As the first criminal trial of a former president, the courtroom drama surrounding Donald Trump unfolds with each passing day. Monday marked a pivotal moment as prosecutors and Trump's defense team delivered their opening statements, setting the stage for the trial's proceedings. The day also saw the debut of the first witness, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, offering a glimpse into the intricate web of allegations and legal maneuvers.

 

Here are the key takeaways from the monumental day:

 

Prosecutors Paint a Picture of Electoral Interference:
Prosecutors wasted no time in presenting their theory of the case to the jurors. They portrayed Trump as the mastermind behind a criminal scheme aimed at corrupting the 2016 presidential election. According to prosecutor Matthew Colangelo, Trump orchestrated a concerted effort, along with his associates Michael Cohen and David Pecker, to conceal damaging information that could jeopardize his electoral prospects. The prosecution emphasized Trump's alleged involvement in falsifying business records to cover up his tracks, urging jurors to tune out distractions and focus on the evidence at hand.

 

Defense Asserts Trump's Innocence:
In a staunch defense of the former president, Trump's attorneys vehemently asserted his innocence from the outset. Todd Blanche, representing Trump, categorically stated that Trump had no involvement in the creation of the contested business records. Blanche sought to discredit Cohen's testimony, highlighting what he portrayed as Cohen's personal vendetta against Trump. Furthermore, Blanche argued that attempting to influence an election is not inherently illegal, emphasizing the essence of democracy. With a call for jurors to exercise common sense, the defense laid the groundwork for its case, expressing confidence in a not guilty verdict.

 

Pecker Takes the Stand:
The trial's first witness, David Pecker, provided a glimpse into the alleged "catch and kill" scheme orchestrated by Trump and his associates. Prosecutors portrayed Pecker as a pivotal figure in the conspiracy to manipulate media narratives during the 2016 election. Pecker's testimony, albeit brief, shed light on the clandestine efforts to suppress negative stories about Trump while amplifying favorable coverage. As Pecker's role in the alleged scheme unfolds, the trial promises to delve deeper into the inner workings of Trump's campaign machinery.

 

Legal Maneuvering Beyond the Courtroom:
Beyond the confines of the courtroom, legal battles continued to unfold. A parallel hearing focused on allegations of Trump's violation of the judge's gag order, underscoring the contentious nature of the proceedings. Prosecutors sought sanctions against Trump for alleged breaches, highlighting the gravity of the situation. Meanwhile, Trump's legal team vehemently contested the allegations, setting the stage for a showdown over the boundaries of free speech and judicial oversight.

 

Looking Ahead:
With the trial set to resume, the stage is set for a riveting showdown between prosecution and defense. As witnesses take the stand and evidence is presented, the trial promises to offer unprecedented insights into the inner workings of Trump's presidential campaign. Amidst the legal intricacies and political ramifications, one thing remains certain: the eyes of the nation are fixed on this historic trial, awaiting its outcome with bated breath.

 

 

2024-04-23

Source

 

“It really brings home something that bothers a lot of Americans, including people that don't particularly like Trump, that this is the weaponization of the criminal legal system. It's something we should all be able to condemn."

“Blanche argued that attempting to influence an election is not inherently illegal, emphasizing the essence of democracy”

 

I’m not going to pretend this is going well for Trump.

 

 

1 hour ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

“It really brings home something that bothers a lot of Americans, including people that don't particularly like Trump, that this is the weaponization of the criminal legal system. It's something we should all be able to condemn."

Simply foolish of you to say. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

“It really brings home something that bothers a lot of Americans, including people that don't particularly like Trump, that this is the weaponization of the criminal legal system. It's something we should all be able to condemn."

It really brings home to most americans the disgrace mr trump brought to the office of the presidency not to mention his family.on a lighter side im in absloute stitches that trump is using a guy named pecker to hide the fact trump was hiding his pecker in a porn princess just beggers belief lmao.thats not even getting into the legalitys of his trying to hide his…..pecker….ya just cant make this cartoon of a guy up…..omg make me stop!!! lmao

It's a bit surprising trump's lawyer took this tact:

 

"Guess what? It's not illegal to try to influence an election; it's called democracy"

 

That's a softball pitch to the prosecution, who only has to inform the jury of what actually IS illegal, which in NY State is using campaign funds to keep negative information from coming out, in order to influence an election. After that, all the witness testimony falls into place. Making someone accountable for breaking the law and committing a felony is as far from 'weaponization' of justice as can be. It's simply rule of law, the very foundation of the American system.

 

The defense also tried to portray trump as 'poor little donny; he didn't do anything wrong, and he's such a wonderful, upstanding sort of guy'

 

Prosecution has permission not to play the Access Hollywood tape, but to introduce the transcript of it into the court record. trump portrays himself as a 'star' who can even 'grab women by the p-word'. Suddenly trump looks like a sleazeball.

 

Prosecution then will try to show trump lied about involvement in the overall scheme (Pecker is reported ready to testify that the first 'catch and kill' meeting in trump tower had 3 participants: Pecker, Cohen and trump. That makes trump a liar.

 

Later Cohen will argue that trump was directly involved in the payoff, and Cohen apparently has phone recordings and documents to prove it.

 

Enter Stormy and McDougal, who will both testify they had affairs/sex with trump, and again trump comes across as a liar. Though trump claims he will take the stand, his lawyer is likely too bright and too knowledgeable of reality to let trump do that.

 

So the jury will hear testimony that trump was intimately involved in the hush money payoff, that trump lied about knowing about the scheme, and that trump talks like he's in a high school locker room, and that trump dallied with at least two women while his wife was recovering from childbirth.

 

All of that makes the jury more willing to accept the legal definition of the laws NY State alleges trump broke, and with trump's bad character and lack of integrity laid bare by both the paramours and trump's former fellow participants in the scheme, it doesn't look good for donny.

 

Another wild card is that trump's lack of discipline is likely to be put to the test as witness after witness calls him a liar and details trump's intimate behavior. Prosecution is likely to try to get under trump's skin and elicit a courtroom explosion by having at least Stormy 'prove' her story by detailing trump's junk.

19 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

It's a bit surprising trump's lawyer took this tact:

 

"Guess what? It's not illegal to try to influence an election; it's called democracy"

 

That's a softball pitch to the prosecution, who only has to inform the jury of what actually IS illegal, which in NY State is using campaign funds to keep negative information from coming out, in order to influence an election. After that, all the witness testimony falls into place. Making someone accountable for breaking the law and committing a felony is as far from 'weaponization' of justice as can be. It's simply rule of law, the very foundation of the American system.

 

The defense also tried to portray trump as 'poor little donny; he didn't do anything wrong, and he's such a wonderful, upstanding sort of guy'

 

Prosecution has permission not to play the Access Hollywood tape, but to introduce the transcript of it into the court record. trump portrays himself as a 'star' who can even 'grab women by the p-word'. Suddenly trump looks like a sleazeball.

 

Prosecution then will try to show trump lied about involvement in the overall scheme (Pecker is reported ready to testify that the first 'catch and kill' meeting in trump tower had 3 participants: Pecker, Cohen and trump. That makes trump a liar.

 

Later Cohen will argue that trump was directly involved in the payoff, and Cohen apparently has phone recordings and documents to prove it.

 

Enter Stormy and McDougal, who will both testify they had affairs/sex with trump, and again trump comes across as a liar. Though trump claims he will take the stand, his lawyer is likely too bright and too knowledgeable of reality to let trump do that.

 

So the jury will hear testimony that trump was intimately involved in the hush money payoff, that trump lied about knowing about the scheme, and that trump talks like he's in a high school locker room, and that trump dallied with at least two women while his wife was recovering from childbirth.

 

All of that makes the jury more willing to accept the legal definition of the laws NY State alleges trump broke, and with trump's bad character and lack of integrity laid bare by both the paramours and trump's former fellow participants in the scheme, it doesn't look good for donny.

 

Another wild card is that trump's lack of discipline is likely to be put to the test as witness after witness calls him a liar and details trump's intimate behavior. Prosecution is likely to try to get under trump's skin and elicit a courtroom explosion by having at least Stormy 'prove' her story by detailing trump's junk.

For being extremely verbose you sure don't have much of value to say... 

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

“It really brings home something that bothers a lot of Americans, including people that don't particularly like Trump, that this is the weaponization of the criminal legal system. It's something we should all be able to condemn."

It's not weaponizing at all. It's holding people accountable for their alleged crimes.

 

We should condem those who want to give criminals a pass. Like the J6 traitors.

1 hour ago, Tug said:

It really brings home to most americans the disgrace mr trump brought to the office of the presidency not to mention his family.on a lighter side im in absloute stitches that trump is using a guy named pecker to hide the fact trump was hiding his pecker in a porn princess just beggers belief lmao.thats not even getting into the legalitys of his trying to hide his…..pecker….ya just cant make this cartoon of a guy up…..omg make me stop!!! lmao

Post of the day!

18 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

It's not weaponizing at all. It's holding people accountable for their alleged crimes.

 

We should condem those who want to give criminals a pass. Like the J6 traitors.

Or hilarious... or bill... or hunter... or menendez... or joe...  and the beat goes on 

10 minutes ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Or hilarious... or bill... or hunter... or menendez... or joe...  and the beat goes on 

Hillary was investigated ad nauseum. Nothing was ever found.

 

What has Joe done?

 

Menendez? Absolutely!

 

P.S. Turn off Faux News.

42 minutes ago, Roo Island said:

 P.S. Turn off Faux News.

Turn off the ny times... it's as rotten as nyc

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

All of that makes the jury more willing to accept the legal definition of the laws NY State alleges trump broke,

That might not be so cut & dry:

 

 Though the crime of falsifying business records is nominally a misdemeanor, the Manhattan district attorney’s office almost always charges it as a felony. Still, the Trump case stands apart. The Times could identify only two other felony cases in Manhattan over the past decade in which defendants were indicted on charges of falsifying business records but no other crime.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html

 

3 hours ago, Tug said:

It really brings home to most americans the disgrace mr trump brought to the office of the presidency not to mention his family.on a lighter side im in absloute stitches that trump is using a guy named pecker to hide the fact trump was hiding his pecker in a porn princess just beggers belief lmao.thats not even getting into the legalitys of his trying to hide his…..pecker….ya just cant make this cartoon of a guy up…..omg make me stop!!! lmao

 

Especially the sub heading "Pecker takes the stand". I thought they were checking to see if it really is mushroom shaped.

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

For being extremely verbose you sure don't have much of value to say... 

LOL

 

Maybe that 'accredited degree' isn't quite enough to allow you to fully comprehend?

 

Certainly I think it's high time you at least gave a shot at producing something of value. Come on, Skippy, show your fastball.

In their opening statement, the Defense asserted that Trump didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels. If Ms. Daniels is a persuasive witness, the Jury will convict based on just that point.

 

I suspect that we are going to see a defense tactic similar to the Carroll case, over the definition of sex. It's possible that they didn't have full intercourse, and so the Trump fans will repeat their claims that Trump really didn't have sex. And therefore Stormy Daniels is lying.

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

That might not be so cut & dry:

 

 Though the crime of falsifying business records is nominally a misdemeanor, the Manhattan district attorney’s office almost always charges it as a felony. Still, the Trump case stands apart. The Times could identify only two other felony cases in Manhattan over the past decade in which defendants were indicted on charges of falsifying business records but no other crime.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/magazine/alvin-bragg-donald-trump-trial.html

 

A TV pundit, who may or may not be correct (though he was a DA in NY State), noted that what sets trump apart is that he falsified business records in order to influence an election. That is particular to NY State, which is why the trial is there, and not in Federal Court. Others who falsified business records, even those charged with a felony, were not running for any office.

 

Sadly, trump's delay delay delay strategy is what made this the first of his indictments to go to trial. The easiest one would have been the classified documents case, as there is absolutely no possible excuse for all of what he stole, and subsequently lied about. That also cost the intel community time, money and assets, as it had to be assumed that all of what trump stole was compromised by hostile actors. Clandestine assets may have had to be ex-filled. Such an assessment of damage is difficult when a few documents are assumed to have been compromised; when it numbers in the hundreds, a major portion of the intel community has to be mobilized, clandestine assets informed, allied who share in liaison relationships informed, etc.

 

An NSA analyst took a few documents home, claiming it was just to do extra work at home. He is serving 9 years in jail. For what trump stole, the punishment should be a major multiple of that, but his delay tactics will likely prevent that from going to trial until after the election. If he loses in November, or if the Repubs do the smart thing and replace him, he most likely dies in jail.

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

In their opening statement, the Defense asserted that Trump didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels. If Ms. Daniels is a persuasive witness, the Jury will convict based on just that point.

 

I suspect that we are going to see a defense tactic similar to the Carroll case, over the definition of sex. It's possible that they didn't have full intercourse, and so the Trump fans will repeat their claims that Trump really didn't have sex. And therefore Stormy Daniels is lying.

Maybe the defense will argue trump is so tiny in that regard that 'technically', it would not qualify as sexual intercourse.

 

That might catch Stormy off guard and she would be forced to agree.

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

In their opening statement, the Defense asserted that Trump didn't have sex with Stormy Daniels. If Ms. Daniels is a persuasive witness, the Jury will convict based on just that point.

 

I suspect that we are going to see a defense tactic similar to the Carroll case, over the definition of sex. It's possible that they didn't have full intercourse, and so the Trump fans will repeat their claims that Trump really didn't have sex. And therefore Stormy Daniels is lying.

That defense has been brought up before.  But it begs the question...."If there were no sexual relations, why would Trump pay $130,000 to Daniels to keep quiet about something that never happened?"  Any reasonable person (which doesn't include Trump supporters) would see that it doesn't make sense. 

1 minute ago, Berkshire said:

That defense has been brought up before.  But it begs the question...."If there were no sexual relations, why would Trump pay $130,000 to Daniels to keep quiet about something that never happened?"  Any reasonable person (which doesn't include Trump supporters) would see that it doesn't make sense. 

It's irrelevant to the charges whether he didn't or he did (though he obviously did). He's not being charged with having sex.

1 hour ago, Walker88 said:

A TV pundit, who may or may not be correct (though he was a DA in NY State), noted that what sets trump apart is that he falsified business records in order to influence an election. That is particular to NY State, which is why the trial is there, and not in Federal Court. Others who falsified business records, even those charged with a felony, were not running for any office.

That doesn't explain the exception that Trump was not charged with an "other crimes" felony as well.

 

But that exception might be something the defense can explain to the jury

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

It's irrelevant to the charges whether he didn't or he did (though he obviously did). He's not being charged with having sex.

Once Trump's lawyer stated that Trump never had sex with Stormy Daniels, then Trump's credibility is on the line when she testifies.

 

If the Trump fans here are reduced to claiming that "sex" doesn't include what they did, Trump is done.

4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Or hilarious... or bill... or hunter... or menendez... or joe...  and the beat goes on 

Or baseless deflection...or baseless deflection...or baseless deflection... (only 3, ok for Menendez)

We are going to have a problem with the Trump fans in this topic, because their talking points come too late for them to post in a timely manner.

 

Since they mostly aren't capable of generating their own ideas, without getting talking points, they have nothing to say.

4 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Or hilarious... or bill... or hunter... or menendez... or joe...  and the beat goes on 

Yeah, too bad about that Joe Biden impeachment thing. It must have been crushing for you when it fell apart.

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

We are going to have a problem with the Trump fans in this topic, because their talking points come too late for them to post in a timely manner.

 

Since they mostly aren't capable of generating their own ideas, without getting talking points, they have nothing to say.

On top of it, legal arguments are usually too long to be displayed on the memes they get from social networks, which seem to be their main source of information (as we have observed yesterday)! 😁

removed due to paywall.

 

@Yellowtailwill soon trot out one of his favorite Trump defenses:

 

Breaking down Trump's actions into tiny discrete parts to "prove" Trump's Innocence.

 

"So Trump picked up a pen to write a check. Since when is picking up a pen a criminal act?"

 

 

9 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

Turn off the ny times... it's as rotten as nyc

You obviously know nothing about NYC. Nor The NY Times.

A useful timeline

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/timeline-trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money-dg/index.html