Judge Denies Trump's Mistrial Request Over Stormy Daniels Testimony

[Yagoda]

1 hour ago, Scouse123 said:

Stormy Daniels should never have been put on the stand, they didn't need to discredit Trump, everybody knows what he is.

 

However, this was purely to rubbish him and was not in any way useful or of benefit to the court case and proceedings, which were about payments, how they were made, who made them, what were they for, and where did they come from, how were they repaid, what were they labelled as, etc.

 

She knows nothing of the internal accounting mechanisms used regarding the money, so she served no useful purpose, except to spew hatred.

 

The prosecution has weakened its case, left massive grounds for appeal, and gone about proving a straightforward accounting exercise in totally the wrong way, bringing in red herrings and matters that, actually are, irrelevant.

Now look at that, that goes to show that you can oppose Trump and still be a rational, normal, human being in analyzing the issues and seeing both sides. And coming from a Scouse. Amazing. More knowledge of what the US legal system is about then most of the Americans here. I'm impressed.

[pomchop]

1 hour ago, Scouse123 said:

Stormy Daniels should never have been put on the stand, they didn't need to discredit Trump, everybody knows what he is.

 

However, this was purely to rubbish him and was not in any way useful or of benefit to the court case and proceedings, which were about payments, how they were made, who made them, what were they for, and where did they come from, how were they repaid, what were they labelled as, etc.

 

She knows nothing of the internal accounting mechanisms used regarding the money, so she served no useful purpose, except to spew hatred.

 

The prosecution has weakened its case, left massive grounds for appeal, and gone about proving a straightforward accounting exercise in totally the wrong way, bringing in red herrings and matters that, actually are, irrelevant.

She was called to clearly lay out what her story would have been if she had gone public with it two weeks prior to the election and her testimony demonstrated to the jury what a sick man trump is from tricking a porn star into having sex with him to telling her she reminded him of his daubhter before he shed his silk pajamas and had sex with her...a story that obviously would have damaged trumps chances of getting elected.It might have been too much slease for even the bible beating magas to swallow.

 

  She has nothing to do with the documents being falsified but overall the jury deserves to know why trump and his campaign were so freaked out over the story coming out that they were willing to falisy records to pay her off and try rather clumbsily to hide the payments....goes to motive.

[Walker88]

30 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Now look at that, that goes to show that you can oppose Trump and still be a rational, normal, human being in analyzing the issues and seeing both sides. And coming from a Scouse. Amazing. More knowledge of what the US legal system is about then most of the Americans here. I'm impressed.

That you cannot understand the connection, doesn't mean people with IQs right of the mean on the Bell Curve cannot.

 

@pomchop pointed it out for those challenged by a loss in the Birth Lottery, or those with a brain eating worm in the area previously occupied by their frontal cortex.

 

Because the case is particular to a NY State statute, which makes it a felony to falsify business records if the intent is to influence an election, the embarrassing nature of the tryst with Stormy had to be pointed out to the jury. Not only was it necessary to present a view counter to trump (he has denied the affair, but her detailed descriptions lend credence to her side), but to note certain details that would be shameful, such as the spanking on trump's bloated fanny with a rolled up magazine with him on its cover, the comments about him comparing the adult movie star to his daughter, his lack of condom use, etc.

 

Tie in his behavior with Hope Hicks' testimony that trump voiced to her his concerns that the publicity would hurt him in the election, plus all the documents showing how the payoff was accounted for, grossed up to account for taxes, etc., and the prosecution makes the case in such a way that it meets the level of felony, according to NY State law.

 

The cross examination will be amusing, as the defense has to be careful not to elicit yet more embarrassing details from Stormy. Also, the defense has to be careful if it tries to deny the tryst took place, because Karen McDougal has yet to take the stand.

 

McDougal will testify to a long affair, while Stormy just has the one kinky night. With both women, prosecution will show both serial philandering as well as kinky behavior and (have suggested) incestuous thought processes. Again, toss in Hope Hicks' testimony, and a reasonable person is likely to conclude trump feared the damage it would do to his election chances.

 

While there may be ancillary concerns trump might have had---such as his 3rd wife (how ironic that she was a softcore porn model) finding out, plus the general embarrassment of a fat old blubber butt getting spanked by a then-27 year old adult film star---just so long as one concern was how it would impact the election reaches the level of felony per NY State law.

[animalmagic]

4 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Wow right out of Google top result. 

At least you know where to look now!

[Walker88]

2 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

I don't happen to be woke, but that means I will call a spade a spade in all circumstances.

 

While I fully support the notion that 'all are equal under the law', I know full well that all are not equal. trumpers lost the Birth Lottery. By and large they are of inferior intellect.

 

It's a bit too 'woke' to cut trumpers some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intellectual ability. They are less intelligent and, by and large, less successful. The demographics are well known by now: less likely to have even an "accredited" degree, below average earnings, more likely to be on SSDI and/or SNAP. Even their messiah knows what they are, as he was famously quoted as saying "I love the poorly educated".

 

Detailed stats from the 2016 election point out an inconvenient truth:

 

trump won 85% of all US Counties. HRC won the other 15%. The 15% HRC won represented 62% of US GDP, while the 85% trump won represent a mere 38% of US GDP. Do the math (a severe challenge for trumpers, to be sure), and that means Counties won by HRC are 9.25 times more productive than trumpistan. trumpistan and his cult are carried by society's productive members.

 

It's a bit too woke for me to say trump vs Biden is just a matter of opinion. It's actually a matter of intellect as well as an understanding of what the ideals of the USA are. trumpers lack both (save for the billionaires like Ken Griffin who just want more tax breaks, since his $25 billion net worth doesn't seem to be enough for him.)

 

If the US was made up solely of trumpers, it would have an economy that would make Venezuela look like an economic juggernaut.

[Skipalongcassidy]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I doubt very much Daniels is the first witness in a criminal trial who hates the defendant.

 

I’d go as far as to say it’s probable not at all unusual.

She hates him because she owes him money... $300,000 left of total $560,000... Why is everyone giving her a free pass for her transgressions?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Skipalongcassidy said:

She hates him because she owes him money... $300,000 left of total $560,000... Why is everyone giving her a free pass for her transgressions?

Stormy Daniels isn’t the defendant, the real defendant’s legal team have been given the opportunity to question her testimony. 

 

Does Hope Hicks hate the Defendant?

 

She certainly stuck the knife right in.

 

 

[Scouse123]

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

How can you call other folks nut jobs when you are a...well look at your avatar.

 

 

You take offence at an avatar supporting one of the best and most accomplished football teams the world has ever seen?

 

You are definitely not firing on all cylinders.

[JCauto]

17 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Daniels' lawyer says her accusations have been known for years. That doesn't make them honest. Personally, while not a fan of Trump, I believe very little of what Daniels is saying. 

 

So you don't give credence to the numerous examples of Trump sexually assaulting women, bragging about "grab them by the <kitty>. You can do anything", the "catch and kill" scheme for Stormy and Karen McDougal that the Publisher of the National Enquirer has already testified to in court under oath, the E. Jean Carroll civil trial where it is no longer even allowed for Trump to testify that he didn't sexually assault her because it's now a matter of record within the courts...let's face it, you wouldn't accept the reality of Diaper Donnie being a sexual predator if he was in the middle of your living room doing it to your wife. 

[frank83628]

3 hours ago, Skipalongcassidy said:

This personifies stormy and the rest of the haters on here who cannot help themselves recover from TDS... "When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that’s a big d--- deal!" Honig said. "And she’s putting out tweets, fantasizing about him being in jail. That really undermines the credibility."

so, she can put out tweets (and presumably the others involved in the case) attacking, slkagging off or whatever, while he has a gag order?

sounds familier to jan6 when he got banned form social media so couldn't defend himself against all the 'insurrectrion' BS from the media, dems, etc etc

 

[JCauto]

23 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

It's like when one person in a couple admits that they had extramarital sex. Is it really necessary to tell all the details of when and how? Or is it enough to admit that sex happened? Details are irrelevant.

Sounds like you speak from experience. Seems the details are what caused most of the strife then?

[Hanaguma]

4 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

So you don't give credence to the numerous examples of Trump sexually assaulting women, bragging about "grab them by the <kitty>. You can do anything", the "catch and kill" scheme for Stormy and Karen McDougal that the Publisher of the National Enquirer has already testified to in court under oath, the E. Jean Carroll civil trial where it is no longer even allowed for Trump to testify that he didn't sexually assault her because it's now a matter of record within the courts...let's face it, you wouldn't accept the reality of Diaper Donnie being a sexual predator if he was in the middle of your living room doing it to your wife. 

Nah, he is simply a rich Alpha Male who acts like one.  Rich guys get away with stuff because they are rich. Women in turn LET rich guys get a way with stuff that poor guys couldn't dream of getting away with. All because they want to have access to the rich guy's money/power/connections.

 

That was the thrust (sorry) of the whole "grab them by the..." conversation. A frank discussion of what rich/powerful men can do. Not a specific discussion of what happened in a specific situation. 

[JCauto]

23 hours ago, Walker88 said:

A much better, and much more believable defense---using the Stormy and upcoming McDougal testimony as slow pitch softballs---would have been that trump is admittedly embarrassed about what the impish Universe handed him in terms of male junk, and that the payoff scheme and subsequent fraudulent accounting was not aimed at influencing the election, but rather just saving trump public embarrassment.

 

Had his defense done that, and made the jury believe it, the charges would be reduced to a mere misdemeanor, not a felony, and a small fine would have been the worst case.

 

Instead, the prosecution is making a strong case that trump's intent was directly related to influencing the election. The jury may or may not agree, but given the Stormy testimony, would definitely have bought the argument the payoff was all about shame and embarrassment.

 

Lost opportunity.

He'd have rather been drawn and quartered. For a narcissist to admit that they've got a small member would be a far greater humiliation than going to jail for sexual assault.

[JCauto]

Just now, Hanaguma said:

Nah, he is simply a rich Alpha Male who acts like one.  Rich guys get away with stuff because they are rich. Women in turn LET rich guys get a way with stuff that poor guys couldn't dream of getting away with. All because they want to have access to the rich guy's money/power/connections.

 

That was the thrust (sorry) of the whole "grab them by the..." conversation. A frank discussion of what rich/powerful men can do. Not a specific discussion of what happened in a specific situation. 

That was a pretty specific example of what he can do, why would he bother to make it up when he can simply reach into his memories and speak from genuine experience? And we already have numerous examples of women corroborating that he does this. This would be what you would normally call an "open and shut case", but you're again allowing yourself to invent different and special circumstances for the perp. And make no mistake, that's all this grifter is at this point.

[G_Money]

2 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

In other words, you can't define "woke".

He just did.

 

Don’t you agree?

[JCauto]

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Well obviously, if you tell your wife oh I'm sorry I had an affair that's a little different than saying to your wife oh I'm sorry I had an affair my God she was hot, she spanked my butt with a newspaper as I buried my nose Into the Depths of her weeping cabbage, etc. 

 

I would say the details escalate the situation from a few slaps to Smith & Wesson.

 

Again, I defer to your experience and expertise in this matter, having been happily and exclusively married for almost three decades to the same woman (no, she's not Thai). 

[Hanaguma]

11 minutes ago, JCauto said:

That was a pretty specific example of what he can do, why would he bother to make it up when he can simply reach into his memories and speak from genuine experience? And we already have numerous examples of women corroborating that he does this. This would be what you would normally call an "open and shut case", but you're again allowing yourself to invent different and special circumstances for the perp. And make no mistake, that's all this grifter is at this point.

Yeah, it is a specific example. Because Trump is a world class BS artist, and it makes the story sound better. Guys talk like that, the more details the better the story (true or not). 

[G_Money]

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

BTW, when is Stormy paying Trump the money she lost in court in her own defamation case by Trump.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352499610112

[JCauto]

17 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I have more Ex-Wives than Donald Trump. I had one wife that I thought was better looking than Melania but she caught me behind the dumpster with an NFL cheerleader. That was pretty ugly let me tell you LOL

 

Your posting can't help but remind me of another historical figure - Elmer J. Fudd. Let me guess - "I own a mansion and a yacht!"

[Danderman123]

36 minutes ago, G_Money said:

He just did.

 

Don’t you agree?

No, he just threw a string of MAGA buzzwords.

 

"Woke" had a specific meaning when it was coined, referring to people aware of racial discrimination and/or sexual harassment.

[Yagoda]

16 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Truer words have never been spoken.

 

BTW, when is Stormy paying Trump the money she lost in court in her own defamation case by Trump.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352499610112

Shes gonna have to be Street Corner Stormy to earn it.

[G_Money]

22 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No, he just threw a string of MAGA buzzwords.

 

"Woke" had a specific meaning when it was coined, referring to people aware of racial discrimination and/or sexual harassment.

And exactly what words of his description IS NOT true in defining WOKE?

 

 

 

[G_Money]

Even “MSNBC Legal Analyst” agrees.  Not looking to good for the gal one must admit.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/legal-experts-hammer-stormy-daniels-testimony-trump-trial-disastrous-responses-will-backfire

[Yagoda]

13 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Even “MSNBC Legal Analyst” agrees.  Not looking to good for the gal one must admit.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/legal-experts-hammer-stormy-daniels-testimony-trump-trial-disastrous-responses-will-backfire

Yeah Im watching the actual replays right now. They are panicking. Its fab!

 

Note: go find the clip of Lawrence ODonnell OMG its great.

Edited May 9 by Yagoda

[G_Money]

38 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

No, he just threw a string of MAGA buzzwords.

 

"Woke" had a specific meaning when it was coined, referring to people aware of racial discrimination and/or sexual harassment.

“racial discrimination and/or sexual harassment.”

Do you have examples in regards to your quote concerning WOKE?

[JCauto]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Dude Im here and you are there. You are there, cyber hanging around here, bet you are on ISG too. Sucks to be you, especially if you are in the states paying Bidonomics prices.

 

And the Enraged Orange Bear is coming.

 

Oh, you know where I am? And it's the USA? At least you're consistent - consistently wrong and by quite a lot. 

 

Sorry Elmer, I live in Laos. Used to live in Cambodia (I also speak Khmer, so I look forward to hearing about the wealth and breadth of your knowledge based on whoring your way around Cambodia). That you see this as a badge of honor tells us more than you think about your character and understanding. At least there's a sound reason why you're a fan of Diaper Donnie, you're one of the few who share his predilections. Sadly, for you anyway, you don't even have a pitiful fraction of his wealth hence you're reduced to playing a cartoon character on ASEAN Now.

[Yagoda]

Would somebody with more talent than me (everyone I guess) please post the clip of Lawrence Odonnell calling Stormy a NUN!!!!!!!

 

Cant make this up.

[jerrymahoney]

4 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Because the case is particular to a NY State statute, which makes it a felony to falsify business records if the intent is to influence an election,

It is not 'a' NY State statutes: It is TWO NY State statutes.The above is a rendering of two separate laws as one.

 

The first law is the one regarding the 34 entries. It specifies 'intent':

 

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

 

As to 'intent'

 

S 110.00 Attempt to commit a crime.
A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent
to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the
commission of such crime.

 

'Intent' as above is generally interpreted to mean the person knew in advance that he or she was committing a crime. Since the primary "another crime" (as identified by Prosecution 23 APR 2024) in this case is one that, since its enactment 1976, has rarely or never been prosecuted, it is hard to say Trump knew he was committing it.

 

That (an)other crime has now been identified as New York Consolidated Laws, Election Law - ELN § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election

 

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

 

The rendering above left out the 'by unlawful means'. The Prosecution has yet to say what are the unlawful means. And since this law was enacted in 1976 there is little if any case law that would give some idea as to what has been considered under this law as "unlawful" in prior cases.

 

So the structure of the Prosecution's case seems to be: Crime, within a crime, within a crime.

Edited May 9 by jerrymahoney

[Yagoda]

29 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

It is not 'a' NY State statutes: It is TWO NY State statutes.The above is a rendering of two separate laws as one.

 

The first law is the one regarding the 34 entries. It specifies 'intent':

 

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

 

As to 'intent'

 

S 110.00 Attempt to commit a crime.
A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent
to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the
commission of such crime.

 

'Intent' as above is generally interpreted to mean the person knew in advance that he or she was committing a crime. Since the primary "another crime" (as identified by Prosecution 23 APR 2024) in this case is one that, since its enactment 1976, has rarely or never been prosecuted, it is hard to say Trump knew he was committing it.

 

That (an)other crime has now been identified as New York Consolidated Laws, Election Law - ELN § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election

 

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

 

The rendering above left out the 'by unlawful means'. The Prosecution has yet to say what are the unlawful means. And since this law was enacted in 1976 there is little if any case law that would give some idea as to what has been considered under this law as "unlawful" in prior cases.

 

So the structure of the Prosecution's case seems to be: Crime, within a crime, within a crime.

Bravo. Watch them try to twist and turn on that one. By the way have you read the Indictment? hehe

[frank83628]

7 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

 

Listen hear matey,

 

Nothing liberal about me, staunch conservative in the UK, and ex military as in Royal Navy, something your glorious leader chose to avoid.

 

The disgusting man even sought to belittle the efforts of Senator John Mc Cain, who was a war hero for the US. I have read up on him, because I actually went to the prison in Hanoi, nicknames the Hanoi Hilton, where is old flying suit is on display.

 

I share some Republican beliefs, but not all. Furthermore, I believe in hard work, I don't like sponging off the State, I am definitely for controlled immigration, I don't believe in stifling growth by levying huge taxes on entrepreneurs to pay for those that won't work etc

 

Barack Obama was far more presidential than Trump on the world stage. People cringe at what Trump is going to say before he opens his clumsy mouth.

 

I am simply stating facts, another thing in short supply with all the MAGA nutjobs.

 

You see, you are definitely one of the above, you don't come out with a counterargument regards Trump because there isn't one, so your only defence is deflection and accusing me of being in a group that I am not in, and would never be in.

 

Your response to my post is a typical Trump response, avoid the facts and confuse the thread by using abuse. In this way, you hope to deflect from the honest and true points I made about Trump.

 

The atrocious scenes at the Capitol went global, where anarchists attempted to overturn the will of the American people and the ballot box, encouraged by Trumps discredited conspiracy theories about vote rigging.

 

He's a dangerous, out of control narcissist, and not fit to lead the nation of the USA.

 

The USA deserves better.

 

 

i keep forgetting the emojis to show when taking the piss! personally i couldn't  care less if you were in the RAF, you chose to, thats up to you, i don't think anyone should be forced to join the forces or forced to goto war...well, apart from the politicians that want the wars, send them, their kids and other family members and lets see how peaceful the world becomes!!

yes, Obumma was more 'presidential' he also dropped more bombs and started more wars that any previous president, how many innocents were killed in his 'drone strikes' ? and how many did he deport in his time? how about Abu Ghraib and the  'we tortured some folks'  destruction of Libya for no reason .... but yeas, he oration was good, so lets forget about all that!