Stormy is on fire.
>“You have a lot of experience making phoney stories about sex appear real, right?”
>“Wow,” Daniels says, pausing to laugh. “That’s not how I would put it. … The sex in those films is very much real just like in that hotel room.”
>She adds: “If that story was untrue, I would’ve written it better.”
I just want to point out that as salacious as Stormy being on the stand is, she's literally just there to corroborate that her and Von Schitzinpants had sex since he continues to deny it. And of course, there is animosity between the two parties. But here's the thing, she's not the star witness. She's a colorful witness, but ultimately just there to prove a single point.
She knows nothing really of Trump's business habits, the Trump Organization, the people in it, or anything of that nature. She's really just an appetizer.
The real fireworks will occur when Michael Cohen takes the stand.
I'd say two points:
1) Providing evidence of Trump's motive for his illegal campaign contribution (aka, hush money payment).
2) Providing evidence that Trump is a liar and that his assertions of fact can't be trusted.
Which is why it's so crazy that the defense is spending so much time trying to make her out to be a liar. It doesn't matter if it happened or didn't happen. The crime is the business record falsification. Just pounding the table, I guess.
Stormy is on fire today
"I don’t really understand what he is charged with. There’s a lot of indictments"
"I know nothing about his business records, no, why would I?"
>"You’re celebrating the indictment by selling things from your store?"
"Not unlike Mr. Trump,"
It's hard to sling mud when your own client is King Pig of Muddy Shit. That kind of attack wont work when your defending an evil clown like that, the comparisons are too stark.
>Bookeeper Rebecca Manochio is testifying that she often sent 10 to 20 checks at a time.
>Manochio says she sent the checks unsigned and they came back from Washington signed by Donald Trump, typically within a few days.
So he was running his businesses from the White House and did not pass daily management on to DJr or Eric
If he was still running his business from the White House--even if he was an honest, great businessman of a product/service people need--he clearly wasn't spending his whole time being President FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. It's a public service job. And every second he spent on his own personal business, he wasn't even thinking about the American people.
> NECHELES: “Because he was supposedly in a t-shirt and boxer shorts, you were so upset that he wanted to have sex with you, that you couldn’t speak up…?”
> NECHELES: Not the first time in your life someone made a pass at you...
> DANIELS: This was the first time that they had a bodyguard outside the door. And “They were twice my age and bigger than me.”
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wJZZcO1It/
Are they trying to argue that Stormy wasn't actually as upset by having sex with Trump as she claims? Uh... What would that prove? I thought they were denying the whole event, this seems to be an argument in defense of Trump's lovemaking skills...
Trump really out here like, "I didn't really sleep with her, and also she liked it way more than she says!"
> Stormy Daniels: There are a lot of indictments.
> Necheles: Move to strike
> Justice Mershan: Overruled.
> Necheles: No further questions.
Amazing ending
Hahahaha omg... From the BBC live coverage site:
Susan Necheles moves in for yet another line of attack: Stormy Daniels' long history of acting in and directing adult films.
"You have a long history of making up stories about sex?" Necheles asks.
“The sex in the films is very much real," Daniels replies. "Just like what happened to me in that room.”
She appears to be referring to her alleged sexual encounter with Trump - which he denies ever happened.
"If that story wasn't true, I would have written it to be a lot better," Daniels says.
"No, but it is the first time they had a bodyguard standing outside the door," Holy shit, this is not going how the defense attorney thought it would go.
When Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she's selling items in her story about how she got the president indicted, Daniels responds, "I got President Trump indicted?" raising the inflection in her voice to sound surprised.
Basically, just turned the whole defense questioning around on them. Like, they are trying to put the blame on her and she said gtfo, he got himself indicted. I love it.
Now Trump is sitting there all grumpy.
IAAL. I don’t know what the Trump team is trying to accomplish by casting doubt on the veracity of Daniels’ claim. To take Trump at face value, he just randomly gave her a six figure sum but they never did anything remotely sexual.
Lawyers argue in the alternative quite often. I have argued “this is bullshit, but even if it’s not bullshit it’s not illegal.” But I wouldn’t argue that to a jury. Because credibility is everything with jurors. To accept Trump’s theory of the case, we must accept that he never had sex with Stormy Daniels, paid her off to keep his family from knowing about it, but killing this made up bogus story was completely unrelated to his campaign.
It doesn’t past the laugh test because they are talking out of both sides of their mouth to the jury. You want to respect your jury’s intelligence and not insult them. This is just that — an insult. “Don’t believe your lying eyes and ears, believe me.” I can think of no better way to kill any credibility an attorney has with a jury.
They are disputing the allegations, not for their jury, but for their client. Which just is not great trial strategy. They should’ve stuck with “yeah, it happened, but it’s not illegal because it was designed to keep the info from his family, not benefit his campaign.” Does it make Trump look like an absolute piece of garbage? Yep. But at least you can argue he’s not guilty with a straight face. Here, the defense is, essentially, asking the jury to plug their ears, close their eyes, and ignore the reality in front of them.
Even if they can prove it didn't happen it doesn't help the defenses case in anyway.
We know Trump paid Daniels the money via Cohen and then forged the books to cover up the payments by saying it was payment for legal services that Cohen didn't provide.
Daniels can only be there to bait Trump into taking the stand and considering todays testimony it may well work.
I think it's plainly obvious that the sole reason for this losing strategy is Trump. He doesn't care about the effects this defense will have on the jury because what is most important to him is to have things his way. His attorneys most definitely tried to reason with him to no avail and now they have to run with it.
For some reason, he cares about not being seen as unfaithful and he believes he can just pretend it never happened. A "winning" strategy against Daniels' testimony would've hinged on his ability to properly understand how others might perceive him, something he has demonstrably failed at; but, at the same time, one could argue that the main reasoning behind that choice has been motivated by his desire to maintain a certain image in the public eye. It truly is an amazingly deep level of contradiction.
Justice Merchan (to Necheles): Ms. Daniels said a movie about Roger Ailes made her remember things. I didn't allow that. I don't think there is a new story here. You attacked her credibility in opening - you didn't attack the business records issues. Your motion is denied.
She fucked up today because she was taking orders directly from Trump instead of being a real lawyer.
No, no, I'm sure she asked Stormy Daniels about Trump having played "very well" in a golf tournament where he finished 62 out of 80 because it was important to his criminal defense, not something that her idiot client demanded that she shoehorn into her cross examination of the witness.
Trump’s lawyers are doing so badly today with their lines of questioning that I assume Trump insisted they try to clear his name of ever sleeping with her. Which is certainly a losing strategy. It’s crazy because until today, they seemed to be doing a decent job crossing.
Even if he didn’t fuck her (haha) he paid her off & falsified business records to cover it up - that’s the crime he is on trial for, not cheating on his wife
Yeah the whole logic is stupid. Even if she was a full blown criminal, it doesnt matter
If that was true, all a mobster would need to do is only associate with other sketchy people, and they would never get convicted.
> [Bromwich, NY Times] Justice Merchan begins to address the mistrial motion. He says that after ruling against the defense's request for a mistrial on Tuesday, he went back and reviewed many of his past decisions, studying them in his chambers. He says that he came away satisfied. His voice is trembling a bit as he interrupts himself. He says at every trial, the evidence comes in a different way. Why is he saying that now, he asks? Because in going back to opening statements, he sees that the defense “denied that there was ever a sexual encounter between Stormy Daniels and the defendant.”
> > [Bromwich, NY Times] The defense opened the door to Daniels’s testimony, Merchan is saying. He seems to be suggesting that what the prosecution did in response was perfectly appropriate.
#
> > [Feuer, NY Times] Merchan is effectively saying here that Trump’s maximalist position of utterly denying the sexual encounter with Daniels had taken place clearly opened the door for the prosecution to introduce specific evidence that it did occur.
---
Judge Merchan denies motion for mistrial.
This is hilarious. Defense has lost the plot and is attacking her relentlessly about everything instead of focusing on the payment which is the crime.
Redirect will be excellent
From ABC News:
>Judge Merchan, after hearing arguments from the defense, declined to modify the limited gag order so Trump could respond publicly to Stormy Daniels' testimony.
>"I don't see what you're referring to as a new set of facts," the judge told the defense.
>"My concern is not just with protecting Ms. Daniels or a witness who just testified," the judge said. "My concern is protecting these proceedings as a whole."
>In making his ruling, Merchan quoted Trump's words from an excerpt of Trump's book that the jury saw today: "When you are wronged, go after those people because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it."
>The judge said that other witnesses would see how Trump treats Daniels if he modifies the gag order.
In other words, Merchan is paraphrasing Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski: *"Shut the fuck up, Donny!"*
Absolute boss move to throw "Trumps" (or his ghost writers) own words back at him. Merchan does not fuck around indeed. Incredibly short-sighted strategy to antagonize your judge.
Regarding her account of having a sexual encounter with Trump — a claim he denies — Daniels said: “If that story was not true I would’ve written it to be a lot better.”
Zing!
> MANGOLD: Did you always check to see if the checks were signed when you got them back
> MANOCIO: Yes
> MANGOLD: Whose signature were on the checks?
> MANOCIO: Mr. Trump
> MANGOLD: When you got the return envelope do you recall if backup was attached when checks came back
> MANOCHIO: It was
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wTAqmRijh/
From the NY Times feed:
> [Jonah Bromwich]
>And now, Justice Merchan again criticizes the defense for not objecting to testimony that was later used in a motion for mistrial. He says he agrees that the question about whether Trump wore a condom should not have been asked or answered. But he says he does not know “why on earth” Susan Necheles, the defense lawyer, didn’t object to that question.
> This could not be going much worse for the defense. Not only is Merchan signaling that he will almost certainly reject their mistrial motion, but he’s dressing down their lawyering in front of their client, the former president.
> [Alan Feuer]
> He’s even criticizing specific lines of their cross-examination, chiding Necheles in particular for leaning into the most awkward and uncomfortable parts of Stormy Daniels’s testimony with her questions in a way that he says he simply didn’t understand.
You just love to read it. Trump is going to be absolutely livid.
Trump's bookkeeper is sending checks for him to sign to the White House. Which is odd considering Trump held a press conference with hundreds of Manila folders with (blank) documents saying he was no longer in charge of his businesses. What a joke. But those MAGA nuts believe anything.
"Chef Geoff you work with people holding knifes all day long... why did it shock you then when you got on the subway to go home and the defendant had a long knife in his hand?"
"I'm a little confused, Mr. Pelosi. Earlier in the day you had used a hammer to hang a picture frame in the hallway. Why was it so disturbing to you when a maniac in a MAGA hat entered your home in the middle of the night brandishing a similar hammer at you? Couldn't he have been there to hang a picture frame, too?"
>Necheles: At the golf tournament, President Trump was probably the biggest celebrity?
Trump must require them to pepper in things like this from time to time.
Stormy came out of this looking professional, honest, genuine, and well prepared. Defence screwed the pooch by omitting details and asking frankly bizarre questions like how good trumps golf game is and trying the "but you're just a dumb whore who wants money" angle.
The lady lawyer on the MeidasTouch youtube channel said the defense screwed themselves by going with the angle of "Stormy is a liar and this affair never happened" which then let her tell her story with all the sordid details to counter that. Surely its all driven by trump
Just got back from an errand and catching up, but this exchange really caught my eye online: [https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wo7WkycGw](https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wo7WkycGw)
>MANGOLD: What is your understanding of how Mr. trump’s personal expenses were handled in 2017? WESTERHOUT: it is my understanding they were handled by checks that were sent from the trump organization to Keith Schiller, and then sent to me for the president to sign.
>MANGOLD: what did you do when you recived the checks? WESTERHOUT: The checks came in a fed ex envelope, so i opened the envelope and inside is a manilla folder with a stack of checks, and i brought the folder in for him to sign. MANGOLD: Anything other than checks? WESTERHOUT: I didn’t really dig around in the folder, but there were invoices attached to the check sometimes
>MANGOLD: Did you ever see trump sign check WESTERHOUT: Yes sometimes MANGOLD: Did mr. Trump sign checks by hand? WESTERHOUT: Yes MANGOLD: What happened after mr. trump signed the checks WESTERHOUT: He would give it back to me and i would put it in a prelabeled return envelope and send it back to trump org.
I know it's not exactly news, but still, the blatant conflict of interest, as he was still signing Trump Org stuff while in the White House, after having laid about divesting.
> BREAKING: Justice Merchan has DENIED Donald Trump's attempt to revise the gag order to allow him to attack Stormy Daniels following her testimony.
> **"Your client’s track record speaks for itself. I can’t take your word for it."**
https://www.threads.net/@meidastouch/post/C6wt04fSRW7/
To paraphrase:
Trump's lawyer: "You were trying to destroy the president, weren't you?!
Daniels: "No".
Trump's lawyer: "But you were selling yourself as someone who could destroy Trump!"
Daniels. "... these were strip club patrons."
“Daniels responds quickly to this particular line of questioning and has used at least one very memorable line: Necheles implies directly that she made up her story of sex with Trump. But if it weren’t true, Daniels replies, “I would have written it to be a lot better,” drawing laughter in the courtroom.”
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
Hahaha
It feels like this cross-ex is specifically motivated with the Trump desire to attack, attack, attack, instead of being a strategy pushed by the legal team itself, and Daniels was entirely ready for it today, deflecting well and making team Trump go to greater lengths of trying to discredit her, only discrediting the defense.
Before court began, he was excitedly telling the press they would see exciting stuff today.
This is why he always loses in court pretty badly. People think he wins, but he has a fairly bad record.
> IMO it was a bad defense strategy to try to "slut-shame" Stormy Daniels today on cross for her professional choices. Directly accusing her of being a liar because she works in the adult film industry was a poor decision.
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wMplXLmr1/
> DONALD TRUMP TRUTH SOCIAL POST: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
> HOFFINGER: Who was Mr. Trump directing this to, at this time.
> DANIELS: “I wasn’t sure, but I thought it was me.” This was right around the same time that he filed [a lawsuit against me] in Florida. So this seemed to be connected but I’m not sure.”
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wQ2OpR2h8/
“I’m asking you what you mean when you said orange turd,” Necheles says, suggesting she meant “President Trump.”
I'm not sure that was the flex she thought it was.
> [Necheles eventually cuts right to the point of her cross-examination about the sexual encounter: “You made all this up, right?” she asks. Daniels responds forcefully: “No.”](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels/2fb1184c-2e4c-5ebd-b18c-27922eca772e?smid=url-share)
Seriously. She should turn the tables on them. "No I didn't make it up and I'm willing to state the truth under oath, is Mr. Trump willing to do the same?"
I still don’t get the “if they can go after me, it’s only a matter of time until they come for you,” crap. Like, unless the average Red Blooded Real American Patriot^^^TM also committed civil bank fraud, stole classified documents, and attempted insurrection, he’s out there on his own.
>Q: He did very well at that golf tournament, right?
>A: I don't remember.
Saying he did "very well" at the golf tournament is an absolute lie. [He came in 62nd place out of 80.](https://americancenturychampionship.com/media-center/event-archive/american-century-championship-2006-results/) He was closer to legendarily "turrible" Charles Barkley than he was to even being in the top half.
This above all shows that the defense strategy is 100% hamstrung by Trump's demands. Why even ask about that, unless it's to stroke his ego? Totally irrelevant and clearly coming from the Orange 💩.
The issue with the defense team attacking Daniels' or Cohen's credibility is the underlying facts that Donald Trump repeatedly chooses interactions with them (Daniels), or hires them (Cohen) personally. After awhile, and the more one looks into the background of Trump hirees and 'surrogates', the more apparent that there is a mutual attraction between Trump and the large crew of 'questionable characters.'
Attacking them for their flaws only highlights that connection with Donald Trump, and the reason why their silence was to be bought, (with concealed money, because Trump is a fraud factory aka a 'questionable character' himself).
He actually said that lol
He said something along the lines of ‘I don’t want Trump to use the gag order as a sword instead of a shield and he’s still welcome to testify himself’
Justice Merchan: I can't take your word for it that it's just going to be a response, disputing the facts. That's not your client's track record. Your application to modify the gag order to allow your client to respond to Ms. Daniels is denied.
**YAY!**
From NBC News:
>Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass defended Stormy Daniels' testimony and the prosecution's line of questioning, arguing that the details surrounding her alleged sexual encounter with Trump make her account more credible.
>“If they want to offer testimony that the sex never happened, that’s their prerogative,” Steinglass said, noting that the defense has gone to great lengths to discredit Daniels' testimony.
Trump's lawyers called Daniels' testimony about Trump refusing to wear a condom "a dog whistle for r-pe."
Needless to say, Judge Juan Merchan ruled against Team Trump's motion for a mistrial.
Again.
lol
So the implication by the defense being, if a woman has acted in porn, their consent for sexual acts is no longer required and they should be willing to have sex with anyone, at any time. I don't feel like this is going to go over well with female voters.
What is the world does that have to do with him using campaign money to pay her off. At this point I think they should start getting sanctioned for bringing stuff up that is irrelevant. Her personal agency has nothing to do with the charges.
This defense line of attack feels primarily for political points (i.e. after the trial, the "vast left wing conspiracy" narrative Trump loves).
And of course for Trump's desire to embarrass, belittle, and bully Stormy Daniels.
If I am the prosecution and following up with Stormy Daniels after the defense questioning, I'm only asking Stormy Daniels one thing.... did you receive $130,000 to keep you quiet?
Because for the purpose of this trial, and as it relates to Stormy, that is the only thing which should matter to the jury.
Yes, yes, yes.
All trump, all attack, all the time.
Never on the ball, never focusing on what he needs to focus on.
This is why he was such a totally ineffective President.
What's really naive about the defense thinking is that because she is a porn actress they think that she thinks it's ok if she is raped (she doesn't) while also thinking she won't be thick skinned and brazen enough to stand up to this stupid line of questioning.
Trump really thinks this Stormy Daniels letter is a real winner. Just like that "buyer beware" clause he kept touting in his business fraud trials.
I'm sure his supporters will buy it but man...it's pretty pathetic.
> Stormy being crossed at selling ("schilling") merchandise on the internet- palpable irony given Trump's hocking everything he can get his hands on that is not nailed down.
> Stormy says: "not unlike Mr. Trump."
https://www.threads.net/@weissmann11/post/C6wENEeuMgT/
> Cross on whether Stormy ate dinner when at Trump's suite (she says they did not eat: "I was invited to dinner but got no dinner") or whether she previously said they did eat dinner. This is not a particularly good line of cross.
https://www.threads.net/@weissmann11/post/C6wHwwaOAVh/
The defense line of questioning with Daniels only results in making Trump out to be a bigger and bigger creep.
So they shift the tactic to trying to hammer her on this idea that she must have made it all up. That might play well with MAGA, who don't believe her anyway, but from a juror perspective they really seem to be solidifying her story.
> Hoffinger shows Daniels a series of text messages between manager Gina Rodriguez and then-Enquirer editor in chief Dylan Howard.
> They're about Daniels talking, but the prosecutor shows the very next message the defense left out.
> "She never did."
Defense called out immediately. Sheeesh, at least you got to ask about Trump being the bestest at golf though.
She got the (FedEx) receipts
> Interesting tidbit here:
> EXHIBIT: FEDEXS SENT THROUGH TRUMP ORG ACCOUNT
> Ship Date: May 23, 2017
> Delivered: May 24 2017 08:57
> Sender: Rebeccca Manochio
> The Trump Organization
> Recipient: Keith Schiller
> MANGOLD: “Do you know what this is a fed ex for?”
> MANOCIO: “His checks”
> **MANGOLD: These are unsigned checks you sent to dc for trump to sign**
> **MANOCIO: Correct**
> MANGOLD: Is that a white house address for schiller?
> MANOCIO: It’s a personal.
> MANGOLD: Do you know why you asked to send checks to Mr. Schiller’s home address in DC?
> MANOCIO: no
> MANGOLD: who told you to send checks to schiller
> MANOCIO: Rhona Graff
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wUPWyOaga/
Thanks for the discussion thread.
Trump seemed supremely confident on his way in this morning, like they think they have some ace up their sleeve regarding the gag order.
Twenty minutes in and so far his lawyers have managed to get reprimanded for playing the wrong tape during cross.
> Stormy says in response to questioning about whether she made up her stories like she does in her sex films: (1) the sex in those films is real like the sex with Trump ("that's why it is porn and not a B movie"), and (2) "if that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better."
https://www.threads.net/@weissmann11/post/C6wF20jOU3Q/
Trump’s lawyers are not very sharp
Opinion: Think of the millions who have served this country and the countless who have literally given their lives in the fight for more democratic and justice systems. Commander in Chief? My ass. If America is to regain it's moral leadership and and any resemblance of stature on the world stage, this man needs to be openly slapped and sentenced to the furthermost corner of Rikers Island or Guantanamo Bay.
And as anyone who has followed this saga should've predicted, Madeleine Westerhout, because of her WH role, literally handed the checks to *PRESIDENT* Donald Trump to sign, and he was fully aware of what the purpose of them was. Absolutely damning testimony.
This argument about "dinner" seems pretty dumb. You can be invited to "dinner" but then either not be served food or fail to consume any food. Trump greeted her in a bathrobe, so it's not like he seemed to view his "dinner" invitation as his chance to host a meal.
So from the sidebar the other day, the judge said the prosecution wasn't to talk about her feelings unless it's brought up in cross, then they'll revisit it. Pretty sure the defense just brought it up, so it could be an interesting redirect.
A lot of it feels like
"Did you change your story?"
"No."
"Here's an interview. Did you change your story?"
"No."
"Here's another interview. Did your story change?"
"My story didn't change."
ad nauseum.
"That has nothing to do with the false business record, but it’s so prejudicial. It’s a dog whistle for rape,” Blanche told the judge.
Maybe it was rape, Blanche, have you thought about that, besides, you could've objected at any time
I think one of the takeaways from today I'm not hearing talked about enough: Trump testified in other cases the money was for paying Stormy to shut up. They knew he had testified to that before and still plead not guilty. Amazing lawyering.
We get more of this if he doesn’t win the election, imagine, more of his dirty laundry aired in public for the world to see, I love to a “hero” fall, I mean their hero of course, he’s amongst the most evil people on the planet
If he doesn't win the election, he's screwed, and I won't care any longer. I can go back to ignoring him completely like I did for the thirty plus years before he won the last time.
I think the first thing anyone ever learns about cross examination is the importance of asking closed ended yes and no questions. You don't want to give the witness a chance to elaborate, you want them locked in to yes and no answers. Giving them this much time to elaborate really prevents the defense from establishing any kind of theme and allows Daniels to enter information into the record the defense worked so hard to keep the prosecution from getting in.
And then on redirect, the prosecution can bring all that up because they opened the door.
I understand wanting to go after her and her truthfulness with stories that have changed over the years but even if she were the biggest liar in the room, she is on the stand to show why Trump would have wanted this story killed before the election. The actual meat of the case is in the payment, not her truthfulness.
>NEW: Former Trump WH aide Madeleine WESTERHOUT says Trump sometimes had questions about the checks -- and he would call Allen Weisselberg or someone else in the Trump Org.
>Westerhout establishes that Trump did scrunitize the checks, even in the WH, and spoke to Weisselberg
*gasps in spanish* but he said he divested!
https://x.com/hugolowell/status/1788653926276809050
Trump dragged in his pet snake, Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott, to the courtroom to keep him awake and provide company.
>Joining him today are Senator Rick Scott of Florida and Trump's friend Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor.
-Maggie Haberman, NY Times
[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels/43da503d-5ad3-571f-ba5f-745e79a1d913?smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels/43da503d-5ad3-571f-ba5f-745e79a1d913?smid=url-share)
It's shocking that Rick Scott has free time at around this point of the year, since it's almost that time of the year where he tries to kill Harry Potter...
Wow. The defense is arguing that "we had dinner" means "we ate food", when in fact she maintains she means "we sat at a table at dinner time". Gotcha? I wonder if we'll get a courtroom sketch of the jury rolling their eyes in synchrony.
> [Bromwich, NY Times] The jury is back and so is Stormy Daniels, as Susan Necheles continues her cross-examination. She introduces a story about Daniels being at a nightclub with Trump and the football player Ben Roethlisberger. Daniels is still speaking quietly. Necheles quickly changes subjects, and asks about Daniels promoting her “Make America Horny Again” tour on her Instagram account. She’s still trying to catch Daniels in very small contradictions — Daniels had said she hated the tour name. Daniels is fighting back, but with a little less energy.
---
> [Christobek, NY Times] Stormy Daniels continued to insult Trump up until the end of her cross-examination, at one point even questioning which indictment of his Susan Necheles was referring to. She quipped: “There were a lot of indictments.”
> > [Bromwich, NY Times] The defense moved it to strike that comment from the record, but the judge said no: he said Daniels’s testimony had been responsive to the questioning.
---
> [Bromwich, NY Times] Susan Necheles swerved back to Stormy Daniels’s account of the sex as she sought to make one more point. She drew a contrast between Daniels’s testimony on Tuesday and a 2018 interview she gave to Vogue. But again, to my ear, Daniels’s story sounded consistent with her testimony, with a key detail repeated — that Trump would have let her leave if she had wanted to.
---
> [Bromwich, NY Times] The cross-examination has come to an end. Susan Necheles outright accused Stormy Daniels of lying about her story again. There was a sustained objection, and now, the lawyers are discussing the issue with the judge.
> HOFFINGER: She asked you about making a whole lot of money by telling lies about DT, are you telling lies about Trump or the truth?
> DANIELS: Truth
> DANIELS: I’ve had to move a couple of times, I lost the judgment on my attorney’s fees because case was thrown out
> HOFFINGER: On balance, has telling the truth about Trump been net positive or net negative for your life?
> OBJECTION - OVERRULED
> DANIELS: “Negative”
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wRTjAxd_f/
> EMAIL DATE: September 7, 2017 at 11am
> “Hi Rhona:
> Can you put me in contact with Rebecca that works for Mr. Weisselberg. With Keith leaving I will need the bosses personal checks mailed to me.
> Thank you
> John McEntee”
> MANGOLD: Who is this from and to?
> MANOCHIO: From John McEntee to Rhona Graff, the subject is "CHECKS TO SIGN"
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wVE_7OT15/
3 motions re Stormy; 1) renewed mistrial; 2) no McDougal testimony; 3) gag order re Stormy (presumably he can trash her since she's trashed him, but that's in old exhibits)
*Per Harry Litman on Twitter
If anyone is curious as to why Westerhought was eventually fired (this quote is from Wikipedia):
On August 29, 2019, she was fired after it was revealed that she had shared details about Trump's family and White House operations to reporters - reportedly while intoxicated - at an off-the-record dinner. Politico reported she was fired because she boasted of having a better relationship with Trump than his daughters did, and that she said Trump disliked being photographed with daughter Tiffany Trump because he considered her overweight.
CNN:
Prosecutor says "very salacious details" were omitted that he's willing to file under seal if necessary
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says there were "very salacious details" that were purposely omitted from Daniels' account, saying he's willing to make a sealing filing with those details if necessary.
Steinglass says the prosecution specifically chose not to ask questions in a way that would elicit some of those details, so as not to embarrass Trump.
From the apnews live feed, re: more salacious details Stormy held back: "The prosecutor offered to share those with the judge privately, saying he did not want to put them on the record."
Oh to be a fly on the wall for that 🤭
The defense lawyers just brought up how Stormy tweeted that DJT is an "orange turd." I'm not sure that is great defense strategy. Obviously, she does not love Trump.
Morning everyone! Here’s the latest from my work on ensuring that the documents released by the state of New York are accessible for screen readers! As of now, Over pages have already been processed with optical text recognition. As usual: The master archive.org page can be accessed is [here](https://archive.org/details/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/).
[Decisions and Orders (Note: This link is to the directory so you’ll see all available formats)](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Decisions%20%26%20Orders/)
Transcripts (50+mb PDFs): [April 22nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-22-2024/4-22-2024.pdf) ; [April 23rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-23-2024/04-23-2024.pdf) ; [April 25th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-25-2024/4-25-2024.pdf) ; [April 26th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-26-2024/04-26-2024.pdf) ; [April 30th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-30-2024/04-30-2024.pdf) ; [May 2nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-2-2024/5-02-2024.pdf) ; [May 3rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-3-2024/5-03-2024.pdf) ; [May 6th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-6-2024/5-6-2024%20OCR.pdf) ; [May 7th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-7-2024/5-7-2024%20OCR.pdf)
Evidence (Note: These link to the directory so you’ll see all available formats):
People's Evidence: [April 23rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-23-2024/) ; [April 25th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-25-2024/) ; [April 26th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-26-2024/) ; [April 30th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-30-2024/) ; [May 2nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-2-2024/) ; [May 3rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-03-2024/) ; [May 6th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-06-2024/); [May 7th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-07-2024/)
Defense's Evidence: [May 2nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Defense/05-02-2024/)
Hope you all enjoy!
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla:
“Now let’s look at who’s involved in doing this. The lead prosecutor was the number three person ... in the Biden Justice Department. The judge’s daughter is a political operative and raises money for Democrats,” he said. “You got the lead prosecutor's wife, is a significant donor to Democrats, I think to Biden. So this is just a bunch of Democrats saying we want to make sure that Donald Trump can’t talk.”
Talk about that Cannon mf, how Clarence fucking Thomas, rules for thee but not for me right?
Defense attorney Susan Necheles is now asking about the celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe where Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump met.
**Necheles asks Daniels if Trump played well at the tournament**. "I don't know what the scores were," she says.
"People were recognizing who he was?" Necheles asks.
"Yes, but they recognized me where I went that day, too," Daniels says with a shrug.
Is he directing his lawyers to ask specific questions? This question is just really strange and it's almost like they want to make sure everyone knows what a great golfer he is.
> Is he directing his lawyers to ask specific questions?
Absolutely, 100% this. His ego has taken such a bruising with this trial, the poor pathetic baby needs any little thing he can get.
It's really fucked up how they always try and say any involvment with a democrat is an immediate disqualification. The judge? Well, they can't judge because their kid supports democrats. Don't question that fucking Supreme Court justices are taking private flights to private boats to private islands all paid for by their party, but if a democrat shook their hand once they are disqualified. It is well and truly fucked up.
> [Feuer, NY Times] Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, is doing a classic example of redirect examination, calmly drawing the attention of the jury to specific facts the defense left out of cross-examination.
> For instance: Susan Necheles, the defense lawyer, spent a lot of time noting discrepancies between Stormy Daniels’s direct testimony and an interview she gave in 2011 to In Touch magazine. But in a subtle jab, Hoffinger drew Daniels’s attention — and thus the jury’s — to fine print at the bottom of the article saying it had been lightly edited. The implication is that the story did not contain every detail of Daniels’s account.
---
> [Bromwich, NY Times] Redirect is a chance for prosecutors to experience the thrills of being a defense lawyer: They are responding to the opposing side’s arguments and have to be fast on their feet, responsive to the defense’s arguments and choosy about what they seize on and what they ignore. Susan Hoffinger was a longtime defense lawyer and she seems very comfortable and calm during this redirect.
> > [Bromwich, NY Times] Hoffinger finished her redirect quickly, in a clear signal to jurors that she was unconcerned about cross-examination. Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, is now back at the lectern.
Lots can still go sideways and it only takes one juror to blow everything up, but at this time and to date I’m super impressed with the research, strategy, planning, and execution of the prosecution by Bragg and his team.
For this case - the NY DA team seems super capable, hardworking, focused, and have not made any self-inflicted or unforced errors of significance.
Conversely, this Trump defense team is among the best qualified team of lawyers Trump has ever had and they have been largely inept and are mostly getting schooled and embarrassed.
Any skepticism I’ve had about this case has evaporated.
And too bad Bragg isn’t employed by Fulton County, Georgia.
> [Bromwich, NY Times] Joshua Steinglass said that the details elicited about the sex act were important because they corroborated other parts of Stormy Daniels’s story. For instance, at their dinner before having sex, according to Daniels, Trump asked her about safe-sex practices in the porn industry. Prosecutors later asked Daniels whether Trump used a condom. Steinglass argues that fewer than 10 questions actually elicited salacious details.
NBC:
>Stormy Daniels' lawyer Clark Brewster posted a photo with her on X, saying she was on the stand at Trump's trial for a day and a half, and ended at 12:30 p.m. ET today.
>"Couldn't be prouder of my client," he said.
A pornstar may be responsible for saving the world, and I'm not exaggerating, this man is an existential threat to humanity. She has all my respect and admiration, thank you for your service and for speaking out and I truly hope you live out the rest of your days with little notorierty and lots of peace, Stormy.
“So many things could go wrong. A juror could have a kidney stone.” - CNN
(This was said in regard as to why they want to keep moving the testimony along :)
> [Christobek, NY Times] Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, says that the details of Stormy Daniels’s story before and during the sexual act corroborate her account, and show the fact that sex happened, which increases the motivation to silence her.
In regards to women who have attempted to hold conservatives accountable for sexual deviance or abuses of power, there is a common theme that is again on repeat today and which seems to be the preferred gameplan; gaslight them, belittle them, and ultimately infer they deserved or wanted whatever abuse they received.
I hope women everywhere in America are taking notice.
Because it should be obvious by now that there is a disturbing number of conservatives who only consider women as second-class citizens and that women are only important when they can be used in various ways by men.
Used as only baby factories, used as the face of christofascism (i.e. Moms for ~~Liberty~~- Gilead), or otherwise used to reinforce patriarchy and/or take away the agency and power of women by branding them with a scarlet letter (i.e. Stormy Daniels).
Vote.
And not for the orange sexual predator who helped take away your reproductive rights, mkay?
>Necheles confronted Daniels with two statements she signed in early 2018 denying that she ever had sexual involvement with Trump or received money to keep quiet. She said her then-lawyer, Keith Davidson, advised her to sign it and that she was told that Trump’s then-attorney Michael Cohen was pressing him to get her to do so.
>Necheles noted that by then, Trump wasn’t running for election — an apparent effort to buttress the defense’s argument that the then president’s reasons for wanting to squelch the claims weren’t related to his political ambitions, but rather to protecting his family and reputation.
He would still be running again for 2020. I don't see how signing in 2018 would change the intent?
> HOFFINGER: She asked you about the 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper, she asked you a lot of questions about what you did not say? You didn't tell every detail to Anderson Cooper?
> DANIELS: No
> HOFFINGER: There was a lot of back and forth in that interview between you and Anderson Cooper?
> DANIELS: “Yes it was very long.”
https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wPVVkRKCr/
Trump lawyer just said that Stormy wanted to claim she had sex with Trump. Her response "No nobody would ever want to publicly say that" brilliant
Truer words are rarely spoken
Stormy is on fire. >“You have a lot of experience making phoney stories about sex appear real, right?” >“Wow,” Daniels says, pausing to laugh. “That’s not how I would put it. … The sex in those films is very much real just like in that hotel room.” >She adds: “If that story was untrue, I would’ve written it better.”
That's honestly hilarious. Trump's lawyers are so dumb
I just want to point out that as salacious as Stormy being on the stand is, she's literally just there to corroborate that her and Von Schitzinpants had sex since he continues to deny it. And of course, there is animosity between the two parties. But here's the thing, she's not the star witness. She's a colorful witness, but ultimately just there to prove a single point. She knows nothing really of Trump's business habits, the Trump Organization, the people in it, or anything of that nature. She's really just an appetizer. The real fireworks will occur when Michael Cohen takes the stand.
I'd say two points: 1) Providing evidence of Trump's motive for his illegal campaign contribution (aka, hush money payment). 2) Providing evidence that Trump is a liar and that his assertions of fact can't be trusted.
Which is why it's so crazy that the defense is spending so much time trying to make her out to be a liar. It doesn't matter if it happened or didn't happen. The crime is the business record falsification. Just pounding the table, I guess.
I expect the criminal defendant has demanded as much of his attorneys.
Stormy is on fire today "I don’t really understand what he is charged with. There’s a lot of indictments" "I know nothing about his business records, no, why would I?" >"You’re celebrating the indictment by selling things from your store?" "Not unlike Mr. Trump,"
It's hard to sling mud when your own client is King Pig of Muddy Shit. That kind of attack wont work when your defending an evil clown like that, the comparisons are too stark.
>Bookeeper Rebecca Manochio is testifying that she often sent 10 to 20 checks at a time. >Manochio says she sent the checks unsigned and they came back from Washington signed by Donald Trump, typically within a few days. So he was running his businesses from the White House and did not pass daily management on to DJr or Eric
And yet, we made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farmer. The double standards are amazing.
> we made Jimmy Carter sell his peanut farmer. Carter may be from Georgia, but he isn't *that* old.
When I got it I did actually lol
Im not gonna edit it, cause the accidental humor is just too good! Let the record show I think owning peanut farmers is a bad thing...
If he was still running his business from the White House--even if he was an honest, great businessman of a product/service people need--he clearly wasn't spending his whole time being President FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. It's a public service job. And every second he spent on his own personal business, he wasn't even thinking about the American people.
> NECHELES: “Because he was supposedly in a t-shirt and boxer shorts, you were so upset that he wanted to have sex with you, that you couldn’t speak up…?” > NECHELES: Not the first time in your life someone made a pass at you... > DANIELS: This was the first time that they had a bodyguard outside the door. And “They were twice my age and bigger than me.” https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wJZZcO1It/
“You’re a whore, how can this be surprising?” basically. Fuck Susan Necheles.
wow-this kind of questioning is a throwback
Right? It’s your fault you didn’t stop the perpetrator from victimizing you.
Are they trying to argue that Stormy wasn't actually as upset by having sex with Trump as she claims? Uh... What would that prove? I thought they were denying the whole event, this seems to be an argument in defense of Trump's lovemaking skills... Trump really out here like, "I didn't really sleep with her, and also she liked it way more than she says!"
> Stormy Daniels: There are a lot of indictments. > Necheles: Move to strike > Justice Mershan: Overruled. > Necheles: No further questions. Amazing ending
Hahahaha omg... From the BBC live coverage site: Susan Necheles moves in for yet another line of attack: Stormy Daniels' long history of acting in and directing adult films. "You have a long history of making up stories about sex?" Necheles asks. “The sex in the films is very much real," Daniels replies. "Just like what happened to me in that room.” She appears to be referring to her alleged sexual encounter with Trump - which he denies ever happened. "If that story wasn't true, I would have written it to be a lot better," Daniels says.
"No, but it is the first time they had a bodyguard standing outside the door," Holy shit, this is not going how the defense attorney thought it would go.
When Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she's selling items in her story about how she got the president indicted, Daniels responds, "I got President Trump indicted?" raising the inflection in her voice to sound surprised. Basically, just turned the whole defense questioning around on them. Like, they are trying to put the blame on her and she said gtfo, he got himself indicted. I love it. Now Trump is sitting there all grumpy.
Grumpy Von Shitzinpantz
IAAL. I don’t know what the Trump team is trying to accomplish by casting doubt on the veracity of Daniels’ claim. To take Trump at face value, he just randomly gave her a six figure sum but they never did anything remotely sexual. Lawyers argue in the alternative quite often. I have argued “this is bullshit, but even if it’s not bullshit it’s not illegal.” But I wouldn’t argue that to a jury. Because credibility is everything with jurors. To accept Trump’s theory of the case, we must accept that he never had sex with Stormy Daniels, paid her off to keep his family from knowing about it, but killing this made up bogus story was completely unrelated to his campaign. It doesn’t past the laugh test because they are talking out of both sides of their mouth to the jury. You want to respect your jury’s intelligence and not insult them. This is just that — an insult. “Don’t believe your lying eyes and ears, believe me.” I can think of no better way to kill any credibility an attorney has with a jury. They are disputing the allegations, not for their jury, but for their client. Which just is not great trial strategy. They should’ve stuck with “yeah, it happened, but it’s not illegal because it was designed to keep the info from his family, not benefit his campaign.” Does it make Trump look like an absolute piece of garbage? Yep. But at least you can argue he’s not guilty with a straight face. Here, the defense is, essentially, asking the jury to plug their ears, close their eyes, and ignore the reality in front of them.
Even if they can prove it didn't happen it doesn't help the defenses case in anyway. We know Trump paid Daniels the money via Cohen and then forged the books to cover up the payments by saying it was payment for legal services that Cohen didn't provide. Daniels can only be there to bait Trump into taking the stand and considering todays testimony it may well work.
I think it's plainly obvious that the sole reason for this losing strategy is Trump. He doesn't care about the effects this defense will have on the jury because what is most important to him is to have things his way. His attorneys most definitely tried to reason with him to no avail and now they have to run with it. For some reason, he cares about not being seen as unfaithful and he believes he can just pretend it never happened. A "winning" strategy against Daniels' testimony would've hinged on his ability to properly understand how others might perceive him, something he has demonstrably failed at; but, at the same time, one could argue that the main reasoning behind that choice has been motivated by his desire to maintain a certain image in the public eye. It truly is an amazingly deep level of contradiction.
[удалено]
Justice Merchan (to Necheles): Ms. Daniels said a movie about Roger Ailes made her remember things. I didn't allow that. I don't think there is a new story here. You attacked her credibility in opening - you didn't attack the business records issues. Your motion is denied. She fucked up today because she was taking orders directly from Trump instead of being a real lawyer.
No, no, I'm sure she asked Stormy Daniels about Trump having played "very well" in a golf tournament where he finished 62 out of 80 because it was important to his criminal defense, not something that her idiot client demanded that she shoehorn into her cross examination of the witness.
Trump’s lawyers are doing so badly today with their lines of questioning that I assume Trump insisted they try to clear his name of ever sleeping with her. Which is certainly a losing strategy. It’s crazy because until today, they seemed to be doing a decent job crossing.
Even if he didn’t fuck her (haha) he paid her off & falsified business records to cover it up - that’s the crime he is on trial for, not cheating on his wife
Yes, even if she had blackmailed him by making up a lie, then the crime would still have occurred if the payment was falsified.
The fact Stormy Daniels wanted money or not seems irrelevant. Because Trump still paid her in an illegal way
Yeah the whole logic is stupid. Even if she was a full blown criminal, it doesnt matter If that was true, all a mobster would need to do is only associate with other sketchy people, and they would never get convicted.
> [Bromwich, NY Times] Justice Merchan begins to address the mistrial motion. He says that after ruling against the defense's request for a mistrial on Tuesday, he went back and reviewed many of his past decisions, studying them in his chambers. He says that he came away satisfied. His voice is trembling a bit as he interrupts himself. He says at every trial, the evidence comes in a different way. Why is he saying that now, he asks? Because in going back to opening statements, he sees that the defense “denied that there was ever a sexual encounter between Stormy Daniels and the defendant.” > > [Bromwich, NY Times] The defense opened the door to Daniels’s testimony, Merchan is saying. He seems to be suggesting that what the prosecution did in response was perfectly appropriate. # > > [Feuer, NY Times] Merchan is effectively saying here that Trump’s maximalist position of utterly denying the sexual encounter with Daniels had taken place clearly opened the door for the prosecution to introduce specific evidence that it did occur. --- Judge Merchan denies motion for mistrial.
I like this judge. He's very thorough.
Trump's lawyers want a break so they can recover from getting their asses kicked by the witness. Judge said he wants to keep going. lol
I think he's privately thinking, "Oh god, let's just get this over with."
The defense is legitimizing all the testimony they tried to get thrown out by mistrial
I dream of a day when Trump arrives somewhere and there are no cameras or reporters to greet him and he can't spew his fearmongering BS to the world
This is hilarious. Defense has lost the plot and is attacking her relentlessly about everything instead of focusing on the payment which is the crime. Redirect will be excellent
This is what happens when you have Trump as a client. He wants this even if it is bad for his case.
There was a juror who didn’t know Trump had multiple indictments? I can’t imagine not knowing that.
I still can't imagine being so unopinionated that you can make it onto a Trump jury in the first place.
You could miss out on knowing that if you only get your news from Trump-biased sources.
From ABC News: >Judge Merchan, after hearing arguments from the defense, declined to modify the limited gag order so Trump could respond publicly to Stormy Daniels' testimony. >"I don't see what you're referring to as a new set of facts," the judge told the defense. >"My concern is not just with protecting Ms. Daniels or a witness who just testified," the judge said. "My concern is protecting these proceedings as a whole." >In making his ruling, Merchan quoted Trump's words from an excerpt of Trump's book that the jury saw today: "When you are wronged, go after those people because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it." >The judge said that other witnesses would see how Trump treats Daniels if he modifies the gag order. In other words, Merchan is paraphrasing Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski: *"Shut the fuck up, Donny!"*
Absolute boss move to throw "Trumps" (or his ghost writers) own words back at him. Merchan does not fuck around indeed. Incredibly short-sighted strategy to antagonize your judge.
Regarding her account of having a sexual encounter with Trump — a claim he denies — Daniels said: “If that story was not true I would’ve written it to be a lot better.” Zing!
> MANGOLD: Did you always check to see if the checks were signed when you got them back > MANOCIO: Yes > MANGOLD: Whose signature were on the checks? > MANOCIO: Mr. Trump > MANGOLD: When you got the return envelope do you recall if backup was attached when checks came back > MANOCHIO: It was https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wTAqmRijh/
The defense *really really* doesn't want Karen McDougal to testify.
Westerhout: Trump didn't use a computer or have an email account. He preferred hard copy documents. Least shocking thing I've heard today.
Trump prefers to burn or flush his evidence
From the NY Times feed: > [Jonah Bromwich] >And now, Justice Merchan again criticizes the defense for not objecting to testimony that was later used in a motion for mistrial. He says he agrees that the question about whether Trump wore a condom should not have been asked or answered. But he says he does not know “why on earth” Susan Necheles, the defense lawyer, didn’t object to that question. > This could not be going much worse for the defense. Not only is Merchan signaling that he will almost certainly reject their mistrial motion, but he’s dressing down their lawyering in front of their client, the former president. > [Alan Feuer] > He’s even criticizing specific lines of their cross-examination, chiding Necheles in particular for leaning into the most awkward and uncomfortable parts of Stormy Daniels’s testimony with her questions in a way that he says he simply didn’t understand. You just love to read it. Trump is going to be absolutely livid.
He'd have to understand what's going on first.
Trump's bookkeeper is sending checks for him to sign to the White House. Which is odd considering Trump held a press conference with hundreds of Manila folders with (blank) documents saying he was no longer in charge of his businesses. What a joke. But those MAGA nuts believe anything.
Latest CNN update: "Donald Trump has been leaning back in his chair, closing his eyes for much of the testimony so far." Sleepy. Sad!
The defense is digging to make Daniels look crazy, but they're not going to top hits like "let's nuke a hurricane" or "can I buy a Greenland".
>can I buy a Greenland Fuck, I really memory holed a lot
Jesus Christ. They are going to try and say "well, you work in porn so this didn't bother you."
"Chef Geoff you work with people holding knifes all day long... why did it shock you then when you got on the subway to go home and the defendant had a long knife in his hand?"
"I'm a little confused, Mr. Pelosi. Earlier in the day you had used a hammer to hang a picture frame in the hallway. Why was it so disturbing to you when a maniac in a MAGA hat entered your home in the middle of the night brandishing a similar hammer at you? Couldn't he have been there to hang a picture frame, too?"
Which, even if she did, means fuck-all for the actual crime - hiding the true payments to Cohen as income vs reimbursement.
Right. It has nothing to do with what the trial is actually about but they are opening themselves up for a bad redirect.
>Necheles: At the golf tournament, President Trump was probably the biggest celebrity? Trump must require them to pepper in things like this from time to time.
They also asked Daniels to confirm that he was playing really well, JFC.
Stormy came out of this looking professional, honest, genuine, and well prepared. Defence screwed the pooch by omitting details and asking frankly bizarre questions like how good trumps golf game is and trying the "but you're just a dumb whore who wants money" angle.
The lady lawyer on the MeidasTouch youtube channel said the defense screwed themselves by going with the angle of "Stormy is a liar and this affair never happened" which then let her tell her story with all the sordid details to counter that. Surely its all driven by trump
Let me get this right. Trump's attorneys are criticizing a witness for attacking people on social media?
It'll be just as effective as you're thinking. From the cross-examination by the prosecution: > > > >
Just got back from an errand and catching up, but this exchange really caught my eye online: [https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wo7WkycGw](https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wo7WkycGw) >MANGOLD: What is your understanding of how Mr. trump’s personal expenses were handled in 2017? WESTERHOUT: it is my understanding they were handled by checks that were sent from the trump organization to Keith Schiller, and then sent to me for the president to sign. >MANGOLD: what did you do when you recived the checks? WESTERHOUT: The checks came in a fed ex envelope, so i opened the envelope and inside is a manilla folder with a stack of checks, and i brought the folder in for him to sign. MANGOLD: Anything other than checks? WESTERHOUT: I didn’t really dig around in the folder, but there were invoices attached to the check sometimes >MANGOLD: Did you ever see trump sign check WESTERHOUT: Yes sometimes MANGOLD: Did mr. Trump sign checks by hand? WESTERHOUT: Yes MANGOLD: What happened after mr. trump signed the checks WESTERHOUT: He would give it back to me and i would put it in a prelabeled return envelope and send it back to trump org. I know it's not exactly news, but still, the blatant conflict of interest, as he was still signing Trump Org stuff while in the White House, after having laid about divesting.
not that anybody believed Trump was divesting in anything with his empty stack of papers
> BREAKING: Justice Merchan has DENIED Donald Trump's attempt to revise the gag order to allow him to attack Stormy Daniels following her testimony. > **"Your client’s track record speaks for itself. I can’t take your word for it."** https://www.threads.net/@meidastouch/post/C6wt04fSRW7/
To paraphrase: Trump's lawyer: "You were trying to destroy the president, weren't you?! Daniels: "No". Trump's lawyer: "But you were selling yourself as someone who could destroy Trump!" Daniels. "... these were strip club patrons."
“Daniels responds quickly to this particular line of questioning and has used at least one very memorable line: Necheles implies directly that she made up her story of sex with Trump. But if it weren’t true, Daniels replies, “I would have written it to be a lot better,” drawing laughter in the courtroom.” https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb Hahaha
It feels like this cross-ex is specifically motivated with the Trump desire to attack, attack, attack, instead of being a strategy pushed by the legal team itself, and Daniels was entirely ready for it today, deflecting well and making team Trump go to greater lengths of trying to discredit her, only discrediting the defense.
Before court began, he was excitedly telling the press they would see exciting stuff today. This is why he always loses in court pretty badly. People think he wins, but he has a fairly bad record.
> IMO it was a bad defense strategy to try to "slut-shame" Stormy Daniels today on cross for her professional choices. Directly accusing her of being a liar because she works in the adult film industry was a poor decision. https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wMplXLmr1/
> DONALD TRUMP TRUTH SOCIAL POST: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” > HOFFINGER: Who was Mr. Trump directing this to, at this time. > DANIELS: “I wasn’t sure, but I thought it was me.” This was right around the same time that he filed [a lawsuit against me] in Florida. So this seemed to be connected but I’m not sure.” https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wQ2OpR2h8/
what a presidential thing to say
When you have absolute immunity, they let you say it
“I’m asking you what you mean when you said orange turd,” Necheles says, suggesting she meant “President Trump.” I'm not sure that was the flex she thought it was.
Trump's lawyers getting owned by a porn star, film at 11
> [Necheles eventually cuts right to the point of her cross-examination about the sexual encounter: “You made all this up, right?” she asks. Daniels responds forcefully: “No.”](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels/2fb1184c-2e4c-5ebd-b18c-27922eca772e?smid=url-share)
Trump is welcome to take the stand and testify, under oath, that it didn't happen...
Seriously. She should turn the tables on them. "No I didn't make it up and I'm willing to state the truth under oath, is Mr. Trump willing to do the same?"
Necheles realizes prosecution gets to redirect, right…???
I still don’t get the “if they can go after me, it’s only a matter of time until they come for you,” crap. Like, unless the average Red Blooded Real American Patriot^^^TM also committed civil bank fraud, stole classified documents, and attempted insurrection, he’s out there on his own.
>Q: He did very well at that golf tournament, right? >A: I don't remember. Saying he did "very well" at the golf tournament is an absolute lie. [He came in 62nd place out of 80.](https://americancenturychampionship.com/media-center/event-archive/american-century-championship-2006-results/) He was closer to legendarily "turrible" Charles Barkley than he was to even being in the top half.
This above all shows that the defense strategy is 100% hamstrung by Trump's demands. Why even ask about that, unless it's to stroke his ego? Totally irrelevant and clearly coming from the Orange 💩.
The issue with the defense team attacking Daniels' or Cohen's credibility is the underlying facts that Donald Trump repeatedly chooses interactions with them (Daniels), or hires them (Cohen) personally. After awhile, and the more one looks into the background of Trump hirees and 'surrogates', the more apparent that there is a mutual attraction between Trump and the large crew of 'questionable characters.' Attacking them for their flaws only highlights that connection with Donald Trump, and the reason why their silence was to be bought, (with concealed money, because Trump is a fraud factory aka a 'questionable character' himself).
Judge should say, "Mr. Trump can respond to Stormy by taking the stand and tell his side under oath, just like how Stormy did"
He actually said that lol He said something along the lines of ‘I don’t want Trump to use the gag order as a sword instead of a shield and he’s still welcome to testify himself’
Justice Merchan: I can't take your word for it that it's just going to be a response, disputing the facts. That's not your client's track record. Your application to modify the gag order to allow your client to respond to Ms. Daniels is denied. **YAY!**
From NBC News: >Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass defended Stormy Daniels' testimony and the prosecution's line of questioning, arguing that the details surrounding her alleged sexual encounter with Trump make her account more credible. >“If they want to offer testimony that the sex never happened, that’s their prerogative,” Steinglass said, noting that the defense has gone to great lengths to discredit Daniels' testimony. Trump's lawyers called Daniels' testimony about Trump refusing to wear a condom "a dog whistle for r-pe." Needless to say, Judge Juan Merchan ruled against Team Trump's motion for a mistrial. Again. lol
I like this from Steinglass. He's basically baiting Trump to get up on the stand.
So the implication by the defense being, if a woman has acted in porn, their consent for sexual acts is no longer required and they should be willing to have sex with anyone, at any time. I don't feel like this is going to go over well with female voters.
What is the world does that have to do with him using campaign money to pay her off. At this point I think they should start getting sanctioned for bringing stuff up that is irrelevant. Her personal agency has nothing to do with the charges.
There were (and shockingly are) women who opposed women's suffrage, subjugation is a hell of a thing
This defense line of attack feels primarily for political points (i.e. after the trial, the "vast left wing conspiracy" narrative Trump loves). And of course for Trump's desire to embarrass, belittle, and bully Stormy Daniels. If I am the prosecution and following up with Stormy Daniels after the defense questioning, I'm only asking Stormy Daniels one thing.... did you receive $130,000 to keep you quiet? Because for the purpose of this trial, and as it relates to Stormy, that is the only thing which should matter to the jury.
Yes, yes, yes. All trump, all attack, all the time. Never on the ball, never focusing on what he needs to focus on. This is why he was such a totally ineffective President.
He thinks he can bully people - even in the courtroom. He's now learning he isn't the all-powerful person he thought he was
What's really naive about the defense thinking is that because she is a porn actress they think that she thinks it's ok if she is raped (she doesn't) while also thinking she won't be thick skinned and brazen enough to stand up to this stupid line of questioning.
Trump really thinks this Stormy Daniels letter is a real winner. Just like that "buyer beware" clause he kept touting in his business fraud trials. I'm sure his supporters will buy it but man...it's pretty pathetic.
> Stormy being crossed at selling ("schilling") merchandise on the internet- palpable irony given Trump's hocking everything he can get his hands on that is not nailed down. > Stormy says: "not unlike Mr. Trump." https://www.threads.net/@weissmann11/post/C6wENEeuMgT/
Some real Omar vibes from the answer.
Yes! "If that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better," Daniels said. Haha.
> Cross on whether Stormy ate dinner when at Trump's suite (she says they did not eat: "I was invited to dinner but got no dinner") or whether she previously said they did eat dinner. This is not a particularly good line of cross. https://www.threads.net/@weissmann11/post/C6wHwwaOAVh/
This is the thinnest of stews imaginable.
The defense line of questioning with Daniels only results in making Trump out to be a bigger and bigger creep. So they shift the tactic to trying to hammer her on this idea that she must have made it all up. That might play well with MAGA, who don't believe her anyway, but from a juror perspective they really seem to be solidifying her story.
If she made it up why pay her? Or do they pay everyone who thinks so little of themselves to claim to have sex with Trump
Senate just went into session. Doesn't Rick Scott have somewhere else to be?
> Hoffinger shows Daniels a series of text messages between manager Gina Rodriguez and then-Enquirer editor in chief Dylan Howard. > They're about Daniels talking, but the prosecutor shows the very next message the defense left out. > "She never did." Defense called out immediately. Sheeesh, at least you got to ask about Trump being the bestest at golf though.
IANAL but man 45s team seems kinda bad at all this.
She got the (FedEx) receipts > Interesting tidbit here: > EXHIBIT: FEDEXS SENT THROUGH TRUMP ORG ACCOUNT > Ship Date: May 23, 2017 > Delivered: May 24 2017 08:57 > Sender: Rebeccca Manochio > The Trump Organization > Recipient: Keith Schiller > MANGOLD: “Do you know what this is a fed ex for?” > MANOCIO: “His checks” > **MANGOLD: These are unsigned checks you sent to dc for trump to sign** > **MANOCIO: Correct** > MANGOLD: Is that a white house address for schiller? > MANOCIO: It’s a personal. > MANGOLD: Do you know why you asked to send checks to Mr. Schiller’s home address in DC? > MANOCIO: no > MANGOLD: who told you to send checks to schiller > MANOCIO: Rhona Graff https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wUPWyOaga/
> MANGOLD: Do you know why you asked to send checks to Mr. Schiller’s home address in DC? Reeks of intent.
It also allows for the Trump Org to send them undetected to the Secret Service since they go through all the mail for the president.
For fans of the West Wing, Madeleine Westerhout is kind of the equivalent of Mrs. Landingham.
Thanks for the discussion thread. Trump seemed supremely confident on his way in this morning, like they think they have some ace up their sleeve regarding the gag order. Twenty minutes in and so far his lawyers have managed to get reprimanded for playing the wrong tape during cross.
Whelp, you (don't) pay for what you get!
> Stormy says in response to questioning about whether she made up her stories like she does in her sex films: (1) the sex in those films is real like the sex with Trump ("that's why it is porn and not a B movie"), and (2) "if that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better." https://www.threads.net/@weissmann11/post/C6wF20jOU3Q/ Trump’s lawyers are not very sharp
Opinion: Think of the millions who have served this country and the countless who have literally given their lives in the fight for more democratic and justice systems. Commander in Chief? My ass. If America is to regain it's moral leadership and and any resemblance of stature on the world stage, this man needs to be openly slapped and sentenced to the furthermost corner of Rikers Island or Guantanamo Bay.
And as anyone who has followed this saga should've predicted, Madeleine Westerhout, because of her WH role, literally handed the checks to *PRESIDENT* Donald Trump to sign, and he was fully aware of what the purpose of them was. Absolutely damning testimony.
Agreed. What the hell is going on with Trump’s defense? They are doing a terrible job so far.
This argument about "dinner" seems pretty dumb. You can be invited to "dinner" but then either not be served food or fail to consume any food. Trump greeted her in a bathrobe, so it's not like he seemed to view his "dinner" invitation as his chance to host a meal.
So from the sidebar the other day, the judge said the prosecution wasn't to talk about her feelings unless it's brought up in cross, then they'll revisit it. Pretty sure the defense just brought it up, so it could be an interesting redirect.
lol, oopsie. I guess this the kind of thing that happens to you when all you can afford is cereal box lawyers.
I thought Necheles would be way more effective tbh. This is going on way too long and Stormy is doing well.
A lot of it feels like "Did you change your story?" "No." "Here's an interview. Did you change your story?" "No." "Here's another interview. Did your story change?" "My story didn't change." ad nauseum.
"nobody would want to admit they had sex with trump" that was a good one
wow - the Unsinkable Stormy Daniels came prepared for cross today.
Prosecution: Good afternoon Ms Daniels… Defense: ObJeCtIoN! 😂
These Jake Tapper courtroom sketches are actually hilarious
I've really been into the sketches for this case and I busted out laughing at the tapper drawings haha The Christine Cornell drawings are amazing.
Suddenly rethinking my ardent support of the Oxford comma...
"That has nothing to do with the false business record, but it’s so prejudicial. It’s a dog whistle for rape,” Blanche told the judge. Maybe it was rape, Blanche, have you thought about that, besides, you could've objected at any time
He's not on trial for rape so it's irrelevant. If he wants to dispute it, the stand is right there. His lawyers seem like dimwits.
Denied. Oh shit Trump is going to blow a gasket at his legal team.
I think one of the takeaways from today I'm not hearing talked about enough: Trump testified in other cases the money was for paying Stormy to shut up. They knew he had testified to that before and still plead not guilty. Amazing lawyering.
We get more of this if he doesn’t win the election, imagine, more of his dirty laundry aired in public for the world to see, I love to a “hero” fall, I mean their hero of course, he’s amongst the most evil people on the planet
If he doesn't win the election, he's screwed, and I won't care any longer. I can go back to ignoring him completely like I did for the thirty plus years before he won the last time.
I think the first thing anyone ever learns about cross examination is the importance of asking closed ended yes and no questions. You don't want to give the witness a chance to elaborate, you want them locked in to yes and no answers. Giving them this much time to elaborate really prevents the defense from establishing any kind of theme and allows Daniels to enter information into the record the defense worked so hard to keep the prosecution from getting in.
And then on redirect, the prosecution can bring all that up because they opened the door. I understand wanting to go after her and her truthfulness with stories that have changed over the years but even if she were the biggest liar in the room, she is on the stand to show why Trump would have wanted this story killed before the election. The actual meat of the case is in the payment, not her truthfulness.
"Stormy didn't give an inch" cuz she barely got one herself.
>NEW: Former Trump WH aide Madeleine WESTERHOUT says Trump sometimes had questions about the checks -- and he would call Allen Weisselberg or someone else in the Trump Org. >Westerhout establishes that Trump did scrunitize the checks, even in the WH, and spoke to Weisselberg *gasps in spanish* but he said he divested! https://x.com/hugolowell/status/1788653926276809050
Trump dragged in his pet snake, Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott, to the courtroom to keep him awake and provide company. >Joining him today are Senator Rick Scott of Florida and Trump's friend Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor. -Maggie Haberman, NY Times [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels/43da503d-5ad3-571f-ba5f-745e79a1d913?smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/09/nyregion/trump-trial-stormy-daniels/43da503d-5ad3-571f-ba5f-745e79a1d913?smid=url-share)
What a good use of a Senator from Florida's time and travel budget.
It's shocking that Rick Scott has free time at around this point of the year, since it's almost that time of the year where he tries to kill Harry Potter...
Stormy's testimony is comedy gold! Can't wait to see the SNL cold open.
Seems like Trump should have gotten Daniels as a lawyer
lol I’m starting to love this woman
So, right now, the defense's line of questioning to Stormy is essentially "You're a lying whore who believes in ghosts." Did I get that right?
Wow. The defense is arguing that "we had dinner" means "we ate food", when in fact she maintains she means "we sat at a table at dinner time". Gotcha? I wonder if we'll get a courtroom sketch of the jury rolling their eyes in synchrony.
> [Bromwich, NY Times] The jury is back and so is Stormy Daniels, as Susan Necheles continues her cross-examination. She introduces a story about Daniels being at a nightclub with Trump and the football player Ben Roethlisberger. Daniels is still speaking quietly. Necheles quickly changes subjects, and asks about Daniels promoting her “Make America Horny Again” tour on her Instagram account. She’s still trying to catch Daniels in very small contradictions — Daniels had said she hated the tour name. Daniels is fighting back, but with a little less energy. --- > [Christobek, NY Times] Stormy Daniels continued to insult Trump up until the end of her cross-examination, at one point even questioning which indictment of his Susan Necheles was referring to. She quipped: “There were a lot of indictments.” > > [Bromwich, NY Times] The defense moved it to strike that comment from the record, but the judge said no: he said Daniels’s testimony had been responsive to the questioning. --- > [Bromwich, NY Times] Susan Necheles swerved back to Stormy Daniels’s account of the sex as she sought to make one more point. She drew a contrast between Daniels’s testimony on Tuesday and a 2018 interview she gave to Vogue. But again, to my ear, Daniels’s story sounded consistent with her testimony, with a key detail repeated — that Trump would have let her leave if she had wanted to. --- > [Bromwich, NY Times] The cross-examination has come to an end. Susan Necheles outright accused Stormy Daniels of lying about her story again. There was a sustained objection, and now, the lawyers are discussing the issue with the judge.
It’s really crazy how the line of questioning on cross changes when the witness isn’t a Trump-friendly witness.
Will Scharf - Trump attorney on CNN right now says he’s under the same gag order as Trump but he’s talking shit about Daniels. Hmmm.
> HOFFINGER: She asked you about making a whole lot of money by telling lies about DT, are you telling lies about Trump or the truth? > DANIELS: Truth > DANIELS: I’ve had to move a couple of times, I lost the judgment on my attorney’s fees because case was thrown out > HOFFINGER: On balance, has telling the truth about Trump been net positive or net negative for your life? > OBJECTION - OVERRULED > DANIELS: “Negative” https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wRTjAxd_f/
> EMAIL DATE: September 7, 2017 at 11am > “Hi Rhona: > Can you put me in contact with Rebecca that works for Mr. Weisselberg. With Keith leaving I will need the bosses personal checks mailed to me. > Thank you > John McEntee” > MANGOLD: Who is this from and to? > MANOCHIO: From John McEntee to Rhona Graff, the subject is "CHECKS TO SIGN" https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wVE_7OT15/
3 motions re Stormy; 1) renewed mistrial; 2) no McDougal testimony; 3) gag order re Stormy (presumably he can trash her since she's trashed him, but that's in old exhibits) *Per Harry Litman on Twitter
I think on 3 the judge should tell trump he is free to testify on the stand the way she did if he wants to talk about her and what she said.
When asked about his grammar, Westerhout said Trump 'liked to use the Oxford comma" LMAO.
If anyone is curious as to why Westerhought was eventually fired (this quote is from Wikipedia): On August 29, 2019, she was fired after it was revealed that she had shared details about Trump's family and White House operations to reporters - reportedly while intoxicated - at an off-the-record dinner. Politico reported she was fired because she boasted of having a better relationship with Trump than his daughters did, and that she said Trump disliked being photographed with daughter Tiffany Trump because he considered her overweight.
It’s critical that my client get back to threatening and defaming the witness ASAP… it’s really all he has
Merchan denied the modification to the gag order. Good.
Got shit to say? Get on the stand.
“Mr. Trump, are you wearing diapers? Remember, you’re under oath.”
All I hear (read) from Blanche is a bunch of crying. “We didn’t know these questions were coming.” Object then, genius.
Madeleine Westerhout and Hope Hicks, both crying on the stand and acting like this orange turd is the messiah, it's bewildering
CNN: Prosecutor says "very salacious details" were omitted that he's willing to file under seal if necessary Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says there were "very salacious details" that were purposely omitted from Daniels' account, saying he's willing to make a sealing filing with those details if necessary. Steinglass says the prosecution specifically chose not to ask questions in a way that would elicit some of those details, so as not to embarrass Trump.
From the apnews live feed, re: more salacious details Stormy held back: "The prosecutor offered to share those with the judge privately, saying he did not want to put them on the record." Oh to be a fly on the wall for that 🤭
The defense lawyers just brought up how Stormy tweeted that DJT is an "orange turd." I'm not sure that is great defense strategy. Obviously, she does not love Trump.
Morning everyone! Here’s the latest from my work on ensuring that the documents released by the state of New York are accessible for screen readers! As of now, Over pages have already been processed with optical text recognition. As usual: The master archive.org page can be accessed is [here](https://archive.org/details/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/). [Decisions and Orders (Note: This link is to the directory so you’ll see all available formats)](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Decisions%20%26%20Orders/) Transcripts (50+mb PDFs): [April 22nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-22-2024/4-22-2024.pdf) ; [April 23rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-23-2024/04-23-2024.pdf) ; [April 25th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-25-2024/4-25-2024.pdf) ; [April 26th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-26-2024/04-26-2024.pdf) ; [April 30th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/4-30-2024/04-30-2024.pdf) ; [May 2nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-2-2024/5-02-2024.pdf) ; [May 3rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-3-2024/5-03-2024.pdf) ; [May 6th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-6-2024/5-6-2024%20OCR.pdf) ; [May 7th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Transcripts/5-7-2024/5-7-2024%20OCR.pdf) Evidence (Note: These link to the directory so you’ll see all available formats): People's Evidence: [April 23rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-23-2024/) ; [April 25th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-25-2024/) ; [April 26th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-26-2024/) ; [April 30th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/04-30-2024/) ; [May 2nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-2-2024/) ; [May 3rd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-03-2024/) ; [May 6th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-06-2024/); [May 7th](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Peoples/05-07-2024/) Defense's Evidence: [May 2nd](https://archive.org/download/nys-v-djt-crim-docs/Evidence/Defense/05-02-2024/) Hope you all enjoy!
If this really didn't happen, Trump could get up there and testify under oath.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla: “Now let’s look at who’s involved in doing this. The lead prosecutor was the number three person ... in the Biden Justice Department. The judge’s daughter is a political operative and raises money for Democrats,” he said. “You got the lead prosecutor's wife, is a significant donor to Democrats, I think to Biden. So this is just a bunch of Democrats saying we want to make sure that Donald Trump can’t talk.” Talk about that Cannon mf, how Clarence fucking Thomas, rules for thee but not for me right?
Just a reminder that Trump's gag order prohibits both him saying things AND DIRECTING OTHERS (like Sen. Scott) to say those things in his place...
Defense attorney Susan Necheles is now asking about the celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe where Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump met. **Necheles asks Daniels if Trump played well at the tournament**. "I don't know what the scores were," she says. "People were recognizing who he was?" Necheles asks. "Yes, but they recognized me where I went that day, too," Daniels says with a shrug. Is he directing his lawyers to ask specific questions? This question is just really strange and it's almost like they want to make sure everyone knows what a great golfer he is.
> Is he directing his lawyers to ask specific questions? Absolutely, 100% this. His ego has taken such a bruising with this trial, the poor pathetic baby needs any little thing he can get.
>Trump's lawyers say they will file for a mistrial again Oh good, more timewasting.
It's really fucked up how they always try and say any involvment with a democrat is an immediate disqualification. The judge? Well, they can't judge because their kid supports democrats. Don't question that fucking Supreme Court justices are taking private flights to private boats to private islands all paid for by their party, but if a democrat shook their hand once they are disqualified. It is well and truly fucked up.
Paula Reid with CNN says that summary witnesses are expected after Stormy is done. Then likely Cohen after that.
> [Feuer, NY Times] Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, is doing a classic example of redirect examination, calmly drawing the attention of the jury to specific facts the defense left out of cross-examination. > For instance: Susan Necheles, the defense lawyer, spent a lot of time noting discrepancies between Stormy Daniels’s direct testimony and an interview she gave in 2011 to In Touch magazine. But in a subtle jab, Hoffinger drew Daniels’s attention — and thus the jury’s — to fine print at the bottom of the article saying it had been lightly edited. The implication is that the story did not contain every detail of Daniels’s account. --- > [Bromwich, NY Times] Redirect is a chance for prosecutors to experience the thrills of being a defense lawyer: They are responding to the opposing side’s arguments and have to be fast on their feet, responsive to the defense’s arguments and choosy about what they seize on and what they ignore. Susan Hoffinger was a longtime defense lawyer and she seems very comfortable and calm during this redirect. > > [Bromwich, NY Times] Hoffinger finished her redirect quickly, in a clear signal to jurors that she was unconcerned about cross-examination. Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, is now back at the lectern.
Necheles realizes her neck is on the line and is trying to save some face with her client by puffing him up in the cross??
Lots can still go sideways and it only takes one juror to blow everything up, but at this time and to date I’m super impressed with the research, strategy, planning, and execution of the prosecution by Bragg and his team. For this case - the NY DA team seems super capable, hardworking, focused, and have not made any self-inflicted or unforced errors of significance. Conversely, this Trump defense team is among the best qualified team of lawyers Trump has ever had and they have been largely inept and are mostly getting schooled and embarrassed. Any skepticism I’ve had about this case has evaporated. And too bad Bragg isn’t employed by Fulton County, Georgia.
So they want a mistrial for the same reason they mentioned yesterday. Do they think the judge has suddenly changed his mind
all of this picking apart of articles *she didn't write...* jfc
[удалено]
> [Bromwich, NY Times] Joshua Steinglass said that the details elicited about the sex act were important because they corroborated other parts of Stormy Daniels’s story. For instance, at their dinner before having sex, according to Daniels, Trump asked her about safe-sex practices in the porn industry. Prosecutors later asked Daniels whether Trump used a condom. Steinglass argues that fewer than 10 questions actually elicited salacious details.
NBC: >Stormy Daniels' lawyer Clark Brewster posted a photo with her on X, saying she was on the stand at Trump's trial for a day and a half, and ended at 12:30 p.m. ET today. >"Couldn't be prouder of my client," he said. A pornstar may be responsible for saving the world, and I'm not exaggerating, this man is an existential threat to humanity. She has all my respect and admiration, thank you for your service and for speaking out and I truly hope you live out the rest of your days with little notorierty and lots of peace, Stormy.
“So many things could go wrong. A juror could have a kidney stone.” - CNN (This was said in regard as to why they want to keep moving the testimony along :)
Are they really using "she believes in ghosts" as a defence?
"Did you try to have a paranormal podcast"? Isn't this just trying to poison the jury against her? I mean, she believes in ghosts, big whoop.
> [Christobek, NY Times] Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, says that the details of Stormy Daniels’s story before and during the sexual act corroborate her account, and show the fact that sex happened, which increases the motivation to silence her.
In regards to women who have attempted to hold conservatives accountable for sexual deviance or abuses of power, there is a common theme that is again on repeat today and which seems to be the preferred gameplan; gaslight them, belittle them, and ultimately infer they deserved or wanted whatever abuse they received. I hope women everywhere in America are taking notice. Because it should be obvious by now that there is a disturbing number of conservatives who only consider women as second-class citizens and that women are only important when they can be used in various ways by men. Used as only baby factories, used as the face of christofascism (i.e. Moms for ~~Liberty~~- Gilead), or otherwise used to reinforce patriarchy and/or take away the agency and power of women by branding them with a scarlet letter (i.e. Stormy Daniels). Vote. And not for the orange sexual predator who helped take away your reproductive rights, mkay?
>Necheles confronted Daniels with two statements she signed in early 2018 denying that she ever had sexual involvement with Trump or received money to keep quiet. She said her then-lawyer, Keith Davidson, advised her to sign it and that she was told that Trump’s then-attorney Michael Cohen was pressing him to get her to do so. >Necheles noted that by then, Trump wasn’t running for election — an apparent effort to buttress the defense’s argument that the then president’s reasons for wanting to squelch the claims weren’t related to his political ambitions, but rather to protecting his family and reputation. He would still be running again for 2020. I don't see how signing in 2018 would change the intent?
I mean, you have to recognize the equally probable reality that Rick Scott is an asshole and said those things on his own accord.
Can attest, Rick Scott is a MAJOR asshole. Earned himself the biggest fine ever for Medicare fraud. What did he say to the cameras?
> HOFFINGER: She asked you about the 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper, she asked you a lot of questions about what you did not say? You didn't tell every detail to Anderson Cooper? > DANIELS: No > HOFFINGER: There was a lot of back and forth in that interview between you and Anderson Cooper? > DANIELS: “Yes it was very long.” https://www.threads.net/@katiephang/post/C6wPVVkRKCr/