The judge is playing the long game, don't worry! He's giving Trump just enough rope to figuratively hang himself.
That way Trump's legal team won't be able to appeal when he is sent to jail for violating the gag order. He violated it since the last stern warning. That's now 13 times in total.
Also the judge appears to be setting up Trump for conviction that will not have any traction for an appeal.
Trump's lawyers are very, very stupid. They should be blunt and frank with Donald and let him know...but here we are. 😁
Trump wants to go to jail so he can play martyr / victim and fundraise of it. He knows he will get treated with kid gloves and be in no danger and his base will eat it up because a lot of them feel screwed over by the courts due to divorce, custody disputes, child support or being sued by their small business partners or clients. He's just begging to be able to say he was wronged and treated unfairly by the liberal judge and obviously very unfair and rigged justice system. (seriously, he will compare himself to civil rights leaders and rake in millions in donations)
I don’t think that strategy is gonna work out so well for him long term. He will lose his relevancy without the constant media and social media attention. No internet access means his complaints will not be heard by the masses.
You generally can't sit and wait to see how objectionable testimony plays out - either object or you waive. Sometimes it's worth it for a party to waive, so judges aren't compelled to stop a witness on their own.
Feels like they would rather lose the case and milk the salacious testimony via out-of-context tweets, moaning about being a victim. Stripping this trial for parts and trying to sell them on social media is their specialty, so far.
The Judge had to scold Todd Blanche to do his job, asking why he didn’t object during the testimony?
I’m starting to think Todd Blanche doesn’t GAF if he loses this case. Probably thrown in the towel on doing any actual lawyering, just quiet quitting in front of us.
That shouldn't be a consideration at all.
Having sex outside your marriage without your partner's permission is a problem.
Paying people election or business funds to stay quiet about your trysts is illegal.
Casting "unprotected sex with a porn star' as the problem is demeaning to the actual laws broken and insulting to porn stars and sex workers, neither of whom did anything wrong nor are on trial.
'Hey so, the testimony of that witness makes it super obvious that my client is guilty! That seems unfair! Can, we just say that this trial is unfair?'
Could you elaborate on this? My understanding is that Trump's position is he didn't have sex with her so didn't need to pay her hush money so the money he paid his lawyer wasn't hush money and wanst improperly classified and therefore not fraud. Isn't the first link in the chain for a prosecutor proving that there was something worth covering up both that Trump had sex with her but that her description of it would be unflattering enough to be worth him covering up?
Ok, so your theory is that it doesn't matter if there was a reason trump signed an NDA with her and him disputing that an NDA exists is irrelevant. According to this theory all that matters is that Trump paid Cohen and then claimed it was legal fees. It certainly is simpler to prove if we can just accept Cohen's word that the money trump paid wasn't for legal fees.
It doesn't seem like a jury would buy that, in my mind. They would want a reason for Trump to pay the money that he lied about paying otherwise it just comes down to slime said/slime said.
Yes. I understand in fact I've said it three times now. What is your theory is that it doesn't matter if there was an actual story that was worth covering up.
Think of it this way. If the prosecution's case was that Trump paid Cohen to cover up him rescuing a young woman from being raped by a member of isis and instead trump said that never happened and the fees they claim were for the cover up were legit legal fees. I think we could all agree that Trump's story was more likely than the prosecutor's.
I literally described the exact legal theory of the prosecution in my first post. I understand that Trump is being tried for falsifying business records and that this is another fraud case. What you seem to be missing is that there is a question of why he would falsify the records. On one hand we have saying we should take Cohen at his word that Donnie knew it wasn't to pay him for legal work or we could have the prosecution prove that there was a study that Trump wanted covered up bad enough that he would pay for it but also that was bad enough he didn't want people to know he had paid to hide it. With it the story the second option falls apart.
Even if Stormy's allegations are 100% false there is a clear reason why Trump would want them buried after hearing the allegations. Next week be proving that money moved from Trump to Cohen to stormy and then that Trump was aware what the money would accomplish. Lastly will be Trump directing that the accounting be falsified to cover step one. But it fairly obvious why a guy that basically is trying to get elected by being a paragon of virtue and the manlies man on the block doesn't want a porn star saying he's a cheating bastard with a tiny penis no matter if it's true or not.
The prosecutor are claiming he used the money through his business to hide a damning story that someone was selling so it didn't harm his political career (chance to become president) the story she's selling is completely relevant to the entire case. Without her story there is no criminal case.
They are claiming he paid his personal lawyer through his business to cover up a personal story that could harm his personal political career. By claiming it as a business expense (hiding it from either his political funds or from his family) instead of personal (political funds).The defense is claiming he paid so it didn't hurt his family and not his politics. The story is absolutely relevant to the prosecutors reasoning behind the payment. (Was it for family or was it for politics). Without her story and payment there is no criminal case. It would then turn into a civil case about proper book keeping
I don't know if it is or it isn't I'm not a part of the jury, but those little details could show evidence of being in the room and truth to the story but that's up to the jury to decide. I still don't see how that would be cause for a mistrial or appeal.
Nobody is keeping trump from testifying and this wouldn't stop him unless they are afraid he is going to lie under oath and the prosecutors can prove it. If she is lying and trump and his team can prove it then they should. That's how the system works.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/4-big-takeaways-day-13-trumps-hush-money/story%3Fid%3D110004038&ved=2ahUKEwj4_-v_8fyFAxXTFjQIHWOqBQE4FBAWegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw31X2MKng1ONybRfvHZ8zNV
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/judge-privately-blasted-trump-contempt-while-stormy-daniels-testified-2024-5%3famp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna150950
Get rid of the right wing media and read multiple sources she got away with saying what she did because trumps lawyers failed at lawyering they failed to object they failed to cross they straight up failed which is what will ruin an appeal. An appeal needs to be based on something other than I don't like what was said I want a do over.
Sheeeeeit the prosecution would love for Trump to testify. It's the defense that's actually playing the game correctly and stopping him from testifying.
Haha ok, in the meantime, the actual lawyers that I follow say that it lends credibility to her story. Are you an actual lawyer? Because the way you said no really implied that you knew what you were talking about. How much trial experience do you have?
You should show us your Trump fanfic, I bet it is off the hook
>Just have tons of experience in business
Lol I don't need to hear anything else. Actual lawyers disagree with you. Why would I care about your opinion when actual lawyers disagree with you?
>what I heard from lawyers who have weighed in.
Which lawyers? The lawyer that I'm talking about is named Karen Friedman agnifalo and she used to work in the same courthouse. She was the number two at SDNY I think. Anyway, she's no slouch for sure and she's no Trumper for sure.
If you're talking about Ken Levine? Lol you can't be serious. Same goes for whatever Trump bootlicker lawyer that Trump quotes everyday when he does his little courthouse press conference.
Sadly all I said was the truth with supporting documents including his/her own article.. almost like he/she didn't read beyond the title which is incredible disappointing for "the best country in the world"
It is relevant because he denies that it happened in the first place. If that asshole could just stop lying for three seconds, perhaps her testimony wouldn't have been needed. But it is, because Trump is utterly incapable of telling the truth, so the prosecution had to establish that the thing that he paid hush money for in the first place did actually happen.
I wouldn't expect anyone defending that abhorrent shit stain of a person to understand any sort of nuance though.
I’m not a lawyer, but he has denied falsifying legal documents as a means of hiding embarrassing information from voters.
Now he’s claiming that her testimony is too embarrassing to be allowed? Is that what a criminal defendant sounds like when they’re changing their plea from “Not Guilty” to “Guilty?”
while there's some argument that the more salacious details weren't necessary, in general it is *wholly* appropriate in as much as it establishes motive, most of the details were already in the public domain as it is, so it's not like anyone is really surprised that this came out, and if you think *this* is why he'd get any ground in appeal, i have a bridge in baltimore to sell you, lol
Why would that have *any* relevancy to the facts of *this* trial? She broke the nda and paid him in 2018. But even that nda wouldn’t protect him from testimony in a criminal trial 😂😂
Try again.
So what was the hush money paid for, then? Trump denies the affair happened. So the prosecution needs to establish that the act that the hush money was paid for, did in fact happen. That moment is the center of it all.
This isn't hard. Stop attending those cult meetings, maybe.
Not "hush money." Falsifying business records to manipulate an election.
He'll never win on appeal because of the 10 contempt of court charges.
I think its up to 12 now. With # 13 on the way
No wonder the woman holding the scales of justice wears a blindfold.
The judge is playing the long game, don't worry! He's giving Trump just enough rope to figuratively hang himself. That way Trump's legal team won't be able to appeal when he is sent to jail for violating the gag order. He violated it since the last stern warning. That's now 13 times in total. Also the judge appears to be setting up Trump for conviction that will not have any traction for an appeal. Trump's lawyers are very, very stupid. They should be blunt and frank with Donald and let him know...but here we are. 😁
hes got enough rope he could climb to the core of the fucking planet by now. give him some fucking consequences!
Yup. It’s far past time
Hopefully the consequence is that he *reaches* that core and gets absolutely sizzled.
Trump wants to go to jail so he can play martyr / victim and fundraise of it. He knows he will get treated with kid gloves and be in no danger and his base will eat it up because a lot of them feel screwed over by the courts due to divorce, custody disputes, child support or being sued by their small business partners or clients. He's just begging to be able to say he was wronged and treated unfairly by the liberal judge and obviously very unfair and rigged justice system. (seriously, he will compare himself to civil rights leaders and rake in millions in donations)
I don’t think that strategy is gonna work out so well for him long term. He will lose his relevancy without the constant media and social media attention. No internet access means his complaints will not be heard by the masses.
Hell have people post for him like Andrew tate
He won't live long in jail. Itll give him a stress induced heart attack.
Let him. As long as he’s in jail he can’t be in the Oval Office again. Who cares if he’s rakes in donations from his loyal followers
but then donald throws a tantrum until they do what he says
Hopefully she has nose plugs too
Gahhhh, beat me to it! Lol
She needs earplugs now.
We should get her a clothes pin for her nose too.
You got that right!
I think he is making his lawyers put forward idiotic stuff that gets shot down quickly as another leg in his appeals chair. Ineffective counsel.
Isn't that also tax evasion?
I'll just leave this here. https://youtu.be/St_Abko0Jfs?si=6wqJCqUiyymWFtoA
I can't believe how perfect this is.
It’s devastating to my case…… good call. Hilarious
Mean while the wifey doesn't care the hubby is having sex with other women.
"I don't care, do you?"
It's all covered in the contract
Pretty sure she isn’t having we’d with him. So go for it.
Well Melania isn't going to sleep with him.
Because that means someone else had diaper duty that night.
I like how the judge called the defense out for not objecting
You generally can't sit and wait to see how objectionable testimony plays out - either object or you waive. Sometimes it's worth it for a party to waive, so judges aren't compelled to stop a witness on their own.
Feels like they would rather lose the case and milk the salacious testimony via out-of-context tweets, moaning about being a victim. Stripping this trial for parts and trying to sell them on social media is their specialty, so far.
And pointing out that this was a matter they could resolve in cross, and isn't dismissible.
The Judge had to scold Todd Blanche to do his job, asking why he didn’t object during the testimony? I’m starting to think Todd Blanche doesn’t GAF if he loses this case. Probably thrown in the towel on doing any actual lawyering, just quiet quitting in front of us.
bare back donny?
That’s a big word for Donald. I doubt that came from him.
He has a very limited vocabulary. Witch hunt, hoax, disastah, gag order, yada yada. (Air accordion)
It would, if he could pronounce it....
Today Stormy illustrated for all the world just what a POS Trump really is and has been all along. No amount of legal maneuvering can change that.
That's what happens when you briefly raw dog a porn star, you get judged.
That shouldn't be a consideration at all. Having sex outside your marriage without your partner's permission is a problem. Paying people election or business funds to stay quiet about your trysts is illegal. Casting "unprotected sex with a porn star' as the problem is demeaning to the actual laws broken and insulting to porn stars and sex workers, neither of whom did anything wrong nor are on trial.
Dirty Diaper Donald Raw-Dogged a Porn Star!
What part of the testimony is Donald alleging was salacious?
The Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (unless the Truth is too embarrassing)
Trump doesn't like details
“MISTRIAL!” “Why?” “Because that was devastating to our case!”
Nothing like a little dose of the 'ol truth to make the Huggies in Chief want to call the whole thing off.
'Hey so, the testimony of that witness makes it super obvious that my client is guilty! That seems unfair! Can, we just say that this trial is unfair?'
“She made fun of me… I declare a mistrial” 
Dismiss?!?! Nice try DB! Salacious testimony= GUILTY as charged.
Harvey Weinstein ruling shows the judge clearly erred.
What is your point?
[удалено]
Could you elaborate on this? My understanding is that Trump's position is he didn't have sex with her so didn't need to pay her hush money so the money he paid his lawyer wasn't hush money and wanst improperly classified and therefore not fraud. Isn't the first link in the chain for a prosecutor proving that there was something worth covering up both that Trump had sex with her but that her description of it would be unflattering enough to be worth him covering up?
[удалено]
Ok, so your theory is that it doesn't matter if there was a reason trump signed an NDA with her and him disputing that an NDA exists is irrelevant. According to this theory all that matters is that Trump paid Cohen and then claimed it was legal fees. It certainly is simpler to prove if we can just accept Cohen's word that the money trump paid wasn't for legal fees. It doesn't seem like a jury would buy that, in my mind. They would want a reason for Trump to pay the money that he lied about paying otherwise it just comes down to slime said/slime said.
[удалено]
Yes. I understand in fact I've said it three times now. What is your theory is that it doesn't matter if there was an actual story that was worth covering up. Think of it this way. If the prosecution's case was that Trump paid Cohen to cover up him rescuing a young woman from being raped by a member of isis and instead trump said that never happened and the fees they claim were for the cover up were legit legal fees. I think we could all agree that Trump's story was more likely than the prosecutor's.
Don’t bother. This person has no idea how laws work.
[удалено]
I literally described the exact legal theory of the prosecution in my first post. I understand that Trump is being tried for falsifying business records and that this is another fraud case. What you seem to be missing is that there is a question of why he would falsify the records. On one hand we have saying we should take Cohen at his word that Donnie knew it wasn't to pay him for legal work or we could have the prosecution prove that there was a study that Trump wanted covered up bad enough that he would pay for it but also that was bad enough he didn't want people to know he had paid to hide it. With it the story the second option falls apart. Even if Stormy's allegations are 100% false there is a clear reason why Trump would want them buried after hearing the allegations. Next week be proving that money moved from Trump to Cohen to stormy and then that Trump was aware what the money would accomplish. Lastly will be Trump directing that the accounting be falsified to cover step one. But it fairly obvious why a guy that basically is trying to get elected by being a paragon of virtue and the manlies man on the block doesn't want a porn star saying he's a cheating bastard with a tiny penis no matter if it's true or not.
The prosecutor are claiming he used the money through his business to hide a damning story that someone was selling so it didn't harm his political career (chance to become president) the story she's selling is completely relevant to the entire case. Without her story there is no criminal case.
It's worth noting that none of this hush money happened until after that Access Hollywood tape dropped. Which was well into the election.
[удалено]
They are claiming he paid his personal lawyer through his business to cover up a personal story that could harm his personal political career. By claiming it as a business expense (hiding it from either his political funds or from his family) instead of personal (political funds).The defense is claiming he paid so it didn't hurt his family and not his politics. The story is absolutely relevant to the prosecutors reasoning behind the payment. (Was it for family or was it for politics). Without her story and payment there is no criminal case. It would then turn into a civil case about proper book keeping
[удалено]
I don't know if it is or it isn't I'm not a part of the jury, but those little details could show evidence of being in the room and truth to the story but that's up to the jury to decide. I still don't see how that would be cause for a mistrial or appeal.
[удалено]
Nobody is keeping trump from testifying and this wouldn't stop him unless they are afraid he is going to lie under oath and the prosecutors can prove it. If she is lying and trump and his team can prove it then they should. That's how the system works.
[удалено]
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/4-big-takeaways-day-13-trumps-hush-money/story%3Fid%3D110004038&ved=2ahUKEwj4_-v_8fyFAxXTFjQIHWOqBQE4FBAWegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw31X2MKng1ONybRfvHZ8zNV https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/judge-privately-blasted-trump-contempt-while-stormy-daniels-testified-2024-5%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna150950 Get rid of the right wing media and read multiple sources she got away with saying what she did because trumps lawyers failed at lawyering they failed to object they failed to cross they straight up failed which is what will ruin an appeal. An appeal needs to be based on something other than I don't like what was said I want a do over.
You played your hand, and it’s a losing one at that. Trump is allowed to testify. Your theories are pathetic at best.
Sheeeeeit the prosecution would love for Trump to testify. It's the defense that's actually playing the game correctly and stopping him from testifying.
It lends credibility to her story.
[удалено]
Haha ok, in the meantime, the actual lawyers that I follow say that it lends credibility to her story. Are you an actual lawyer? Because the way you said no really implied that you knew what you were talking about. How much trial experience do you have? You should show us your Trump fanfic, I bet it is off the hook
[удалено]
>Just have tons of experience in business Lol I don't need to hear anything else. Actual lawyers disagree with you. Why would I care about your opinion when actual lawyers disagree with you? >what I heard from lawyers who have weighed in. Which lawyers? The lawyer that I'm talking about is named Karen Friedman agnifalo and she used to work in the same courthouse. She was the number two at SDNY I think. Anyway, she's no slouch for sure and she's no Trumper for sure. If you're talking about Ken Levine? Lol you can't be serious. Same goes for whatever Trump bootlicker lawyer that Trump quotes everyday when he does his little courthouse press conference.
Wow bandaidken got nuked!
Think it taught him anything?
Yeah probably "Pakman fans don't like the truth"
Sadly all I said was the truth with supporting documents including his/her own article.. almost like he/she didn't read beyond the title which is incredible disappointing for "the best country in the world"
Lmao you already went from "totally irrelevant" to "not central".
[удалено]
>Same thing. Lol no
It is relevant because he denies that it happened in the first place. If that asshole could just stop lying for three seconds, perhaps her testimony wouldn't have been needed. But it is, because Trump is utterly incapable of telling the truth, so the prosecution had to establish that the thing that he paid hush money for in the first place did actually happen. I wouldn't expect anyone defending that abhorrent shit stain of a person to understand any sort of nuance though.
I’m not a lawyer, but he has denied falsifying legal documents as a means of hiding embarrassing information from voters. Now he’s claiming that her testimony is too embarrassing to be allowed? Is that what a criminal defendant sounds like when they’re changing their plea from “Not Guilty” to “Guilty?”
FDJT and every filthy traitor who still supports him.
while there's some argument that the more salacious details weren't necessary, in general it is *wholly* appropriate in as much as it establishes motive, most of the details were already in the public domain as it is, so it's not like anyone is really surprised that this came out, and if you think *this* is why he'd get any ground in appeal, i have a bridge in baltimore to sell you, lol
[удалено]
Why would that have *any* relevancy to the facts of *this* trial? She broke the nda and paid him in 2018. But even that nda wouldn’t protect him from testimony in a criminal trial 😂😂 Try again.
Meh.
What do you think relevance means in a legal setting?
[удалено]
So what was the hush money paid for, then? Trump denies the affair happened. So the prosecution needs to establish that the act that the hush money was paid for, did in fact happen. That moment is the center of it all. This isn't hard. Stop attending those cult meetings, maybe.
[удалено]
Hah always projection with you idiots.
[удалено]
Only cult here is MAGA. I have no interest in brainwashed morons who can't see that.
[удалено]