s not what the case is about. It’s a tangential question. The judge doesn’t want the jury prejudiced against Trump because they think he’s a creep.
I was thinking that too. Of course it's prejudicial: he did something illegal.
I thought this was the defenses plan as soon as I first read about it. Thank you Jay, for helping me understand why I felt that way.
Once again we have a perception problem. Looking at a situation with 2024 eyes at what happened in 1970. I can tell you that in that time period the idea of 'no' being no was definitely not a 'thing'. Many women were 'bullied' into doing stuff because it was just 'how it worked' in order to move ahead in business or a career. Promises made by the person in charge and then nothing. The news media and the defense are harping and leading thought. Was he an egotistical bastard - grab them by the pussy - guy. Yes. The crux of the case is that he denies the happening. How does one set the facts of the matter before the people without stating the facts at hand? She has said she was there. She decided like many women to tell her story. She told it to a news source. They did not then tell the story. Money was exchanged. The documenting of said monies and how it was handled is a fact. Was it done legally? That is what we are determining in this trial.
1970? This encounter happened in 2006.
Yes and what I said continued to happen and in some cases still does, It really does not matter what time period in which it occurred. The 'me too' movement started in 2006..... The fact that a news media took the story in years later and then did not run it and they were paid for not doing it and all the documenting of monies for said story of said encounter and then the story teller was 'paid' to keep quiet and that exchange was hidden in fraudulent bookkeeping. The State of New York was looking into said bookkeeping account for fraud to the city said payments were found. It involved a number of people. Part of my point was the environment in which the said occurrence happened that lead to the exchange of money and the fact that the telling of the facts as being facts in truth is what the Defense is saying make x45 look 'bad' and will 'hurt' his standing. The media should stick to what this case is being tried for, fraud, which they are saying was not fraud.
The defense gets their turn to tell their version of the clients story and their client can take the stand to address anything he thinks he needs to say (under oath) to counter other testimony after the prosecution rests, so I'm puzzled why that wasn't the reply given by the judge (even though he knows they know that) when ruling on the gag order. "You're turn is available should your client choose to make statements disputing previous testimony" would have cornered the rats better, IMO. I feel that Karen should be called to firmly establish the MO payoff for dalliances by the Greedy Old Philanderer because they had a longer duration affair. Don't hold back offense, go for the vein/vain.
It would truly be a beautifully ironic turn of events if Trump overrode his defense team and took the stand because he was so provoked by Stormy Daniels that wanted a chance to refute her. The cross-examination would resemble the battle of Midway.
Truly, that is why I thought reminding them of their ability to go on the record in presenting a defense might goad the egomaniac into taking the stand...we can hope he continues to sink his own ship...destruction of things really is the only thing he is any good at, IMO.
McDougal can verify that he & Daniels were involved when she met him. I forget how she stated it in Anderson Cooper's interview, but she seemed very aware. Maybe she can share more details, something He said about it!
Wouldn't That be a grand surprise!
Your hot take makes total sense. I hope the prosecution can find a way to point this out to the jury. It sort of sickens me that this is our only chance out of all his legal troubles for him to see a jail cell before the election. Any of the rest of us would be looking at a hundred years of cumulative prison time.
Based on all of the potential grounds to have the verdict overruled and declared a mistrial, I'm surprised that anyone is ever convicted of anything. Unless, of course, they can't afford a stable of attorneys and must rely on an overworked public defender.
I know what you mean! Joyce Vance even said she's never seen a defendant get as many breaks as Trump has. I don't get it. What is so special about this jerk?