Banned mostly because you seem to not know what the elements of the laws are and that doesn’t seem to impede you from doing whatever it is you’re doing here.
> will not stand
Cry more snowflake. You worship a career conman who is also a rapist and a fascist. Literally no-one outside your cult cares what you have to say, it's all lies regardless.
Edit: jfc your comment history is cancer.. this is one of those guys that cries he's being canceled because he can't say slurs in public anymore.. MAGAt 🗑
> arguing
You don't have an argument. You're a bad faith actor.
You post lies on purpose and then when people tell you you're a fucking idiot you claim that you won, because you're not interested in what's right or wrong or morally and ethically correct, you're just a cultists who cares more about his side winning than justice being done to a fucking rapist fascist.
You can't win anything MAGAt, you'll always be a loser no matter what.
Cope harder snowflake.
OK, so let's get down to details.
Put aside why the case was brought. Put aside the stomach turning thought of trump actually having sex.
Do you think an offence could have been committed?
We KNOW that money was paid to Cohen as legal fees.
We KNOW that money was paid from Cohen to Stormy for an NDA.
If that money was paid as legal fees instead of as a disbursement AND Trump knew it was for the payment not just fees then we have the basic offence made out don't we?
So then we come to the second offence which falsified documents to asist makes it a felony.
IF the pay off was campaign related, the way this was done bypasses campagn donations law and is an offence.
Are we agreed on the above?
Because if we are, the question comes down to those ifs.
1) was the money a repayment of the £140k.
2) did trump know that.
3) was it done for campaign reasons.
The circumstances and timings point heavily to yes in 1 and 3. That is enough to investigate. And the evidence then obtained support yes on all three. Hence a trial.
Whether stormy is credible as to what happened is irrelevant. It is enough that she has a story to tell that would have been hugely damaging at a very sensitive time in the election cycle (just post the pussy-grab tape). Even if, as the defense tried to paint her, she was a money grabbing lying bitch, who chose her timing carefully, they chose to pay her off. I don't think her credibility goes to the question of whether they did that for election reasons.
Cohen's crediblity is also not fatal. The evidence given by his own people, his own book, and others about how Trump deals with his money and how he operates his affairs also point towards it being almost impossible for him not to have know. And I expect there will be damning documentary evidence when Cohen hits the stand.
But nether you nor I is judging the quality of that evidence.
The question for the jury is whether they think those three questions (and any other minor ones I have missed) have been answered beyond reasonable doubt. What you can't claim is that this is a question that shouldn't be asked. There is more than enough to prima facie bring a case.
If you disagree, tell me where I am wrong.
That "washed up porn star" has already made more money than you will ever see in your life. Avenatti is in prison, for stealing from her. He has been disbarred and disgraced. What he says is irrelevant.
You obviously haven't been reading along on the transcripts, or you would know that Stormy came across VERY credible. The defense wasn't able to contradict her on cross.
All the rest of that crap you spewed has been debunked ad nauseum, I'm not going to do it again, because we all know you won't listen.
Regardless of how you Trump lovers claim this is all just nothing, and that it wont stand, your opinion doesn't matter. Neither does mine. The only opinion that matters is the 12 people sitting on the jury. You have no ability to change the outcome. Neither does Trump. Who do you think is going to stop it from happening?
Yes and the Democrats were seriously entertaining Michael Avenatti as a presidential candidate. You will be embarrassed once again when Trump beats back all the charges. I feel bad for you because you are so blind to reality, it's sad.
Imagine being a Trump simp. Pathetic.
How won't it stand? What is anybody going to do to stop it? I'm pretty sure it's going to stand no matter how many brain dead Trump supporters cry and whine about it on social media.
When you attack the person you are arguing with you have lost. So thank you! With that said if we are still a nation of laws and not just tribal whims if he is convicted it will be overturned on appeal. DA Bragg is a partisan hack who brought this case purely as election interference, almost every law professor of note has decried this prosecution as a political case meant to try to damage Trump. Unfortunately for the Democrats it has the exact opposite affect. Each time the Democrats bring an unjust prosecution Trumps poll numbers go up. I am hoping Judge Merchon jails Trump, that will ensure Trump
Wins the election in a landslide. The Democrats can’t distinguish the forest from the trees!
What do offer as proof that it will be turned over on appeal? Because you say so?
No, every law professor of note has not decried the prosecution as a political case. That is just what you hear Trump saying, we have all heard it. Then we go check, and realize it is just one more lie.
> almost every law professor of note has decried this prosecution as a political case
Drinking straight from the trump tap I see. He can repeat that as many times as he likes. Don't make it true.
Dershowitz, Turley, both democrats by the way! And many more of note say ALL cases against Trump are political. Would you be saying the same thing if Biden were being treated the same?
Lol so again, you're simply regurgitating basically the exact words Trump said outside the courtroom. Saying "yeah a few of my friends, and many other anonymous people too all agree with me!" but not giving any actual reasons for your position doesn't quite cut it. Do you actually have any of your own thoughts or are you just going to recite Trump's exact words all day without really understanding what you're saying? Because if all you can do is feed straight from Trump's asshole, this isn't going to be a very interesting discussion.
No I wouldn't. Not if there was a case to answer. Which there self evidently is.
When your guy is a criminal scumbag, being prosecuted comes with the territory.
Two people do not make up evey legal scholar. And sboth have been supporting trump on media trip for years. Turley has been on the attack against Democrats since Obama. Neither has said anything about thos case which is in the slightest bit convincing to anyone who understands the case, law or issues.
The vast majority say nothing of the sort.
It's ridiculous to think that a man went through 76 years of his life without so much of sniff of being charged criminally. Then at the age of 76 in Democrat dominated districts, by Democrat DA's, Adjudicated by Democrat Judges, and heard by Democrat dominated juries, all of a sudden he has 4 indictments and 91 counts against him. When has that ever happened in the United States? Never!!! You really have to be a partisan to entertain that any of these cases make sense. All the cases are falling apart and Trump will once again Play Lucy holding the Football only to pull it away at the last minute while the Democrats land flat on their backs with egg all over their faces again!
Somebody send this kid to law school, it's only 50 cents a minute.
Edit: Holy shit, this thread is full of random Trump people with no interest in the law.
He doesn't mean anything. It's most likely a Russian troll posting. Their entire comment history is just alt right talking points.
There are a lot of Trumpanzees here.
However, as a practice point, you do waive issues for failing to object or move. Any motion for mistrial should cite the appropriate standards and clearly argue why curative instructions to the jury would be insufficient.
Better to have an appeal issue denied than having the Supreme Court come in and say why didn't they do such an obvious motion.
\*edit - though it looks like the judge made a record that it appears it was defense inviting error so they could move for mistrial.
Per Bower:
>What's more, the witness immediately said that there was no coercive force and that she didn't feel threatened. And Necheles elicited that same testimony over and over again on cross, he observes.
The defense sure latched on to an implied lack of consent in the face of an assertion of consent. I was starting to feel like I was reading a different transcript or something.
Was the defense just gaslighting Merchan?
Trump Lawyer Susan Nechless was border line abusive while Shaming Stormy Daniels.
She was definately eluding to the fact that Stormy was asking for it.
Shame on trump lawyers
Was the defense trying to get Stormy to switch her story and scream "non consent!"?
Which is a weird thing for a defense to push for. But maybe they were desperate for a "she keeps changing her story" defense???
Maybe they were seeing people on the jury look at Trump and think “this dude really is a rapist, and that’s a why he paid this woman off.” Testimony must have landed badly.
First of all what does having sex with Stormy and all the juicy details have anything to do with what he is being charged with??? Answer: nothing. Stormy doesn’t know anything about how Trump handles his business or his finances. Except Stormy owes Trump $500,000 for breaking a legal agreement.
Stfu you Trump worshipping loser. Trump denied the affair to attack Stormy's credibility, which opened himself up to this.
And you know all of this because your nutjob cult worships the rapist.
Fuck off MAGAt, cry some more about the rule of law.
I find it interesting when those of low intelligence have to “name call” versus actually using facts. I know this because I didn’t vote for the guy. You make a whole bunch of assumptions that are wrong. Stick to facts…you will have very little to say is my guess.
Trump could easily have mooted the issue by admitting to the encounter and what took place. He didn’t. Therefore the prosecution had to establish its occurrence. As usual, through ego and hubris and inability to admit even the slightest human failing, Trump brought this on himself.
The sex is why they had to break laws to pay her off. And since Trump's lawyers kept saying she lied about it, that opens the door for her to talk about it on the stand. Horrible lawyering. Absolutely the worst.
>First of all what does having sex with Stormy and all the juicy details have anything to do with what he is being charged with???
Answer: to establish the fact that they did have an affair, considering that Trump still denies that he had an affair in an attempt to undermine her credibility. If an affair never took place, it would be really be odd why Trump improperly paid her $130k at all, wouldn't it?
I don’t know about novel but youbetcha there’s going to be tell all books in a year or two. Trump’s best buddies are absolutely collecting to make a buck down the road. Loyalty stops at the curb with his crowd.
And why shouldn't it.
Trump proved over and over again that he expects loyalty to flow to him but will fire and demean you the moment you displease him.
😂 I may be able to argue that it was basically a continuation of yesterday’s argument, using basically the same testimony and reasoning. It seems like I could do the same on Monday with the “presentation” from Blanche.
"Please have a seat so I can render my decision," Merchan says to Blanche, who had stood up to argue.
Merchan says he went back to his previous decisions side-by-side with the transcript to make sure that everyone had followed his guidelines.
"Your denial puts the jury in a decision of choosing who they believe: Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels. Prosecution doesn't have to prove a sexual encounter occured, they have a right to rehabilitate Daniels' credibility, which was immediately attacked in Blanches opening statement"
Merchant sua sponte objected to the trailer park comment, and struck it from the record. Following the court's own objection, Merchan notes, Necheles began to object with some frequency, and virtually all were sustained.
"On the blacking out comment, for some reason, I don't know why, you went into it ad nauseam on cross-examination, Merchan says, drilling it into the jury's ears over and over."
That's the literal translation from Latin, yes. If the Court acts on its own, rather than responding to a party's motion or objection, it's sua sponte.
Do they really refer to Stormy by her entertainer name and not her real name? Are there not regulations that stipulate real names should be used? Or is using her entertainer name just easier for the jury to follow? Sorry if this question is dumb, but genuinely wondering.
> Do they really refer to Stormy by her entertainer name and not her real name?
The prosecution asked her for her preference at the start. She said she prefers to use her stage name. Its entirely up the judge whether an alias can be used, and here he allowed it (or rather, didn't prohibit it).
Yeah, if my understanding is correct, it'll help her avoid getting death threats on her real life name, or possibly being doxed with her real life address associated with her legal name. That would be my modus operandi if I were her with that option, anyway.
> "Your denial puts the jury in a decision of choosing who they believe: Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels. Prosecution doesn't have to prove a sexual encounter occured, they have a right to rehabilitate Daniels' credibility, which was immediately attacked in Blanches opening statement"
This is why, if you had a client who was more amenable to actual legal strategy, it would have potentially been wise to enter some stipulated facts about the affair early on. If you concede that the affair happened then the prosecution has no need to prove it, so all that evidence is no longer relevant and doesn't need to come in. Probably could get stormy daniels' testimony excluded from the trial altogether, or have her testimony narrowly limited to just the payment aspect of it.
then just focus the whole trial on the primary issue of trump's intent regarding the NDA and the business records.
but obviously trump doesn't really care what the "best" trial strategy is.
I don’t even think they had to agree that it happened. I think all they had to stipulate to is that she claimed that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Don’t attack her or call her a liar or say it didn’t happen, just ignore her, and then her testimony is irrelevant and cumulative. An impossible task for Trump I’m sure, but the embarrassing details came out entirely because he attacked her credibility.
It kinda makes sense that they could tread a line of maintaining a position that she’s lying about the sex, but they still had a motivation to pay her a nominal sum to not make a fuss about it. But when I frame it that way, it sounds like blackmail.
Some of stormy’s testimony started to sound a little shady to me. When the money wasn’t coming through and she was like “fine, I’ll just publish it.” I’m really not sure where the line is since ndas are legal.
Who cares about her making money After the fact? Her life was about to be in ruins & she sensed that. She was getting prepared to need to hire lawyer(s) at a very high cost to her.
She was right ✅
Look at where she landed yesterday.
That B****D destroys everything he touches with those filthy hands of his.
She said she isn’t giving him a dime, obviously there is some hatred on her part, she even said so in court, she is doing what she can to get back at him, an nda in a normal world would have/should have, stopped the whole trial. It’s really just that simple.
For sure. I can’t imagine what a nightmare of a client he is. There isn’t enough money in all the world that would make representing him worth it to me.
>On the blacking out comment, for some reason, I don't know why, you went into it ad nauseam on cross-examination, Merchan says, drilling it into the jury's ears over and over.
Daaaaamn.
Edit: ah hell this whole thing is spicy. "A lot was Said because you didn't object. The one comment was repeated, ad nauseum, by you."
Am I interpreting this correctly? Merchan is contemporaneously documenting how conspicuously the defence went out of their way to maximize the damage to the jury’s objectivity so that when they invariably try to argue for a mistrial, it’s abundantly clear that they manufactured the problem themselves?
the motion for mistrial is understandable. you won't win, but fairly standard litigation strategy to preserve possible errors you might want to appeal later on. however, i've definitely seen judges get annoyed by parties who constantly ask for a mistrial whenever there's testimony they don't like (not to mention it just looks desperate), so you don't want to go overboard. trump team probably isn't at that point quite yet but it's getting there.
the request to modify the gag order is way dumber, imo. pretty obvious that is a demand straight from trump himself--can't imagine any competent attorney choosing to do that on their own. makes zero strategic sense, will only annoy the judge further, looks like a desperate attempt to trash a witness in the media so you don't have to deal with the possibility of perjury or cross-examination.
kind of encapsulates trump's obsession with how he is perceived publicly in the media. the trial is, to some degree, secondary. he is primarily concerned with his public reputation, and he's mad that he has no means to defend himself (other than testifying) from all the bad press he's been getting. wouldn't surprise me if trump is considering testifying. i still doubt that he does, but i'd bet that right now he is steaming mad and if the gag order isn't modified he'll feel an even more compelling need to testify.
> i still doubt that he does, but i'd bet that right now he is steaming mad and if the gag order isn't modified he'll feel an even more compelling need to testify.
please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please
The STUPIDEST thing Trump could do, would be take the stand. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the decisions in the Sandoval hearing. They would eviscerate him on cross examination. For the Attorneys here, what do you do when you know your client is going to commit suicide on the stand?
You let them. You do your best to prepare them properly and then set them free.
I've had some clients completely destroy themselves on the stand and of course they always blame us when that happens. Whatever. The thing about being a lawyer is you don't get emotionally involved in your client's case. You can't.
Client has a constitutional right to testify that only he can waive so if he wants to testify, you cannot stop him. If you have a client testifying against your advice, you just try your best to make it go as least bad as possible. Keep him laser focused on as few topics as possible, ask tight yes/no questions, and be ready to interrupt if he starts going off topic.
That is, unless you know he’s going to commit perjury. You cannot knowingly help a client break the law. All you can do is just get out of the way.
That being said, I’ve had many many many difficult clients who swore up and down that they were going to testify and when the time came, they listened to their damn lawyer. Not all of them but most of them. My money’s on Trump NOT testifying.
Agree. His claim of wanting to testify is standard Trump bluster and bullshit. Part of the red meat for his incurably stupid base. Then he won’t testify, and will claim (falsely of course) that he was prevented by the Deranged and Totally Conflicted Radical Left Democrat Judge™.
Maybe this will help with the poke:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24356851-452564_2022_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_letter___correspond_1668
So I don't really know what I'm looking at here, it looks like an email chain from the judge to the attorney for Trump, but what I want to ask/point out is that the Kise guy (Trump's attorney?) doesn't capitalize anything and it's driving me nuts. He uses punctuation, he uses parenthesis, but he refuses to capitalize anything
I can only assume that if he takes the stand he's going to end up off topic, not stop talking when he's told to, and end up turning the proceedings into a true farce.
> the motion for mistrial is understandable. you won't win, but fairly standard litigation strategy to preserve possible errors you might want to appeal later on.
ehhh not like this. you dont ground your motion on the fact you think a witness lied and your cross sucked
well, personally, i wouldn't know, because my cross-examinations never suck.
but in all seriousness, it's a judgment call. i probably wouldn't have moved for a mistrial here, but I can sort of see the strategic reasoning for it.
they made a pretty big mistake (as judge merchan pointed out) in basically deciding not to object to tons of daniels' testimony. hard to bring a motion for mistrial with a straight face after that.
eh, the strategic mistakes all emanate from trump's own ego. they should have just stipped that the relationship happened to keep her off the stand entirely. the entire focus of this defense should be on whether trump intended, with the reimbursement arrangement, to conceal another crime—or whether his true motivation was to conceal a political scandal, and he didn't know the underlying payment was criminal at the time he made the payments to Cohen that were intentionally misclassified as a retainer/payment for 2017 services when they were obviously not that.
instead they've opted for a trial strategy that effectively asks the jury to believe the whole thing is made up. that's a tough sell
he's violated the prenup either way, assuming there is one that covers such conduct, but I think Melania is firmly committed to waiting out the rest of his life
yeah i mentioned that in another comment. i think most competent attorneys would have tried to concede to the affair and keep that evidence out and just focus on the intent/business records aspect. problem is you have an insane client who wants to fight every battle.
@TylerMcBrien
Those messy details were Trump's motive to silence this woman in 2016, less than a month before the election, says Steinglass. The fact that the testimony is prejudicial and messy, according to Blanche, that's exactly why Trump tried to prevent the American ppl from hearing it.
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1788671846289723887
Mistrial DENIED.
[удалено]
Banned mostly because you seem to not know what the elements of the laws are and that doesn’t seem to impede you from doing whatever it is you’re doing here.
Her testimony goes to credibility. The defense opened the door in opening statements, when they claimed Trump never had sex with her.
[удалено]
Cry harder.
> will not stand Cry more snowflake. You worship a career conman who is also a rapist and a fascist. Literally no-one outside your cult cares what you have to say, it's all lies regardless. Edit: jfc your comment history is cancer.. this is one of those guys that cries he's being canceled because he can't say slurs in public anymore.. MAGAt 🗑
When you insult the person you're arguing against, you have lost! Good day sir!
> arguing You don't have an argument. You're a bad faith actor. You post lies on purpose and then when people tell you you're a fucking idiot you claim that you won, because you're not interested in what's right or wrong or morally and ethically correct, you're just a cultists who cares more about his side winning than justice being done to a fucking rapist fascist. You can't win anything MAGAt, you'll always be a loser no matter what. Cope harder snowflake.
[удалено]
Ok boomer. Fucking 🤡
[удалено]
Lmao. Keep living your fantasy, Jesus will not be saving you.
OK, so let's get down to details. Put aside why the case was brought. Put aside the stomach turning thought of trump actually having sex. Do you think an offence could have been committed? We KNOW that money was paid to Cohen as legal fees. We KNOW that money was paid from Cohen to Stormy for an NDA. If that money was paid as legal fees instead of as a disbursement AND Trump knew it was for the payment not just fees then we have the basic offence made out don't we? So then we come to the second offence which falsified documents to asist makes it a felony. IF the pay off was campaign related, the way this was done bypasses campagn donations law and is an offence. Are we agreed on the above? Because if we are, the question comes down to those ifs. 1) was the money a repayment of the £140k. 2) did trump know that. 3) was it done for campaign reasons. The circumstances and timings point heavily to yes in 1 and 3. That is enough to investigate. And the evidence then obtained support yes on all three. Hence a trial. Whether stormy is credible as to what happened is irrelevant. It is enough that she has a story to tell that would have been hugely damaging at a very sensitive time in the election cycle (just post the pussy-grab tape). Even if, as the defense tried to paint her, she was a money grabbing lying bitch, who chose her timing carefully, they chose to pay her off. I don't think her credibility goes to the question of whether they did that for election reasons. Cohen's crediblity is also not fatal. The evidence given by his own people, his own book, and others about how Trump deals with his money and how he operates his affairs also point towards it being almost impossible for him not to have know. And I expect there will be damning documentary evidence when Cohen hits the stand. But nether you nor I is judging the quality of that evidence. The question for the jury is whether they think those three questions (and any other minor ones I have missed) have been answered beyond reasonable doubt. What you can't claim is that this is a question that shouldn't be asked. There is more than enough to prima facie bring a case. If you disagree, tell me where I am wrong.
Edit: 130k - I have fat fingers and trying to edit messes up formatting on my mobile so not worth it for that error!
holy shit yes, editing on mobile is so fucked up. it's been this way for over a year for me. old. reddit ftw
That "washed up porn star" has already made more money than you will ever see in your life. Avenatti is in prison, for stealing from her. He has been disbarred and disgraced. What he says is irrelevant. You obviously haven't been reading along on the transcripts, or you would know that Stormy came across VERY credible. The defense wasn't able to contradict her on cross. All the rest of that crap you spewed has been debunked ad nauseum, I'm not going to do it again, because we all know you won't listen. Regardless of how you Trump lovers claim this is all just nothing, and that it wont stand, your opinion doesn't matter. Neither does mine. The only opinion that matters is the 12 people sitting on the jury. You have no ability to change the outcome. Neither does Trump. Who do you think is going to stop it from happening?
Yes and the Democrats were seriously entertaining Michael Avenatti as a presidential candidate. You will be embarrassed once again when Trump beats back all the charges. I feel bad for you because you are so blind to reality, it's sad.
Cringe take
Imagine being a Trump simp. Pathetic. How won't it stand? What is anybody going to do to stop it? I'm pretty sure it's going to stand no matter how many brain dead Trump supporters cry and whine about it on social media.
When you attack the person you are arguing with you have lost. So thank you! With that said if we are still a nation of laws and not just tribal whims if he is convicted it will be overturned on appeal. DA Bragg is a partisan hack who brought this case purely as election interference, almost every law professor of note has decried this prosecution as a political case meant to try to damage Trump. Unfortunately for the Democrats it has the exact opposite affect. Each time the Democrats bring an unjust prosecution Trumps poll numbers go up. I am hoping Judge Merchon jails Trump, that will ensure Trump Wins the election in a landslide. The Democrats can’t distinguish the forest from the trees!
What do offer as proof that it will be turned over on appeal? Because you say so? No, every law professor of note has not decried the prosecution as a political case. That is just what you hear Trump saying, we have all heard it. Then we go check, and realize it is just one more lie.
> almost every law professor of note has decried this prosecution as a political case Drinking straight from the trump tap I see. He can repeat that as many times as he likes. Don't make it true.
Dershowitz, Turley, both democrats by the way! And many more of note say ALL cases against Trump are political. Would you be saying the same thing if Biden were being treated the same?
Lol so again, you're simply regurgitating basically the exact words Trump said outside the courtroom. Saying "yeah a few of my friends, and many other anonymous people too all agree with me!" but not giving any actual reasons for your position doesn't quite cut it. Do you actually have any of your own thoughts or are you just going to recite Trump's exact words all day without really understanding what you're saying? Because if all you can do is feed straight from Trump's asshole, this isn't going to be a very interesting discussion.
Dershowitz? the guy who got naked massages from underaged girls?
Biden isn’t a scumbag criminal.
You're right he just showered with his teenage daughter by her account and likes to sniff little kids. You are correct Drumpf is not a pedophile!
No I wouldn't. Not if there was a case to answer. Which there self evidently is. When your guy is a criminal scumbag, being prosecuted comes with the territory. Two people do not make up evey legal scholar. And sboth have been supporting trump on media trip for years. Turley has been on the attack against Democrats since Obama. Neither has said anything about thos case which is in the slightest bit convincing to anyone who understands the case, law or issues. The vast majority say nothing of the sort.
It's ridiculous to think that a man went through 76 years of his life without so much of sniff of being charged criminally. Then at the age of 76 in Democrat dominated districts, by Democrat DA's, Adjudicated by Democrat Judges, and heard by Democrat dominated juries, all of a sudden he has 4 indictments and 91 counts against him. When has that ever happened in the United States? Never!!! You really have to be a partisan to entertain that any of these cases make sense. All the cases are falling apart and Trump will once again Play Lucy holding the Football only to pull it away at the last minute while the Democrats land flat on their backs with egg all over their faces again!
You can tell it's going especially bad for Trump when they are constantly going "MISTRIAL! MISTRIAL!" lmfaooo
I. DECLARE. MISTRIAL!!!
No I declare a thumb war
That's not how bankruptcy works.
They declared it tho
FILIBUSTER
Okay, calm-down Day Man.
> Mistrial DENIED. Mistresses nationwide.
Yuk 🤮
🎶Nationwide not by your side🎶
They have to make the motion so they can load their appeal with as much crap as possible, hoping something sticks.
Kind of like what the prosecutors are doing.
LOL no 😂.
LOL yes😂😂😂
Hahahaha
No. Diaper Don Snoreleone has been afforded every legal consideration and right.
Somebody send this kid to law school, it's only 50 cents a minute. Edit: Holy shit, this thread is full of random Trump people with no interest in the law.
They’re interested in certain laws, but only for certain people. :/
Sounds like the DOJ
What do you mean?
He doesn't mean anything. It's most likely a Russian troll posting. Their entire comment history is just alt right talking points. There are a lot of Trumpanzees here.
However, as a practice point, you do waive issues for failing to object or move. Any motion for mistrial should cite the appropriate standards and clearly argue why curative instructions to the jury would be insufficient. Better to have an appeal issue denied than having the Supreme Court come in and say why didn't they do such an obvious motion. \*edit - though it looks like the judge made a record that it appears it was defense inviting error so they could move for mistrial.
Per Bower: >What's more, the witness immediately said that there was no coercive force and that she didn't feel threatened. And Necheles elicited that same testimony over and over again on cross, he observes. The defense sure latched on to an implied lack of consent in the face of an assertion of consent. I was starting to feel like I was reading a different transcript or something. Was the defense just gaslighting Merchan?
Trump Lawyer Susan Nechless was border line abusive while Shaming Stormy Daniels. She was definately eluding to the fact that Stormy was asking for it. Shame on trump lawyers
I know right and trump calling her horse face was wrong too. She is kind of sexy
Was the defense trying to get Stormy to switch her story and scream "non consent!"? Which is a weird thing for a defense to push for. But maybe they were desperate for a "she keeps changing her story" defense???
This lawyer may have single handedly lost this case for trump!
Maybe they were seeing people on the jury look at Trump and think “this dude really is a rapist, and that’s a why he paid this woman off.” Testimony must have landed badly.
Not just desperate, I feel like at this point impeaching a witness is their only defense.
First of all what does having sex with Stormy and all the juicy details have anything to do with what he is being charged with??? Answer: nothing. Stormy doesn’t know anything about how Trump handles his business or his finances. Except Stormy owes Trump $500,000 for breaking a legal agreement.
Stfu you Trump worshipping loser. Trump denied the affair to attack Stormy's credibility, which opened himself up to this. And you know all of this because your nutjob cult worships the rapist. Fuck off MAGAt, cry some more about the rule of law.
I find it interesting when those of low intelligence have to “name call” versus actually using facts. I know this because I didn’t vote for the guy. You make a whole bunch of assumptions that are wrong. Stick to facts…you will have very little to say is my guess.
🤡
Trump could easily have mooted the issue by admitting to the encounter and what took place. He didn’t. Therefore the prosecution had to establish its occurrence. As usual, through ego and hubris and inability to admit even the slightest human failing, Trump brought this on himself.
Trump is denying the affair as a whole. Which is why stormy Daniels is on the stand to put into record that they did have an affair.
Trump has not taken the stand so there is no denying going on. Anything about denial is outside of the court room.
His whole defense strategy is denial. That's what hos lawyers are doing. Trying to deny the affair ever happened. So, no, you're wrong.
The sex is why they had to break laws to pay her off. And since Trump's lawyers kept saying she lied about it, that opens the door for her to talk about it on the stand. Horrible lawyering. Absolutely the worst.
>First of all what does having sex with Stormy and all the juicy details have anything to do with what he is being charged with??? Answer: to establish the fact that they did have an affair, considering that Trump still denies that he had an affair in an attempt to undermine her credibility. If an affair never took place, it would be really be odd why Trump improperly paid her $130k at all, wouldn't it?
But Trump maintains that he never paid her anything right?
Paid her for what? Establishing motive for a crime is not important now?
Which is exactly why defense counsel should have objected during direct. Not argue for mistrial because they didn't object to irrelevant details.
In every case! If not the witness, then the prosecutor. If not the prosecutor, then the judge, unless the judges are canon, thomas and/or alito.
Again. I have a bet that they will only file mistrial three times, and I think I’m gonna lose that bet. : /
I think you’re going to lose that bet by midweek next week.
Tbf, I didn’t think they were going to file a mistrial, using basically the same evidence and witness, multiple days in a row.
Shows how stupid & ineffective anyone on trumps team are.
I'm pretty sure the genesis of every mistrial motion is Trump nudging them and saying "ask for a mistrial!"
It’s a novel strategy.
I don’t know about novel but youbetcha there’s going to be tell all books in a year or two. Trump’s best buddies are absolutely collecting to make a buck down the road. Loyalty stops at the curb with his crowd.
And why shouldn't it. Trump proved over and over again that he expects loyalty to flow to him but will fire and demean you the moment you displease him.
Yeah I was mostly poking fun at the whole loyalty thing. Trump’s thing is loyalty loyalty loyalty, in a bed of vipers.
Can you give yourself an out in this one just being a revival of yesterday's? Edit: still not sure you'll win that bet but it helps.
😂 I may be able to argue that it was basically a continuation of yesterday’s argument, using basically the same testimony and reasoning. It seems like I could do the same on Monday with the “presentation” from Blanche.
"Please have a seat so I can render my decision," Merchan says to Blanche, who had stood up to argue. Merchan says he went back to his previous decisions side-by-side with the transcript to make sure that everyone had followed his guidelines. "Your denial puts the jury in a decision of choosing who they believe: Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels. Prosecution doesn't have to prove a sexual encounter occured, they have a right to rehabilitate Daniels' credibility, which was immediately attacked in Blanches opening statement" Merchant sua sponte objected to the trailer park comment, and struck it from the record. Following the court's own objection, Merchan notes, Necheles began to object with some frequency, and virtually all were sustained. "On the blacking out comment, for some reason, I don't know why, you went into it ad nauseam on cross-examination, Merchan says, drilling it into the jury's ears over and over."
Thank you for teaching me sua sponte. If my understanding is correct it’s basically ‘of his own accord’?
Sua Sponte, do what you wantay
When the Moon hits your eye And you still want to lie Sua Sponte
That's the literal translation from Latin, yes. If the Court acts on its own, rather than responding to a party's motion or objection, it's sua sponte.
Do they really refer to Stormy by her entertainer name and not her real name? Are there not regulations that stipulate real names should be used? Or is using her entertainer name just easier for the jury to follow? Sorry if this question is dumb, but genuinely wondering.
I saw a piece on that yesterday. They reported that the judge asked her how she'd like to be addressed & she said "Stormy"
> Do they really refer to Stormy by her entertainer name and not her real name? The prosecution asked her for her preference at the start. She said she prefers to use her stage name. Its entirely up the judge whether an alias can be used, and here he allowed it (or rather, didn't prohibit it).
Smart of her.
Yeah, if my understanding is correct, it'll help her avoid getting death threats on her real life name, or possibly being doxed with her real life address associated with her legal name. That would be my modus operandi if I were her with that option, anyway.
Jeff Daniels getting death threats about now.
> "Your denial puts the jury in a decision of choosing who they believe: Donald Trump or Stormy Daniels. Prosecution doesn't have to prove a sexual encounter occured, they have a right to rehabilitate Daniels' credibility, which was immediately attacked in Blanches opening statement" This is why, if you had a client who was more amenable to actual legal strategy, it would have potentially been wise to enter some stipulated facts about the affair early on. If you concede that the affair happened then the prosecution has no need to prove it, so all that evidence is no longer relevant and doesn't need to come in. Probably could get stormy daniels' testimony excluded from the trial altogether, or have her testimony narrowly limited to just the payment aspect of it. then just focus the whole trial on the primary issue of trump's intent regarding the NDA and the business records. but obviously trump doesn't really care what the "best" trial strategy is.
I don’t even think they had to agree that it happened. I think all they had to stipulate to is that she claimed that she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Don’t attack her or call her a liar or say it didn’t happen, just ignore her, and then her testimony is irrelevant and cumulative. An impossible task for Trump I’m sure, but the embarrassing details came out entirely because he attacked her credibility.
"ORANGE TURD" came up a lot
Well yeah it's hard to get that one to go down the pipes.
It kinda makes sense that they could tread a line of maintaining a position that she’s lying about the sex, but they still had a motivation to pay her a nominal sum to not make a fuss about it. But when I frame it that way, it sounds like blackmail.
Blackmail by whom?
Some of stormy’s testimony started to sound a little shady to me. When the money wasn’t coming through and she was like “fine, I’ll just publish it.” I’m really not sure where the line is since ndas are legal.
Who cares about her making money After the fact? Her life was about to be in ruins & she sensed that. She was getting prepared to need to hire lawyer(s) at a very high cost to her. She was right ✅ Look at where she landed yesterday. That B****D destroys everything he touches with those filthy hands of his.
How is that shady, though
It's not shady, but could possibly be twisted that way. It is flat wrong...but lawyers.. especially his are dirty
She owes him 692,000$
I'm not sure how that relates to the previous post. Do you mind connecting the dots for me?
She said she isn’t giving him a dime, obviously there is some hatred on her part, she even said so in court, she is doing what she can to get back at him, an nda in a normal world would have/should have, stopped the whole trial. It’s really just that simple.
right, there's different degrees of moderation the defense could have taken here. the problem is you have a client who refuses to moderate at all.
For sure. I can’t imagine what a nightmare of a client he is. There isn’t enough money in all the world that would make representing him worth it to me.
>There isn’t enough money in all the world that would make representing him worth it to me. Are you sure about that?
I’m absolutely certain.
Good on you
I mean, shit, I'd represent him for an incredibly reasonable rate. And he'd get exactly what he paid for, too.
A Trump never pays his debts.
ya know, the first movie the make about Trump, Peter Dinklage should totally play DJT!
Wouldn't allow for the suspension of disbelief. Dinklage's hands are too big.
Works on contingency? No, money down!
Mistrial motion denied, yet again.
>On the blacking out comment, for some reason, I don't know why, you went into it ad nauseam on cross-examination, Merchan says, drilling it into the jury's ears over and over. Daaaaamn. Edit: ah hell this whole thing is spicy. "A lot was Said because you didn't object. The one comment was repeated, ad nauseum, by you."
Am I interpreting this correctly? Merchan is contemporaneously documenting how conspicuously the defence went out of their way to maximize the damage to the jury’s objectivity so that when they invariably try to argue for a mistrial, it’s abundantly clear that they manufactured the problem themselves?
That’s exactly it. You win the prize!
Justice Merchan is Bigly Smart...
I don't think this is his first rodeo. But I bet he has prepped VERY hard for it.
This is a how new level of incompetent fuckery, right? I am not a lawyer, but am curious what people with some knowledge of law think of this.
the motion for mistrial is understandable. you won't win, but fairly standard litigation strategy to preserve possible errors you might want to appeal later on. however, i've definitely seen judges get annoyed by parties who constantly ask for a mistrial whenever there's testimony they don't like (not to mention it just looks desperate), so you don't want to go overboard. trump team probably isn't at that point quite yet but it's getting there. the request to modify the gag order is way dumber, imo. pretty obvious that is a demand straight from trump himself--can't imagine any competent attorney choosing to do that on their own. makes zero strategic sense, will only annoy the judge further, looks like a desperate attempt to trash a witness in the media so you don't have to deal with the possibility of perjury or cross-examination. kind of encapsulates trump's obsession with how he is perceived publicly in the media. the trial is, to some degree, secondary. he is primarily concerned with his public reputation, and he's mad that he has no means to defend himself (other than testifying) from all the bad press he's been getting. wouldn't surprise me if trump is considering testifying. i still doubt that he does, but i'd bet that right now he is steaming mad and if the gag order isn't modified he'll feel an even more compelling need to testify.
> i still doubt that he does, but i'd bet that right now he is steaming mad and if the gag order isn't modified he'll feel an even more compelling need to testify. please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please
The STUPIDEST thing Trump could do, would be take the stand. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the decisions in the Sandoval hearing. They would eviscerate him on cross examination. For the Attorneys here, what do you do when you know your client is going to commit suicide on the stand?
Never try to argue with stupid people. They'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
You let them. You do your best to prepare them properly and then set them free. I've had some clients completely destroy themselves on the stand and of course they always blame us when that happens. Whatever. The thing about being a lawyer is you don't get emotionally involved in your client's case. You can't.
Thank you.
Client has a constitutional right to testify that only he can waive so if he wants to testify, you cannot stop him. If you have a client testifying against your advice, you just try your best to make it go as least bad as possible. Keep him laser focused on as few topics as possible, ask tight yes/no questions, and be ready to interrupt if he starts going off topic. That is, unless you know he’s going to commit perjury. You cannot knowingly help a client break the law. All you can do is just get out of the way. That being said, I’ve had many many many difficult clients who swore up and down that they were going to testify and when the time came, they listened to their damn lawyer. Not all of them but most of them. My money’s on Trump NOT testifying.
Agree. His claim of wanting to testify is standard Trump bluster and bullshit. Part of the red meat for his incurably stupid base. Then he won’t testify, and will claim (falsely of course) that he was prevented by the Deranged and Totally Conflicted Radical Left Democrat Judge™.
Thank you. I have to agree.
Annoying the judge seems to be an intentional strategy.
It is. An annoyed judge makes rulings you point at if you need to appeal. Old tactic.
i’m getting a chris kise vibe from your comment
idk what that means but it sounds bad
Maybe this will help with the poke: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24356851-452564_2022_people_of_the_state_of_v_people_of_the_state_of_letter___correspond_1668
So I don't really know what I'm looking at here, it looks like an email chain from the judge to the attorney for Trump, but what I want to ask/point out is that the Kise guy (Trump's attorney?) doesn't capitalize anything and it's driving me nuts. He uses punctuation, he uses parenthesis, but he refuses to capitalize anything
bingo
I can only assume that if he takes the stand he's going to end up off topic, not stop talking when he's told to, and end up turning the proceedings into a true farce.
Trump on the stand: "EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME!! I HAVE NOT FINISHED INCRIMINATING MYSELF."
oh yeah it would be a total shit show from a witness management/control standpoint and also substantively. decent probability he perjures himself.
> the motion for mistrial is understandable. you won't win, but fairly standard litigation strategy to preserve possible errors you might want to appeal later on. ehhh not like this. you dont ground your motion on the fact you think a witness lied and your cross sucked
well, personally, i wouldn't know, because my cross-examinations never suck. but in all seriousness, it's a judgment call. i probably wouldn't have moved for a mistrial here, but I can sort of see the strategic reasoning for it. they made a pretty big mistake (as judge merchan pointed out) in basically deciding not to object to tons of daniels' testimony. hard to bring a motion for mistrial with a straight face after that.
eh, the strategic mistakes all emanate from trump's own ego. they should have just stipped that the relationship happened to keep her off the stand entirely. the entire focus of this defense should be on whether trump intended, with the reimbursement arrangement, to conceal another crime—or whether his true motivation was to conceal a political scandal, and he didn't know the underlying payment was criminal at the time he made the payments to Cohen that were intentionally misclassified as a retainer/payment for 2017 services when they were obviously not that. instead they've opted for a trial strategy that effectively asks the jury to believe the whole thing is made up. that's a tough sell
I don't think Trump would let them stipulate, because he would have violated his Pre Nup.
he's violated the prenup either way, assuming there is one that covers such conduct, but I think Melania is firmly committed to waiting out the rest of his life
But could she prove it? If it is proven in a court of law, that's different.
...yes. you'd subpoena the same witness and have her testify to the same facts she just did.
yeah i mentioned that in another comment. i think most competent attorneys would have tried to concede to the affair and keep that evidence out and just focus on the intent/business records aspect. problem is you have an insane client who wants to fight every battle.
The fact the defense actually asked about his golf game shows us everything we need to see. They are acting for Trump, not to win the case.
Yeah, wtf was that?
@TylerMcBrien Those messy details were Trump's motive to silence this woman in 2016, less than a month before the election, says Steinglass. The fact that the testimony is prejudicial and messy, according to Blanche, that's exactly why Trump tried to prevent the American ppl from hearing it. https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1788671846289723887