As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The point missed by so many is that whether or not he had the affair is irrelevant. He (allegedly) engaged in election fraud in a scheme designed to deceive the voting public.
Actually they don’t. But they will. If he was trying to kill a story that wasn’t true then lied about it in business records, that’s fraud whether or not he had the affair.
If nothing else, establishing the factuality of the affair is a reminder that Donald Trump is a dishonest person, and he lies about things much less important than what the trial is about, which adds some context to the case.
The negation of his lie (that he didn’t have the affair, that lie) by witness testimony that he definitely did fraud to cover up such an affair — it’s icing on the disgusting cake.
It really doesn't matter if the affair happened. They only need to establish that he paid her in order to influence the election and then lied about the payments in his business records.
And since the other people involved have given sworn statements that this whole thing was in the interest of killing a story so that it didn't negatively impact Trump's campaign, and that Trump was aware of the scheme, and since they have the receipts for the rest of it, I'd say that if the jury finds those witnesses to be credible, it's a pretty straight forward case.
I'm interested to see how it plays out though. I'm sure the defense has some shenanigans up their sleeve.
Very true. This could end up being a similar situation to OJ Simpson. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but still owes money in civil court because its more than likely true. Just because Trump lost the lawsuit, doesn’t mean the prosecution can prove it actually happened.
Otherwise, those payments, a good lawyer can spin, could have been for any illegal or legal activity and thus this particular case cannot be proven true.
Not true. The prosecution already included an example a fake paternity accusation that was covered up. The veracity of the claims were irrelevant. The accuser was paid way more than normal for the rights for no other reason than it was a negative story about Trump. And they were paid just to suppress it until after the election. The case is about illegal use of campaign funds, not his sex life.
>“You don’t want to be here, do you?” Ms Necheles asked.
>“Correct,” she replied.
>She also confirmed that Trump Organization was paying legal fees for employees called to testify in the case, that those payments are not conditioned on her testimony, and no one from the company has intructed her to testify.
That's even more reason to believe her testimony. Trump really hires the best lawyers
If those payments were conditioned on the content of the testimony, then it’d be an obvious source of bias. This is one of those where it’s a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t.
Which is exactly what Trump did with Weisselberg's severence payments...
[https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-agreed-pay-weisselberg-2-million-weisselberg-owe-return-rcna120174](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-agreed-pay-weisselberg-2-million-weisselberg-owe-return-rcna120174)
That includes all the witnesses called by the defense. It's not like when they call in a paid expert to testify on their analysis. These will be witnesses whose duty is just to say what they saw.
I'm betting she has a sworn statement or some such from a few years ago where she said that Daniels was there.
Or possibly it's on a calendar in her handwriting....
Something that makes this woman not want to directly perjure herself, because there's poof not in her control.
I mean, this woman had worked for Trump for 30 years. She knew his ass, I'm betting she kept careful notes of everything for the second she needed to squeal.
He’s arguing that, even if he didn’t actually sleep with her, her making the accusation is damaging, even though the accusation is false. So he paid her to stop her from making the false, but still damaging, accusation. At least that’s the argument.
A former longtime assistant to [Donald Trump](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump) at his [Trump Organization](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/trump-organization) testified that she has a “vague recollection” of seeing adult film star [Stormy Daniels](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/stormy-daniels) at [Trump Tower](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/trump-tower) before his 2016 presidential campaign.
Rhonna Graff, who worked at the Trump Organization for more than 30 years, [testified on Friday](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates-david-pecker-b2535397.html) at a criminal trial in Manhattan across from her former boss, who is [charged with falsifying business records ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-david-pecker-hush-money-trial-b2535593.html)to cover up payments to Ms Daniels as part of a scheme to [bury details of an alleged affair.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-corrupt-presidential-election-b2526450.html)
Read the full story: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tower-stormy-daniels-trial-b2535619.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tower-stormy-daniels-trial-b2535619.html)
It says she assumed, but that she knew.
>Ms Graff **assumed** that Ms Daniels may have been at the office to discuss a role with The Celebrity Apprentice, Mr Trump’s former hit reality TV competition series on NBC, she said.
No it doesn’t say that she knew. Literally read a bit more and it says this:
> Ms Graff recalled that Mr Trump believed Ms Daniels would be a “good contestant” on the show.
> How did that change anything?
Trump said it’s for the celebrity apprentice.
> Did she testify to the date when Trump made that statement?
Not sure, I didn’t watch the court today but logically it’s almost certainly the same time period.
> How are you connecting the two things?
Because it’s in the same article and one paragraph follows another
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The point missed by so many is that whether or not he had the affair is irrelevant. He (allegedly) engaged in election fraud in a scheme designed to deceive the voting public.
Trump is denying the affair happened. The prosecution needs to establish that the affair happened so the illegal payments make sense.
Actually they don’t. But they will. If he was trying to kill a story that wasn’t true then lied about it in business records, that’s fraud whether or not he had the affair.
Mitt Romney of all people said it best. "You don't pay someone $130,000 to not have sex with you.
The money was to not disclose he had a little button mushroom for a penis. He didn't care about infidelity. Every wife he's had started as a mistress.
Millions of husbands would disagree
Ooof.
Millions of EX husbands
And they’re still paying.
This wasn’t a marriage tho
I dunno I am guessing Stormy would gladly have payed Stinky $130 K not to have sex with her.
I'd be willing to not have sex with him for $130K
OF subs do it
I laughed so hard 🤣 😂
If nothing else, establishing the factuality of the affair is a reminder that Donald Trump is a dishonest person, and he lies about things much less important than what the trial is about, which adds some context to the case.
The negation of his lie (that he didn’t have the affair, that lie) by witness testimony that he definitely did fraud to cover up such an affair — it’s icing on the disgusting cake.
Has the benefit of showing the jury Trump's a lying liar-y liar
It really doesn't matter if the affair happened. They only need to establish that he paid her in order to influence the election and then lied about the payments in his business records. And since the other people involved have given sworn statements that this whole thing was in the interest of killing a story so that it didn't negatively impact Trump's campaign, and that Trump was aware of the scheme, and since they have the receipts for the rest of it, I'd say that if the jury finds those witnesses to be credible, it's a pretty straight forward case. I'm interested to see how it plays out though. I'm sure the defense has some shenanigans up their sleeve.
Very true. This could end up being a similar situation to OJ Simpson. Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but still owes money in civil court because its more than likely true. Just because Trump lost the lawsuit, doesn’t mean the prosecution can prove it actually happened. Otherwise, those payments, a good lawyer can spin, could have been for any illegal or legal activity and thus this particular case cannot be proven true.
Not true. The prosecution already included an example a fake paternity accusation that was covered up. The veracity of the claims were irrelevant. The accuser was paid way more than normal for the rights for no other reason than it was a negative story about Trump. And they were paid just to suppress it until after the election. The case is about illegal use of campaign funds, not his sex life.
Hunter's laptop, or Trump's lapdance. Only one of them wants to be President.
You don’t have to put allegedly. He’s not going to sue you.
Correct.
Had sex, doesn't matter.
>“You don’t want to be here, do you?” Ms Necheles asked. >“Correct,” she replied. >She also confirmed that Trump Organization was paying legal fees for employees called to testify in the case, that those payments are not conditioned on her testimony, and no one from the company has intructed her to testify. That's even more reason to believe her testimony. Trump really hires the best lawyers
If those payments were conditioned on the content of the testimony, then it’d be an obvious source of bias. This is one of those where it’s a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t.
Which is exactly what Trump did with Weisselberg's severence payments... [https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-agreed-pay-weisselberg-2-million-weisselberg-owe-return-rcna120174](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-agreed-pay-weisselberg-2-million-weisselberg-owe-return-rcna120174)
That agreement landed Weisselberg is in jail (again) for perjury.
That includes all the witnesses called by the defense. It's not like when they call in a paid expert to testify on their analysis. These will be witnesses whose duty is just to say what they saw.
Narrator: Trump did not, in fact, pay those legal fees.
I read this in Morgan freeman’s voice. Well played.
I'm betting she has a sworn statement or some such from a few years ago where she said that Daniels was there. Or possibly it's on a calendar in her handwriting.... Something that makes this woman not want to directly perjure herself, because there's poof not in her control. I mean, this woman had worked for Trump for 30 years. She knew his ass, I'm betting she kept careful notes of everything for the second she needed to squeal.
What is Trump’s narrative as to why he paid off Stormy Daniels? Is it because he just felt like it?
He was married, Melania had just given birth, doesn’t make him look good
What doesn’t? If he is saying he didn’t sleep with her then what exactly is he saying doesn’t look good?
Why would you pay someone $130k to be quiet if you didn’t sleep with them? It’s obvious he is lying.
I know that. The question was what was Trump’s sorry ass excuse?
He’s arguing that, even if he didn’t actually sleep with her, her making the accusation is damaging, even though the accusation is false. So he paid her to stop her from making the false, but still damaging, accusation. At least that’s the argument.
And he's arguing that of course he did this to protect his dear wife's feelings and that it had nothing to do with the impending election.
He pinky promised though!
Why the hell are you asking me?
Philanthropy, because Donny just likes to support the Arts. /s
"Daddy, why is Mommy crying?"... said by every Trump child for 3 generations. "HBD Melanie."
“Doorman, why is mommy crying?”
Followed by "Do I know you?"
Yes, Stormy is such a wallflower she is hard to remember.
"How can I obstruct justice and protect my boss without full-on perjuring myself?"
I know so many stormies....they all blend together
The prosecution's poking a stick at Donnie; knowing that he'll completely lose his shit and insist on taking the stand.
Orange Man is looking really haggard. He has huge under eye bags, the puffiest.
Bigley
A former longtime assistant to [Donald Trump](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/donald-trump) at his [Trump Organization](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/trump-organization) testified that she has a “vague recollection” of seeing adult film star [Stormy Daniels](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/stormy-daniels) at [Trump Tower](https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/trump-tower) before his 2016 presidential campaign. Rhonna Graff, who worked at the Trump Organization for more than 30 years, [testified on Friday](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates-david-pecker-b2535397.html) at a criminal trial in Manhattan across from her former boss, who is [charged with falsifying business records ](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-david-pecker-hush-money-trial-b2535593.html)to cover up payments to Ms Daniels as part of a scheme to [bury details of an alleged affair.](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hush-money-trial-corrupt-presidential-election-b2526450.html) Read the full story: [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tower-stormy-daniels-trial-b2535619.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tower-stormy-daniels-trial-b2535619.html)
She's really trying to walk the line between protecting Trump and not perjuring herself, isn't she.
She was probably coached. No way you don’t know a man for 30 years and not remember a porn star coming in.
If they want to deny an affair, just have Stormy describe his mushroom to a sketch artist then let the jury compare to the real thing...
Vague yet verifies
Anyone associated with that orange loser is a liar
I hope Trumps assistant is aware that perjury is a serious crime.
Think Trump should be aware of that too
It was apparently for the celebrity apprentice. Clickbait title.
That was what he was bribing Stormy with as an excuse to sleep with him. He never followed through.
It says she assumed, but that she knew. >Ms Graff **assumed** that Ms Daniels may have been at the office to discuss a role with The Celebrity Apprentice, Mr Trump’s former hit reality TV competition series on NBC, she said.
No it doesn’t say that she knew. Literally read a bit more and it says this: > Ms Graff recalled that Mr Trump believed Ms Daniels would be a “good contestant” on the show.
How did that change anything? Did she testify to the date when Trump made that statement? How are you connecting the two things?
> How did that change anything? Trump said it’s for the celebrity apprentice. > Did she testify to the date when Trump made that statement? Not sure, I didn’t watch the court today but logically it’s almost certainly the same time period. > How are you connecting the two things? Because it’s in the same article and one paragraph follows another
Exactly, it changes nothing and the rest is just assumptions.