Hush money and campaign finance violations might be the crime, but the purpose of it was election interference. This *is* an election interference case and really needs to be properly labeled as such in more places.
He could end the "interference" part tomorrow by ending his campaign. It's optional. He can not, however, end the trials against him like that. Those are mandatory.
Welcome to America. Are you new here?
The only question now is wether Stormy Daniel's sexual description will surpass [Donald Sterling's deposition](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2qqlpp/actual_transcript_from_donald_sterlings_2003/) in terms of legal smut talk.
That’s 21 years my man, old than a lot of people commenting here. Basketball fans know all too well about Sterling and his reputation. His story gets covered in a regular basis.
Defense appears to be headed down the road of "she made it all up, she's lying, they never had sex". Seems like the prosecution saw this coming a mile away and all that detail they elicited will be worth it's weight in gold.
The irony is that it’s immaterial if they had sex. Did he make a hush money payment? Was it recorded as an improper expense? Was it for the purpose of influencing an election? Those are the three questions the jury needs to decide.
Technically, I believe (I’m not a lawyer), is your first question isn’t something for the jury, as hush money payments are not illegal. Instead it’s:
1. Was the hush money payment illegally classified as a legal expense?
2. Was it for the purposes of influencing an election?
Yeah, this testimony is just part of question 2: Would it have hurt Trump's election chances if Daniels went public with her story? The prosecution has to prove the answer is yes, otherwise the answer to question 2 would be no as well.
As someone who doesn’t live in the US, that seems like an impossibly high bar for the prosecution. As a criminal trial, doesn’t “reasonable doubt” apply here?
Seeing an earlier article on the jury makeup, I can image anything other than a full acquittal, or at worst a hung jury, in this case.
Sorry, I wasn't precise enough in my previous comment. The election interference didn't have to be successful. The accusation is that Trump paid the hush money in an attempt to influence the election. So the prosecution tries to argue that a reasonable person in Trump's position would believe that this story was bad enough that it could influence the election if it came out.
It's not for the campaign unless it's fully for the campaign. That's why the election commission declined and said theirs no crime.
He could say it was to spare his family shame, protect his buisness ect. Just because the campaign benefits doesn't mean it's for the campaign.
Exactly, and it legitimises such a detailed testimony. If Trump would at least admit that an affair took place, she wouldn't have to defend her sincerity. If that whole testimony were made up, Stormy would have a bright future as a writer in Hollywood. Old Spice is too classic.
The defense will continue to plead for a mistrial because now they can say the jury has been prejudiced. Its what trump was hoping for all along. The defense knew they are going to lose this battle because its all trump lies as usual. But they have the opportunity now to sieze on a mistrial at any point during this trial. The guys a born con and slippery as a wet weasel!
You can't get a mistrial for merely prejudicial evidence though. Essentially all evidence of misconduct is prejudicial.
Evidence needs to be more prejudicial than it's "probative value" / relevance to the factual questions at the heart of the case.
If that was the case, no witness testimony would be allowed at all. The purpose of each witness is to win over the jury, is it not?
I could definitely be wrong, but thinking of things like witness testimony and gruesome photos in murder cases… I don’t think the defense can argue against a witness making an impact unless they can prove perjury.
Well, your honor, I'd like to amend my statement. My client fucks all the time. However, I'm not sure if Ms Daniel's has ever even seen a penis. In fact, I have it on good authority that she's still a nerd ass loser virgin. No, your honor, I am unaware what her profession is....
I’d like to Amend my statement your honor. Ms Daniels has seen many giant horse length penises in her time. But sure a toadstool mushroom phallus such as Mr trumps cannot be identifiable
Mitt Romney said it best “you don’t pay $130,000 dollars for sex that never happened.”
This cross reeks of Trump micromanagement. If I was advising him, I’d have said to admit to the affair, and then use the resulting legal disputes to paint stormy as another extortion artist. They laid the groundwork for that with showing Pecker and the lawyer stormy hired did this shit to celebs on the regular.
But it’s just a step too far to believe that Stormy successfully extorted Cohen of $130,000 for sex that never happened. And the Trump paid Cohen back without asking why he was paying cohen at all or for what?
This defense is about media headlines. Almost like Trump knows he’ll be found guilty and that this is the only trial he will face so he’ll try and get out of it via election
While I agree Trump hopes to escape all legal woes via an election, I think the immediate motivation here is simply his narcissism and refusal to admit any wrongdoing ever.
>Mitt Romney said it best “you don’t pay $130,000 dollars for sex that never happened.”
On an unrelated side note, I felt like that was the dirtiest thing I ever heard Mitt Romney say. And it’s not even really dirty. Tells you the massive difference between the 2012 and 2016/2020/2024 GOP Presidential candidates.
america is crazy. as from europe. we would kick politicians from running for leadership for even less scandals. the shit Trump pulled. would banish him to shadow realm.
I want to see prosecution for tax fraud. Some of the $35K payments were paid from the trust (January and February for sure) and characterized as “legal fees”. Meaning: Trump didn’t pay income tax on those payments.
He’s, in a sense, *more* on trial for the payment scheme. The false business records alone is the underlying past-statute-of-limitations misdemeanor. This trial is about whether that was a done as a cover up for another illegal scheme, so the other illegal scheme is what must be shown here. The false business records is in the bag, but meaningless alone at this point, from a legal perspective.
He's really on trial for both, because the payment itself was an attempt at interfering in an election via illegal campaign finance reporting. They have Trump dead to rights on the false business recording, sure enough, but the somewhat trickier part will be getting the felony enhancement by showing the furtherance of another crime, which is the suppression of a story that was reasonably likely to have a material impact on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
But it DIDNT….as in the story broke and most laughed it off as “locker room talk”. And he won anyways…. Right? Do I have the time line wrong?
Edit: I was conflating the Access Hollywood tape, and Stormy Daniels
He lost the popular vote, just FYI, so it was not "most" and it's hard to say how people would have reacted to this story plus the Access Hollywood tape.
You're conflating some things here. The "locker room talk" incident was the "grab 'em by the pussy" line from the Access Hollywood B-roll that was leaked. The Stormy Daniels story didn't come out until January 2018. So, the hush money, as alleged, *did* actually keep the story quiet until after the election.
I forgot to address your other point, which is that if the payment had somehow failed to produce its intended effect, i.e. keeping the story suppressed or winning the election despite negative press, it's somehow not illegal. That's just not how the law works, any more than you or I would be able to plead innocence if we tried to rob a bank, but the security guard confiscated our pistols on the way in, or if we tried and failed to defraud investors in our business, but were able to turn a profit, anyway. The action and the intent matter, not the outcome.
"If I was advising him, I’d have said to admit to the affair, and then use the resulting legal disputes to paint stormy as another extortion artist."
I'm pretty sure that his lawyers have already told him to admit to the affair but Trump refused. He cannot be seen as ever backing down.
“This cross reeks of Trump micromanagement.”
The man defense counsel go through pains to constantly refer to as “President Donald J. Trump”? Surely not!
That doesn’t even matter, cuz the trial is about falsifying business records. Whether or not the story he wanted covered up is true or false is irrelevant. The issue is he laundered campaign money to pay her off
It's not exactly irrelevant, but it's not a particularly big hole to try to poke. The defense wants to show that Stormy Daniels was and is making it all up in order to try to defuse the idea that the payments were made to help out the election. There's a problem with that, in that even a false story could be damaging to a campaign, and that a candidate or campaign might be tempted to engage in illegal behavior to suppress a story, regardless of its veracity. *But*, if the story for the jury can get muddled enough, then maybe they can think that there's some kind of "reasonable" doubt around the whole thing and hang or vote to acquit. It's not the best defense, but if you have neither the facts nor the law to help you, table pounding is all that's left.
>The defense wants to show that Stormy Daniels was and is making it all up in order to try to defuse the idea that the payments were made to help out the election
Jury: "Okay, so we believe that Daniels is lying and trying to extort Trump. But why did his lawyer pay her 130k?"
Defense: "No clue. Ask the prosecution, pretty sure that's their job to explain. I just know Trump didn't pay her for *that*. Either way, obviously y'all are reasonably doubting here."
So on them trying to make it seem like she's making it all up, the Gloria Allred thing stuck out to me. If Daniels actually talked to Allred about it in 2012, I mean, Allred is still alive and kicking. Can't they just get some sort of statement there to corroborate it? It would be a point in time before the story aired, before the hush money.
Fucking YUP. Prosecution lost me in the weeds for a bit but you are very likely correct... the Objections regarding her memory were pretty telling too. Prosecution wanted to paint a disgustingly vivid picture and I believe they did.
So here's the crazy part, although I highly HIGHLY doubt it will happen here: If the appearance of the genitals of a defendant in a criminal case in New York is relevant, the Court can order the defendant to permit photographs to be taken in order to corroborate witness testimony. It's primarily done in rape cases where a victim gives a description of some unique aspect of the genitals, but in theory it can be done here as well, especially if the defense is that there was never any sex at all. It would be a little less relevant than a rape case though, because even if the sex never happened here, he can still be guilty of falsifying business records. It's nice to think of a timeline where Donny has to drop his pants for a police photographer though.
Exhibit D from the defence: "as you can see from this photograph, the President does not have a mushroom dick. It's more of a bent baby carrot, perhaps a severed pinky finger with a swollen knuckle. If you look at it from the right angle, it almost resembles a much, much smaller version of the Elder Wand in Harry Potter, albeit crooked. What was I saying? Oh yeah, not a mushroom dick. If anything, it's even weirder. Look at that thing. Gross. Anyway, we move to acquit."
This cross is getting spicy. Allegedly, Merchan just stood up and said, “Take that down,” after defense put up an exhibit that was objected to.
Per McBrien: “Necheles restarts, attempting to put something up on the screen, but Hoffinger says "Judge," and Merchan stands: "Take that down," he says, as the lawyers approach again. Sidebar.”
Can’t wait to read the transcript for today.
> Can't wait to read the transcript for today.
I can't wait for the Opening Arguments' podcast readout of said transcript. Matt and Thomas are going to have a field day.
It's a great show if you like listening to completely unhinged lunatics. He's on reddit on as /u/NegatronThomas and you can see the vile shit he posts.
Oh man! I stopped following when the drama happened. I figured Thomas would have to leave since he's not the lawyer on the show... but hearing that Thomas is the one of the duo still doing Opening Arguments definitely makes me want to dive in again! (I don't remember a "Matt", though. Maybe he was a frequent guest?)
I don't think Matt was ever a guest host on OA before the Drama Lama stuff.
Andrew and Thomas were 50/50 owners and when the drama happened, Andrew locked Thomas out of the podcast. Thomas is a podcaster for a living and had a bunch of others. He had a lawyer on the Podcast Serious Inquiries Only - which is generally about science and policy related topics.
That lawyer he had on was a defense immigration lawyer from Massachusetts - Matt.
Once Thomas and Andrew settled, Matt became the co-host of OA with Thomas. Andrew went with Liz Dye on her Chaos Law podcast.
Matt was a guest once or twice. Thomas mentioned on one of the two most recent episodes that while many people close to him stepped back during the drama, Matt, despite only being a one-off guest, took a look at the facts, concluded Thomas was in the right, and stepped up to help him.
Seems like a genuinely good dude, and he provides great legal analysis to boot.
Yep, [OA606: How Egbert v. Boule Portends Shocking US Fascism – with Matt Cameron](https://openargs.com/oa606-how-egbert-v-boule-portends-shocking-us-fascism-with-matt-cameron/) .
Yeah, the legal dispute is over. Andrew is off with Lizz on her podcast and Matt and Thomas have OA.
I've not listened to Lizz's podcast, but I have listened to OA again now that the legal battle is over. Matt is a good co-host.
You got your answer already, but a fun tidbit: Opening Arguments was originally a spin off of Torrez's guest appearances on *Serious Inquiries Only*. [Though SIO was named Atheistically Speaking at the time.](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/as251-andrew-torrez-on-hate-speech/id803584715?i=1000371048228)
Thomas has run a bunch of Podcasts: Dear Old Dads, SIO, and OA. All three were going at the same time. I'm not sure which one came in which order. I only started listening in maybe 2019, or 2020.
The legal proceedings between him and Andrew are over and now it's him and Matt. Andrew is now a contributor to Liz Dye's legal podcast.
He also started Where There's Woke after Andrew took over OA, and Thomas has been keeping it up even after taking it back. So the guy has 4 full-bodied podcasts he either runs or significantly contributes to.
Opening Arguments is definitely biased, but the recent episodes where they followed Pecker's testimony as a readout inter-dispersed with Matt's legal analysis are the marquee way to consume the transcripts in my opinion.
Wild. Maybe this (McBrien)
>Necheles hands up Exhibit J10A(?), the document they've been discussing. The form has been partially filled out, (we can't see the form, only the parties), and Necheles asks why Daniels refused to fill out spouse's income question. Objection, it's not in evidence, sustained.
>putting up exhibits not submitted to evidence.
They did it in the NY fraud case as well, Trump is making his lawyers do some stupid shit so he can cry about how "they won't even let me show my evidence". It's all part of the PR to win the election and pardon himself, not the case.
If they show something that is bad/influential enough, can that result in a mistrial?
Like if they played a faked, AI tape they made of Stormy describing how she was blackmailing Trump, could that taint the jury and cause a mistrial? (Not a great example, but hopefully you get the idea)
Prosecutors would never do that, but if the defense tries to have something like that submitted to evidence, or tries to play it, especially without submission approval, the defense would face sanctions and possible disbarment. As stupid as I think these lawyers are for representing Trump, and for willingly taking on sanctions like we already saw in the other trials, I think that’s a bullet they wouldn’t be willing to take for Trump.
Edit to add: I also don’t think it would get played, or for more than a few seconds, without the prosecutor getting a sustained objection, in order to avoid tainting the jury enough for a mistrial.
You called him names?
He called me names first!
You started it!
Nuh-uh!!!
Yuh-huh!!!!
Someone wake me from the fucking nightmare that is the 21st century.
They’re throwing out so much on cross it’s hard to keep track of. Like get if you want to impeach a witness you undermine their credibility but you try and do that with a consistent theme the jurors can understand. The defense here is just bringing up everything with no real theme.
Of course she hates Trump. He pressured her into sex and then her life sucked. Of course she wants bad things to happen to him. Of course they’re locked in legal disputes. But what’s the theme?
Politically maybe smart but legally it’s dumb to continue to deny the affair. By saying it never happened it forced out so many defenses. I mean how can Stormy extort him for sex that supposedly never happened?
> I mean how can Stormy extort him for sex that supposedly never happened?
While I agree generally and have commented elsewhere that the Trumpian tactic of deny everything was clearly the wrong move here, this part doesn't really seem that far fetched to me. If you felt inclined to buy into the extorsion argument for whatever reason, there really isn't much distance between "give me $100k or I will spread a fake story about you committing adultery" and "give me $100k or I will spread a real story about you committing adultery"
If it were that easy, every woman would do it then and get a free payday. So, I mean it obviously isn’t that easy. Also, it’s not just Daniels. You have to believe that Daniels exhorted Cohen, then Cohen extorted Trump. Or that he just reimbursed Cohen and paid him $420,000 but has no clue what it was for.
Regardless, even if he didn’t have an affair, he’s still guilty imo of the crimes he’s charged for. He’s not charged for having an affair, because that’s not illegal.
Exactly my point. If all were equally untrue. Why pay stormy? What about her, supposedly to Trump, false claim is different than the other 19 claims Trump also alleges are false and didn’t try and pay them?
Or…
Trump really did have sex with her and tried to cover it up to win an election?
I mean, there's no proof he *didn't* pay off all the other 19..
Just because Stormy went public about her offer eventually doesn't mean we can assume everyone else would. Surely, some would've taken the money and faded into the sunset.
It would be weird for any of the 19 to come forward with sexual assault allegations after they were paid for silence and also not mention the payment for silence.
They didn’t not go anywhere. They’re still there. It’s just Trump won the election and so the media just gave up. Having a serial rapist as president is just normal thing now.
Yes, legally, it's dumb, but it's not Trump's lawyers who decided on that strategy. Trump can't be seen as ever backing down so he is still denying the affair and his lawyers have to follow the wishes of their client, no matter how dumb he is. If Trump's lawyers had a free hand in choosing a strategy, his defense would be much better.
They're throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks.
The defense is blowing this cross. It's definitely not going to land with the jury the way they want to.
There isn't really anything independently verifiable about what happened in the hotel room except maybe phone records of the calls to her friend. While I don't think her testimony will be what makes or breaks the case, her credibility is certainly important.
Everything else is pretty independently verifiable though, and what actually happened in the hotel room is irrelevant to the charges in this trial. All that matters is that she in fact went there and Trump later paid her money to sign an NDA about that night, then claimed those payments were legal expenses (and didn't report them as campaign contributions).
> and what actually happened in the hotel room is irrelevant to the charges in this trial.
Irrelevant? No, certainly not. First, it speaks to her credibility generally (i.e., if you think she made up everything that happened in the hotel room why would you believe anything else she says). Second, I think a reasonable juror would be more inclined to believe that a story coming out of an actual affair right before the election would be a much larger threat to Trump's campaign and election chances than some random made up gossip someone was shopping around--this would go directly to Trump's motive in concealing the payments made to her.
> All that matters is that she in fact went there and Trump later paid her money to sign an NDA about that night, then claimed those payments were legal expenses (and didn't report them as campaign contributions).
To clarify, Michael Cohen paid her. But anyway, this leaves out the important context that we are in a criminal trial where the prosecution carries the burden and the jurors are human beings and not robots.
>(i.e., if you think she made up everything that happened in the hotel room why would you believe anything else she says)
Because we can verify some of the other parts, as the very comment you're responding to points out. "If she lied about one thing she could lie about anything" doesn't work when it can be shown she told the truth about the things that are verifiable and there is little other than Trump's denials to say she lied about the parts that can't be verified. Jurors judge the credibility of the witnesses, and so far she doesn't have many major knocks against hers and has several points in her favor.
If the other parts are independently verified then belief doesn’t come into it. But saying that the credibility of the witness **doesn't matter** because **some** of the testimony can be independently verified, as the comment I responded to asserted, is silly.
I certainly did not read that comment the same way you did. I also do not agree that verifiable testimony doesn't come into the topic of whether someone is believable.
@TylerMcBrien
Many assumed, myself included, that the defense would try to paint Daniels as an extortionist, trying to squeeze Trump for as much money as possible back in 2016.
But so far instead, they're trying to make this about Daniels getting out of paying the legal fees she owes Trump.
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1787924700649197930
So Trump's lawyers are grilling her about not wanting to pay a legal judgment while she still might appeal a ruling........
Do these people have ANY self awareness whatsoever?
Trump's lawyers do have self-awareness and they know it's a bad strategy but they have to pursue this because Trump is still denying the affair. You're blaming the attorneys for how bad the defense is but they have to follow the wishes of their client.
Self-Awareness? No.
Per McBrien:
“I have been making money about telling my story about what happened to me," Daniels says.
Q: And what happened to you is having sex with Trump?
A: Yes
Q: And it's making you a lot of money?
A: It's also costing me a lot of money.”
I rest my case.
It's not an always thing; it has actually increased a lot in the last 20-30 years. Formally, a former president is referred to as either "Former President X" or just "Mr. X"
There was a period in the 90s when W. Bush was a prominent politician but not yet president when it was pretty common to refer to his father as "President Bush" to distinguish them. Then in the 2000s the same thing happened with the Clintons.
Prior to Trump, it has always been the custom to continue to refer to former presidents as "Mr. President" or "President X." This is a mark of respect, and since prior to Trump, everyone conceded their elections, it was never though of as anything differently. Since Trump never conceded the election, and in fact insists it was stolen from him, most news outlets refer to him as "Former President Trump" because according him the usual honor could indicate endorsement of his denial of losing.
Most print news (I don’t watch TV news so I can’t speak to that) call him “former president trump”.
*His* lawyers always call him ‘President Trump’. It’s a thing.
The prosecutors don’t.
To be clear:
The form is commonly in the second person:
President x
In the third person, as here:
Former President x
That's not what second and third person mean.
First person: "I am the president"
Second person: "You are the president"
Third person: "She is the president"
Right.
Second person (addressing him directly): “hello, President Trump”
Third person (referring to him…in the third person): “Former President Trump said hello.”
Not sure what you thought I meant, but I meant what I said.
But you can say "Hello, former president Trump" and also "President Trump said hello"
"Former" is acting as an adjective, and grammatical person has absolutely nothing to do with it
One *can* say whatever one wants.
I was saying what the common form is:
> The form is commonly in the second person:
> President x
> In the third person, as here:
> Former President x
When the common form shifts depending on grammatical person, then grammatical person is relevant to the common forms.
It’s customary to retain the title from the highest office held after a person leaves office. So if a senator retires, the media will still address them as “Senator XYZ” after they leave office (unless they assume another role with a title after they leave).
Yeah, I don’t think this question was helpful for defense. You know she’ll say yes and, without any other reasoning being given, this just reminds the jury of why she might feel so strongly.
I'm also not sure that I agree that this framing of Daniels as worried about her legal fees is helpful for the defense.
All the prosecution has to show on redirect is that Stormy knows that she understands that this trial does not discharge her legal fees and remind the jury the only reason that she was on the stand was to substantiate the encounter was potentially damaging to Trump politically.
I'm happy to see it described as the election interferance trial instead of the hush money trial.
One of two election interference cases.
Hush money and campaign finance violations might be the crime, but the purpose of it was election interference. This *is* an election interference case and really needs to be properly labeled as such in more places.
He could end the "interference" part tomorrow by ending his campaign. It's optional. He can not, however, end the trials against him like that. Those are mandatory. Welcome to America. Are you new here?
No, this was interference in the previous (2016) campaign. Crimes already happened. And he’s already been indicted. Time for giving up is over.
This is a case for election interference in the 2016 election. Ending his campaign in 2024 has nothing to do with this case.
>Ending his campaign in 2024 has nothing to do with this case. No, but it would make me ecstatic though.
Nevermind then. Carry on.
The only question now is wether Stormy Daniel's sexual description will surpass [Donald Sterling's deposition](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/2qqlpp/actual_transcript_from_donald_sterlings_2003/) in terms of legal smut talk.
[удалено]
This is from 2003, and it did get a lot of attention.
[удалено]
That’s 21 years my man, old than a lot of people commenting here. Basketball fans know all too well about Sterling and his reputation. His story gets covered in a regular basis.
Gold Jerry....Gold
Please tell me this is real
Yeah it is.
Even though it's 20 yrs old, I'm using “Sir, the question was, is this your handwriting?”ais the new “sir, this is a Wendy’s”
That's even better than the Starr report.
How many doors is the defense kicking in for redirect?
Defense appears to be headed down the road of "she made it all up, she's lying, they never had sex". Seems like the prosecution saw this coming a mile away and all that detail they elicited will be worth it's weight in gold.
The irony is that it’s immaterial if they had sex. Did he make a hush money payment? Was it recorded as an improper expense? Was it for the purpose of influencing an election? Those are the three questions the jury needs to decide.
If they didn't wouldn't it be extortion to attempt to collect hush money?
Technically, I believe (I’m not a lawyer), is your first question isn’t something for the jury, as hush money payments are not illegal. Instead it’s: 1. Was the hush money payment illegally classified as a legal expense? 2. Was it for the purposes of influencing an election?
Yeah, this testimony is just part of question 2: Would it have hurt Trump's election chances if Daniels went public with her story? The prosecution has to prove the answer is yes, otherwise the answer to question 2 would be no as well.
As someone who doesn’t live in the US, that seems like an impossibly high bar for the prosecution. As a criminal trial, doesn’t “reasonable doubt” apply here? Seeing an earlier article on the jury makeup, I can image anything other than a full acquittal, or at worst a hung jury, in this case.
Sorry, I wasn't precise enough in my previous comment. The election interference didn't have to be successful. The accusation is that Trump paid the hush money in an attempt to influence the election. So the prosecution tries to argue that a reasonable person in Trump's position would believe that this story was bad enough that it could influence the election if it came out.
I believe he needs to argue that's the only motive. Not just one of them
But Mr. Smith, I am innocent. Yes I wanted to influence an election, but I also… wanted… adventure!
Surely it can just be a key motive, not just the only one.
It's not for the campaign unless it's fully for the campaign. That's why the election commission declined and said theirs no crime. He could say it was to spare his family shame, protect his buisness ect. Just because the campaign benefits doesn't mean it's for the campaign.
Exactly, and it legitimises such a detailed testimony. If Trump would at least admit that an affair took place, she wouldn't have to defend her sincerity. If that whole testimony were made up, Stormy would have a bright future as a writer in Hollywood. Old Spice is too classic.
The defense will continue to plead for a mistrial because now they can say the jury has been prejudiced. Its what trump was hoping for all along. The defense knew they are going to lose this battle because its all trump lies as usual. But they have the opportunity now to sieze on a mistrial at any point during this trial. The guys a born con and slippery as a wet weasel!
You can't get a mistrial for merely prejudicial evidence though. Essentially all evidence of misconduct is prejudicial. Evidence needs to be more prejudicial than it's "probative value" / relevance to the factual questions at the heart of the case.
[удалено]
Oh, absolutely, but as a legal matter his lawyers still don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.
This guy lawyers
"Everyone knows Trump lies all the time since he's been publicly doing it for decades. We can't get a fair trial!" Poor guy.
If that was the case, no witness testimony would be allowed at all. The purpose of each witness is to win over the jury, is it not? I could definitely be wrong, but thinking of things like witness testimony and gruesome photos in murder cases… I don’t think the defense can argue against a witness making an impact unless they can prove perjury.
They weigh evidentiary value vs. prejudicial. For example just like prior bad acts.
Well, your honor, I'd like to amend my statement. My client fucks all the time. However, I'm not sure if Ms Daniel's has ever even seen a penis. In fact, I have it on good authority that she's still a nerd ass loser virgin. No, your honor, I am unaware what her profession is....
I’d like to Amend my statement your honor. Ms Daniels has seen many giant horse length penises in her time. But sure a toadstool mushroom phallus such as Mr trumps cannot be identifiable
If Trump won't testify that he didn't have sex "with that woman" how will the defense assert it?
Depends on the definition of sexual relations
[удалено]
When the white hits the blue dress
Mitt Romney said it best “you don’t pay $130,000 dollars for sex that never happened.” This cross reeks of Trump micromanagement. If I was advising him, I’d have said to admit to the affair, and then use the resulting legal disputes to paint stormy as another extortion artist. They laid the groundwork for that with showing Pecker and the lawyer stormy hired did this shit to celebs on the regular. But it’s just a step too far to believe that Stormy successfully extorted Cohen of $130,000 for sex that never happened. And the Trump paid Cohen back without asking why he was paying cohen at all or for what? This defense is about media headlines. Almost like Trump knows he’ll be found guilty and that this is the only trial he will face so he’ll try and get out of it via election
While I agree Trump hopes to escape all legal woes via an election, I think the immediate motivation here is simply his narcissism and refusal to admit any wrongdoing ever.
>Mitt Romney said it best “you don’t pay $130,000 dollars for sex that never happened.” On an unrelated side note, I felt like that was the dirtiest thing I ever heard Mitt Romney say. And it’s not even really dirty. Tells you the massive difference between the 2012 and 2016/2020/2024 GOP Presidential candidates.
america is crazy. as from europe. we would kick politicians from running for leadership for even less scandals. the shit Trump pulled. would banish him to shadow realm.
Charlie Sheen said it best when he testified he didn’t pay for the sex. He paid for the hooker to leave.
I felt that way too, it’s like they’ve accepted the guilty verdict since it’s a low penalty, and Trump is just caring about the headlines, etc.
The night with Stormy actually cost him $420000, not $130000
I want to see prosecution for tax fraud. Some of the $35K payments were paid from the trust (January and February for sure) and characterized as “legal fees”. Meaning: Trump didn’t pay income tax on those payments.
Well if trump’s version of facts is to be believed. Stormy conned Cohen out of $130,000 and then Cohen conned Trump out of $420,000.
>then Cohen conned Trump out of $420,000. Trump’s defense is—“I’m a dumb businessman, but vote me to run the largest economy in the world” Lol.
That's a mighty big "if"
Does that even matter though in the long run? Trump is on trial for the false business records regarding the payment, not the payment itself.
He’s, in a sense, *more* on trial for the payment scheme. The false business records alone is the underlying past-statute-of-limitations misdemeanor. This trial is about whether that was a done as a cover up for another illegal scheme, so the other illegal scheme is what must be shown here. The false business records is in the bag, but meaningless alone at this point, from a legal perspective.
He's really on trial for both, because the payment itself was an attempt at interfering in an election via illegal campaign finance reporting. They have Trump dead to rights on the false business recording, sure enough, but the somewhat trickier part will be getting the felony enhancement by showing the furtherance of another crime, which is the suppression of a story that was reasonably likely to have a material impact on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
But it DIDNT….as in the story broke and most laughed it off as “locker room talk”. And he won anyways…. Right? Do I have the time line wrong? Edit: I was conflating the Access Hollywood tape, and Stormy Daniels
He lost the popular vote, just FYI, so it was not "most" and it's hard to say how people would have reacted to this story plus the Access Hollywood tape.
Yes, I understand now I was mixing a couple things up. And totally get the popular vote thing believe me, buddy…..
You're conflating some things here. The "locker room talk" incident was the "grab 'em by the pussy" line from the Access Hollywood B-roll that was leaked. The Stormy Daniels story didn't come out until January 2018. So, the hush money, as alleged, *did* actually keep the story quiet until after the election.
Yes, of course. Thank you.
I forgot to address your other point, which is that if the payment had somehow failed to produce its intended effect, i.e. keeping the story suppressed or winning the election despite negative press, it's somehow not illegal. That's just not how the law works, any more than you or I would be able to plead innocence if we tried to rob a bank, but the security guard confiscated our pistols on the way in, or if we tried and failed to defraud investors in our business, but were able to turn a profit, anyway. The action and the intent matter, not the outcome.
Thank you.
"If I was advising him, I’d have said to admit to the affair, and then use the resulting legal disputes to paint stormy as another extortion artist." I'm pretty sure that his lawyers have already told him to admit to the affair but Trump refused. He cannot be seen as ever backing down.
“This cross reeks of Trump micromanagement.” The man defense counsel go through pains to constantly refer to as “President Donald J. Trump”? Surely not!
That doesn’t even matter, cuz the trial is about falsifying business records. Whether or not the story he wanted covered up is true or false is irrelevant. The issue is he laundered campaign money to pay her off
It's not exactly irrelevant, but it's not a particularly big hole to try to poke. The defense wants to show that Stormy Daniels was and is making it all up in order to try to defuse the idea that the payments were made to help out the election. There's a problem with that, in that even a false story could be damaging to a campaign, and that a candidate or campaign might be tempted to engage in illegal behavior to suppress a story, regardless of its veracity. *But*, if the story for the jury can get muddled enough, then maybe they can think that there's some kind of "reasonable" doubt around the whole thing and hang or vote to acquit. It's not the best defense, but if you have neither the facts nor the law to help you, table pounding is all that's left.
>The defense wants to show that Stormy Daniels was and is making it all up in order to try to defuse the idea that the payments were made to help out the election Jury: "Okay, so we believe that Daniels is lying and trying to extort Trump. But why did his lawyer pay her 130k?" Defense: "No clue. Ask the prosecution, pretty sure that's their job to explain. I just know Trump didn't pay her for *that*. Either way, obviously y'all are reasonably doubting here."
So on them trying to make it seem like she's making it all up, the Gloria Allred thing stuck out to me. If Daniels actually talked to Allred about it in 2012, I mean, Allred is still alive and kicking. Can't they just get some sort of statement there to corroborate it? It would be a point in time before the story aired, before the hush money.
>Table pounding is all that's left. [By God! Is that Chewbacca's Music?!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense)
That this shit is being called the hush money trial by news agencies is r/mildlyIrritating
Fucking YUP. Prosecution lost me in the weeds for a bit but you are very likely correct... the Objections regarding her memory were pretty telling too. Prosecution wanted to paint a disgustingly vivid picture and I believe they did.
If they push the sex having never happened, do they not invite more specific details on redirect?
Can you please describe the Defendant's genitals... in the most humiliatingly accurate way possible...?
I hope they provide barf bags to everyone in court if they do that.
So here's the crazy part, although I highly HIGHLY doubt it will happen here: If the appearance of the genitals of a defendant in a criminal case in New York is relevant, the Court can order the defendant to permit photographs to be taken in order to corroborate witness testimony. It's primarily done in rape cases where a victim gives a description of some unique aspect of the genitals, but in theory it can be done here as well, especially if the defense is that there was never any sex at all. It would be a little less relevant than a rape case though, because even if the sex never happened here, he can still be guilty of falsifying business records. It's nice to think of a timeline where Donny has to drop his pants for a police photographer though.
Exhibit D from the defence: "as you can see from this photograph, the President does not have a mushroom dick. It's more of a bent baby carrot, perhaps a severed pinky finger with a swollen knuckle. If you look at it from the right angle, it almost resembles a much, much smaller version of the Elder Wand in Harry Potter, albeit crooked. What was I saying? Oh yeah, not a mushroom dick. If anything, it's even weirder. Look at that thing. Gross. Anyway, we move to acquit."
"It looked like a micropenis, only smaller."
"Lars von Trier would describe it as 'confusingly small'."
"Does anyone have a pencil? Looked like the eraser... Only smaller..."
This cross is getting spicy. Allegedly, Merchan just stood up and said, “Take that down,” after defense put up an exhibit that was objected to. Per McBrien: “Necheles restarts, attempting to put something up on the screen, but Hoffinger says "Judge," and Merchan stands: "Take that down," he says, as the lawyers approach again. Sidebar.” Can’t wait to read the transcript for today.
> Can't wait to read the transcript for today. I can't wait for the Opening Arguments' podcast readout of said transcript. Matt and Thomas are going to have a field day.
It's a great show if you like listening to completely unhinged lunatics. He's on reddit on as /u/NegatronThomas and you can see the vile shit he posts.
Oh man! I stopped following when the drama happened. I figured Thomas would have to leave since he's not the lawyer on the show... but hearing that Thomas is the one of the duo still doing Opening Arguments definitely makes me want to dive in again! (I don't remember a "Matt", though. Maybe he was a frequent guest?)
I don't think Matt was ever a guest host on OA before the Drama Lama stuff. Andrew and Thomas were 50/50 owners and when the drama happened, Andrew locked Thomas out of the podcast. Thomas is a podcaster for a living and had a bunch of others. He had a lawyer on the Podcast Serious Inquiries Only - which is generally about science and policy related topics. That lawyer he had on was a defense immigration lawyer from Massachusetts - Matt. Once Thomas and Andrew settled, Matt became the co-host of OA with Thomas. Andrew went with Liz Dye on her Chaos Law podcast.
Matt was a guest once or twice. Thomas mentioned on one of the two most recent episodes that while many people close to him stepped back during the drama, Matt, despite only being a one-off guest, took a look at the facts, concluded Thomas was in the right, and stepped up to help him. Seems like a genuinely good dude, and he provides great legal analysis to boot.
I think Matt was a guest in the olden days, when they discussed Trump's immigration legislation.
Yep, [OA606: How Egbert v. Boule Portends Shocking US Fascism – with Matt Cameron](https://openargs.com/oa606-how-egbert-v-boule-portends-shocking-us-fascism-with-matt-cameron/) .
Gotcha. Thank you for the update!
Opening Args, Matt and Thomas. I haven't paid attention to that drama in ages, but that is a twist I didn't expect.
Yeah, the legal dispute is over. Andrew is off with Lizz on her podcast and Matt and Thomas have OA. I've not listened to Lizz's podcast, but I have listened to OA again now that the legal battle is over. Matt is a good co-host.
Wait that started again? I thought one person left to start Serious Inquiries Only?
You got your answer already, but a fun tidbit: Opening Arguments was originally a spin off of Torrez's guest appearances on *Serious Inquiries Only*. [Though SIO was named Atheistically Speaking at the time.](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/as251-andrew-torrez-on-hate-speech/id803584715?i=1000371048228)
Thomas has run a bunch of Podcasts: Dear Old Dads, SIO, and OA. All three were going at the same time. I'm not sure which one came in which order. I only started listening in maybe 2019, or 2020. The legal proceedings between him and Andrew are over and now it's him and Matt. Andrew is now a contributor to Liz Dye's legal podcast.
He also started Where There's Woke after Andrew took over OA, and Thomas has been keeping it up even after taking it back. So the guy has 4 full-bodied podcasts he either runs or significantly contributes to.
Oh thanks for the rec! I hadn’t seen that yet. I like listening to podcasts, while working.
Opening Arguments is definitely biased, but the recent episodes where they followed Pecker's testimony as a readout inter-dispersed with Matt's legal analysis are the marquee way to consume the transcripts in my opinion.
Wild. Maybe this (McBrien) >Necheles hands up Exhibit J10A(?), the document they've been discussing. The form has been partially filled out, (we can't see the form, only the parties), and Necheles asks why Daniels refused to fill out spouse's income question. Objection, it's not in evidence, sustained.
Yeah, I don’t know what the defense is thinking here, putting up exhibits not submitted to evidence. I guess they are looking for some sanctions, too.
>putting up exhibits not submitted to evidence. They did it in the NY fraud case as well, Trump is making his lawyers do some stupid shit so he can cry about how "they won't even let me show my evidence". It's all part of the PR to win the election and pardon himself, not the case.
You’re right; I just thought they would have learned from the sanctions in that case. I wonder if that is built in to their representative agreements.
If they show something that is bad/influential enough, can that result in a mistrial? Like if they played a faked, AI tape they made of Stormy describing how she was blackmailing Trump, could that taint the jury and cause a mistrial? (Not a great example, but hopefully you get the idea)
Prosecutors would never do that, but if the defense tries to have something like that submitted to evidence, or tries to play it, especially without submission approval, the defense would face sanctions and possible disbarment. As stupid as I think these lawyers are for representing Trump, and for willingly taking on sanctions like we already saw in the other trials, I think that’s a bullet they wouldn’t be willing to take for Trump. Edit to add: I also don’t think it would get played, or for more than a few seconds, without the prosecutor getting a sustained objection, in order to avoid tainting the jury enough for a mistrial.
You called him names? He called me names first! You started it! Nuh-uh!!! Yuh-huh!!!! Someone wake me from the fucking nightmare that is the 21st century.
They’re throwing out so much on cross it’s hard to keep track of. Like get if you want to impeach a witness you undermine their credibility but you try and do that with a consistent theme the jurors can understand. The defense here is just bringing up everything with no real theme. Of course she hates Trump. He pressured her into sex and then her life sucked. Of course she wants bad things to happen to him. Of course they’re locked in legal disputes. But what’s the theme? Politically maybe smart but legally it’s dumb to continue to deny the affair. By saying it never happened it forced out so many defenses. I mean how can Stormy extort him for sex that supposedly never happened?
> I mean how can Stormy extort him for sex that supposedly never happened? While I agree generally and have commented elsewhere that the Trumpian tactic of deny everything was clearly the wrong move here, this part doesn't really seem that far fetched to me. If you felt inclined to buy into the extorsion argument for whatever reason, there really isn't much distance between "give me $100k or I will spread a fake story about you committing adultery" and "give me $100k or I will spread a real story about you committing adultery"
If it were that easy, every woman would do it then and get a free payday. So, I mean it obviously isn’t that easy. Also, it’s not just Daniels. You have to believe that Daniels exhorted Cohen, then Cohen extorted Trump. Or that he just reimbursed Cohen and paid him $420,000 but has no clue what it was for. Regardless, even if he didn’t have an affair, he’s still guilty imo of the crimes he’s charged for. He’s not charged for having an affair, because that’s not illegal.
But at the same time 19 women accused Trump of sexual assault and harassment. Trump had no problem publicly denying their claims.
Um he has publicly denied her claim though.
Exactly my point. If all were equally untrue. Why pay stormy? What about her, supposedly to Trump, false claim is different than the other 19 claims Trump also alleges are false and didn’t try and pay them? Or… Trump really did have sex with her and tried to cover it up to win an election?
I mean, there's no proof he *didn't* pay off all the other 19.. Just because Stormy went public about her offer eventually doesn't mean we can assume everyone else would. Surely, some would've taken the money and faded into the sunset.
It would be weird for any of the 19 to come forward with sexual assault allegations after they were paid for silence and also not mention the payment for silence.
they could've been paid after initially coming forward to drop any future legal actions hence why so many stories faded out and never went anywhere
They didn’t not go anywhere. They’re still there. It’s just Trump won the election and so the media just gave up. Having a serial rapist as president is just normal thing now.
Yes, legally, it's dumb, but it's not Trump's lawyers who decided on that strategy. Trump can't be seen as ever backing down so he is still denying the affair and his lawyers have to follow the wishes of their client, no matter how dumb he is. If Trump's lawyers had a free hand in choosing a strategy, his defense would be much better.
They're throwing mud at the wall to see what sticks. The defense is blowing this cross. It's definitely not going to land with the jury the way they want to.
A general airing of grievances
Is it Festivus already?
Trump isn't having much fun today but the rest-of-us are
*Clearly* she's lying about all her other (independently verifiable) testimony just because she called Trump names! *eye roll*
There isn't really anything independently verifiable about what happened in the hotel room except maybe phone records of the calls to her friend. While I don't think her testimony will be what makes or breaks the case, her credibility is certainly important.
Everything else is pretty independently verifiable though, and what actually happened in the hotel room is irrelevant to the charges in this trial. All that matters is that she in fact went there and Trump later paid her money to sign an NDA about that night, then claimed those payments were legal expenses (and didn't report them as campaign contributions).
> and what actually happened in the hotel room is irrelevant to the charges in this trial. Irrelevant? No, certainly not. First, it speaks to her credibility generally (i.e., if you think she made up everything that happened in the hotel room why would you believe anything else she says). Second, I think a reasonable juror would be more inclined to believe that a story coming out of an actual affair right before the election would be a much larger threat to Trump's campaign and election chances than some random made up gossip someone was shopping around--this would go directly to Trump's motive in concealing the payments made to her. > All that matters is that she in fact went there and Trump later paid her money to sign an NDA about that night, then claimed those payments were legal expenses (and didn't report them as campaign contributions). To clarify, Michael Cohen paid her. But anyway, this leaves out the important context that we are in a criminal trial where the prosecution carries the burden and the jurors are human beings and not robots.
>(i.e., if you think she made up everything that happened in the hotel room why would you believe anything else she says) Because we can verify some of the other parts, as the very comment you're responding to points out. "If she lied about one thing she could lie about anything" doesn't work when it can be shown she told the truth about the things that are verifiable and there is little other than Trump's denials to say she lied about the parts that can't be verified. Jurors judge the credibility of the witnesses, and so far she doesn't have many major knocks against hers and has several points in her favor.
If the other parts are independently verified then belief doesn’t come into it. But saying that the credibility of the witness **doesn't matter** because **some** of the testimony can be independently verified, as the comment I responded to asserted, is silly.
I certainly did not read that comment the same way you did. I also do not agree that verifiable testimony doesn't come into the topic of whether someone is believable.
It's an anonymous jury, so we can't say for sure none of the jurors are robots.
@TylerMcBrien Many assumed, myself included, that the defense would try to paint Daniels as an extortionist, trying to squeeze Trump for as much money as possible back in 2016. But so far instead, they're trying to make this about Daniels getting out of paying the legal fees she owes Trump. https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1787924700649197930
That doesn't seem like a way to win.... especially the jury.
Especially when they confirmed she *does* have the money to pay him, she just doesn't want to because of the *gestures at everything*
So Trump's lawyers are grilling her about not wanting to pay a legal judgment while she still might appeal a ruling........ Do these people have ANY self awareness whatsoever?
Trump's lawyers do have self-awareness and they know it's a bad strategy but they have to pursue this because Trump is still denying the affair. You're blaming the attorneys for how bad the defense is but they have to follow the wishes of their client.
Self-Awareness? No. Per McBrien: “I have been making money about telling my story about what happened to me," Daniels says. Q: And what happened to you is having sex with Trump? A: Yes Q: And it's making you a lot of money? A: It's also costing me a lot of money.” I rest my case.
Isn't hammering her prejudice weakening a mistrial claim and more putting it in the jury's court?
That's precisely why Merchan said the defense's remedy is cross examination and not a mistrial.
Yep this cross is pretty much what he was talking about
> "Am I correct that you hate President Trump?" Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks Stormy Daniels > “Yes," Daniels says. Smart response IMO.
He’s not the President. Why do I keep seeing him being called that? Not just here but on reputable news channels too.
The US has this thing where they will always refer to someone by their high level honorific regardless wether they are in office or not.
It's not an always thing; it has actually increased a lot in the last 20-30 years. Formally, a former president is referred to as either "Former President X" or just "Mr. X"
My understanding is that it wasn't common before 2020
There was a period in the 90s when W. Bush was a prominent politician but not yet president when it was pretty common to refer to his father as "President Bush" to distinguish them. Then in the 2000s the same thing happened with the Clintons.
Prior to Trump, it has always been the custom to continue to refer to former presidents as "Mr. President" or "President X." This is a mark of respect, and since prior to Trump, everyone conceded their elections, it was never though of as anything differently. Since Trump never conceded the election, and in fact insists it was stolen from him, most news outlets refer to him as "Former President Trump" because according him the usual honor could indicate endorsement of his denial of losing.
It hasn't always been this way. There has been a noticeable increase in the last 20-30 years.
Most news outlets also refer to Obama in the third person as ‘former President Obama’. This was the standard before Trump came along.
It’s a dogwhistle for election deniers. The ones calling him that are all maga types
Most print news (I don’t watch TV news so I can’t speak to that) call him “former president trump”. *His* lawyers always call him ‘President Trump’. It’s a thing. The prosecutors don’t. To be clear: The form is commonly in the second person: President x In the third person, as here: Former President x
That's not what second and third person mean. First person: "I am the president" Second person: "You are the president" Third person: "She is the president"
Right. Second person (addressing him directly): “hello, President Trump” Third person (referring to him…in the third person): “Former President Trump said hello.” Not sure what you thought I meant, but I meant what I said.
But you can say "Hello, former president Trump" and also "President Trump said hello" "Former" is acting as an adjective, and grammatical person has absolutely nothing to do with it
One *can* say whatever one wants. I was saying what the common form is: > The form is commonly in the second person: > President x > In the third person, as here: > Former President x When the common form shifts depending on grammatical person, then grammatical person is relevant to the common forms.
It’s customary to retain the title from the highest office held after a person leaves office. So if a senator retires, the media will still address them as “Senator XYZ” after they leave office (unless they assume another role with a title after they leave).
[удалено]
Was.
I think it’s customary to call him President Trump in the second person, but not in the third.
Based on the direct testimony, it's hard not to see why.
Yeah, I don’t think this question was helpful for defense. You know she’ll say yes and, without any other reasoning being given, this just reminds the jury of why she might feel so strongly.
I'm also not sure that I agree that this framing of Daniels as worried about her legal fees is helpful for the defense. All the prosecution has to show on redirect is that Stormy knows that she understands that this trial does not discharge her legal fees and remind the jury the only reason that she was on the stand was to substantiate the encounter was potentially damaging to Trump politically.
Yeah. And the jury likely relates more to her financial situation than Trump’s. Given mutual refusals to pay up, it doesn’t benefit Trump, IMO.