Judge Denies Trump's Mistrial Request Over Stormy Daniels Testimony

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Her testimony is just that. No corroborable evidence that the encounter was as she described.

The Defense - so far - has not attacked her story, just the aftermath.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Defense - so far - has not attacked her story, just the aftermath.

And demonstrated by their call to dismiss that Defendant Trump really did want to keep his affair with Daniels under wraps.  
 

 

[jerrymahoney]

Judge Juan Merchan acknowledged Necheles' point that Daniels has "credibility issues," but said that supported prosecutors' need "to elicit certain details that led to the sexual encounter."

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-testimony-bookkeeping-gag-order-contempt/

Edited May 8 by jerrymahoney

[bendejo]

So Pecker did a catch and kill for DT with Macdougal.   Pecker was never reimbursed.  When the Stormy thing came up Pecker said he wouldn't put up the $$$ up because you-know-who hasn't even paid off the last one.  And thus this incident.  If DT wasn't such a deadbeat the Stormy hush money transaction would have gone off as cleanly (for the DT side of things) as the Macdougal payoff.

 

[pomchop]

finally a judge that seems to have a set of gonads....suck it up donnie your verdict day is coming soon...your hot shot lawyers are running out of attempts to delay or destroy this case.

 

look on the bright side donnie...you can soon whine and wimper and wag your mouth about how the entire judicials system is rigged against you and everyone and all the evidence is fake....oh thats right you already do that for years....never has there been a more innocent man than DJT....everyone without a red maga hat is out to get you.

[Yagoda]

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Please cite the legal errors in the post you quoted. Spewing childish insults convinces no one.

 

If you truly are knowledgeable about US law, educate us.

 

 

I dont need to convince anyone of anything. There are two types of folks in this world, folks that just parrot stuff and those that think. In light of the recent Weinstein decision as well as the Molinaeux rule, and the judges remarks about Stormy, could you make a case that mere fact of allowing her testimony is revsible error?

 

 

[Yagoda]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

What part of the post you quoted is incorrect?

Anything he says

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Anything he says

The stuff you can’t demonstrate to be incorrect.

 

[Yagoda]

29 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The stuff you can’t demonstrate to be incorrect.

 

Like I said: Green Cheese. Now go back to salivating over the possibility that the Dapper Don might go over to Rikers. I cant wait.

[Danderman123]

40 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

 

I dont need to convince anyone of anything. There are two types of folks in this world, folks that just parrot stuff and those that think. In light of the recent Weinstein decision as well as the Molinaeux rule, and the judges remarks about Stormy, could you make a case that mere fact of allowing her testimony is revsible error?

 

 

In other words, you don't know enough about the law to make a coherent comment on the legal issues in this case.

 

[OneMoreFarang]

Did Trump f her and give her money to keep it quiet? Most likely yes.

And now? Is that a reason that he should go to jail?

 

I don't like Trump and I would love to see him in jail. But please for a real crime and not paying a hooker for sex.

And the argument with influencing the election is just BS. Everybody in politics tries to persuade the voters to vote for them and their party friends and don't vote for those others. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, look at this and that and whatever.

Some true stories, lots of lies, and lots of things which are swept under the carpet.

If that would be a crime than all politicians would be in jail.

 

He should be prosecuted for the real crimes which he (most likely) did. The list is long.

Or do you want that someone is not prosecuted for treason but goes to jail for paying a hooker? 

[Rimmer]

Some inflammatory posts have been removed

[Yagoda]

31 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

In other words, you don't know enough about the law to make a coherent comment on the legal issues in this case.

 

Well someone with legal knowledge would have commented on the legal issues I raise.

 

Maybe I spelled Molineaux wrong. I think FRE 404 is actually derived from that oldie. But I digress....

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Did Trump f her and give her money to keep it quiet? Most likely yes.

And now? Is that a reason that he should go to jail?

 

I don't like Trump and I would love to see him in jail. But please for a real crime and not paying a hooker for sex.

And the argument with influencing the election is just BS. Everybody in politics tries to persuade the voters to vote for them and their party friends and don't vote for those others. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, look at this and that and whatever.

Some true stories, lots of lies, and lots of things which are swept under the carpet.

If that would be a crime than all politicians would be in jail.

 

He should be prosecuted for the real crimes which he (most likely) did. The list is long.

Or do you want that someone is not prosecuted for treason but goes to jail for paying a hooker? 

The real crimes are listed in the indictment.

 

Stormy Daniels’ testimony speaks to the motivation behind those crimes.

 

The Defence trying to shut  down the trial at precisely the point Daniels gives her testimony is confirmation that the Defendant really did not want the details of their affair to become known.

 

It’s very striking that the Defense hasn’t challenged the documentary evidence and testimony to the indicted crimes but are going on full assault to shutdown Daniels, who is not testifying on the matter of ‘crimes’.

 

 

Edited May 8 by Chomper Higgot

[Yagoda]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Did Trump f her and give her money to keep it quiet? Most likely yes.

And now? Is that a reason that he should go to jail?

 

I don't like Trump and I would love to see him in jail. But please for a real crime and not paying a hooker for sex.

And the argument with influencing the election is just BS. Everybody in politics tries to persuade the voters to vote for them and their party friends and don't vote for those others. We are the good guys, they are the bad guys, look at this and that and whatever.

Some true stories, lots of lies, and lots of things which are swept under the carpet.

If that would be a crime than all politicians would be in jail.

 

He should be prosecuted for the real crimes which he (most likely) did. The list is long.

Or do you want that someone is not prosecuted for treason but goes to jail for paying a hooker? 

Congrats, Diogenes would be proud.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The real crimes are listed in the indictment.

 

Stormy Daniels’ testimony speaks to the motivation behind those crimes.

 

The Defence trying to shut  down the trial at precisely the point Daniels gives her testimony is confirmation that the Defendant really did not want the details of their affair to become known.

 

It’s very striking that the Defense hasn’t challenged the documentary evidence and testimony to the indicted crimes but are going on full assault to shutdown Daniels, who is not testifying on the matter of ‘crimes’.

 

I understand that it is a good show for the prosecutor to bring her to court and let her talk.

But is that really important?

He is accused of falsifying business records to influence the election.

Does anybody have to hear from her what he was wearing on that day and how he behaved to make up their mind if he falsified business records or not?

 

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.

 

 

[theshu25]

35 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Like I said: Green Cheese. Now go back to salivating over the possibility that the Dapper Don might go over to Rikers. I cant wait.

Totally agree.Love to see the orange rapist ,grifting conman get 5 years.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

I understand that it is a good show for the prosecutor to bring her to court and let her talk.

But is that really important?

He is accused of falsifying business records to influence the election.

Does anybody have to hear from her what he was wearing on that day and how he behaved to make up their mind if he falsified business records or not?

 

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.

 

 

For the jury to hear details of the affair and determine if that is credible motivation for the alleged crimes.

 

It must have been stomach turning to have to hear, but hearing it and watching the witness, watching the defendant as the testimony was given.

 

It seems very relevant to a full understanding of the case.

 

 

Edited May 8 by Chomper Higgot

[Danderman123]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

I understand that it is a good show for the prosecutor to bring her to court and let her talk.

But is that really important?

He is accused of falsifying business records to influence the election.

Does anybody have to hear from her what he was wearing on that day and how he behaved to make up their mind if he falsified business records or not?

 

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.

 

 

The point of her testimony is to demonstrate the danger to his 2016 campaign if her story came out before the election.

[Walker88]

Here’s what the prosecution did today, after previous witnesses had already noted:

 

---trump voiced concern that news of the Stormy affair would hurt him in the voting booth (Hope Hicks)

 

---handwritten documents noting the manner in which the hush money payoff would be accounted for fraudulently in the business records, including grossing up the amount of repayment to Michael Cohen to account for tax liability

 

---a series of checks for the payoff all signed by trump

 

---a statement by trump that he always signs all checks

 

Having established the fraudulent method and intent (so that it meets the NY State statute for a felony), the prosecution then puts Stormy on the stand so she can give her side of an incident trump denies ever happened. The jury then has to listen to that and---after the Access Hollywood transcript---assess trump’s believe-ability re not only the affair, but more importantly his intent involving the payoff scheme. Trump’s own statement on the Access Hollywood tape certainly lays out the framework for why Stormy’s testimony might be believed by the jury vs trump’s ongoing denials.

 

This is the gist of today’s transcript of Stormy’s testimony, heard in graphic detail by the jury:

 

---

Stormy is at a golf tournament representing a porn company that sponsored a hole at the tournament. Trump, with a 4 month old infant at home with his 3rd wife, has his bodyguard ask Stormy if she wants to join trump for dinner. She goes to his hotel room and is met by trump at the door in his black pajamas. There is no dinner. Stormy tells him to ‘get dressed’. Trump tells her he will get her on his Game Show and help her cheat by giving her the challenges beforehand, so she can prepare. He tells her that he and his 3rd wife don’t sleep in the same room. He asks her when she was last tested for STDs. He tells her she reminds him of his daughter (sicko!). Stormy goes to the bathroom, and when she returns trump has stripped down to his tighty-whities. She tries to leave, and he steps between her and the door. He says he thought she was “serious about what you want to do”, and “if you ever want to get out of that trailer park”…blah blah blah. They have sex and he doesn’t wear a condom. They meet several more times, where he makes more sexual advances, but they don’t have sex again. Only when he tells her he isn’t going to put her on his Game Show that she stops taking his phone calls.

---

 

Later we will hear how defense explains away all of this, which is likely to include more denials of the affair. In the interim, Susan McDougal will take the stand and testify about her alleged 10 month affair with trump around the same time as Stormy. When defense denies that affair, too, the prosecution will be able to cross examine both Stormy and McDougal for corroborating details about trump’s physicality (or lack thereof)….all for the jury and the world to hear. That will make it more difficult for the jury to believe trump’s denials. Toss in the E Jean Carroll trial testimony and civic jury verdict, and odds favor Stormy and McDougal’s version of events. (Up to trump how he addresses things with his 3rd wife, who would know exactly what trump’s physicality looks like.)

 

The jury will be tasked with determining if the entire payoff scheme meets the level of felony according to the NY State statute, while the US electorate will have to decide if they want to elect an alleged small (nickname for Richard) serial philanderer and pathological liar as President. For the rest of his life people will not be able to help glancing at the fly on trump’s pants and laughing about what Stormy and maybe McDougal said he’s packing (or not packing) behind the façade of fake Alpha Male. If Biden stopped to trump’s level re nicknames, one can guess what it might be…Dickless donny or maybe Post-op Transtrump

[Walker88]

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.

[G_Money]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-trial-judge-compared-corrupt-dictatorships-stormy-daniels-unleashes-salacious-testimony

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352492195112

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, G_Money said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-trial-judge-compared-corrupt-dictatorships-stormy-daniels-unleashes-salacious-testimony

 

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6352492195112

What was on display in court was Trump’s depravity.

 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The point of her testimony is to demonstrate the danger to his 2016 campaign if her story came out before the election.

 

Let me try if I understand this correct.

 

If people knew that Trump had sex with a porn actor while he was married that is not really so bad.

 

If people also know that he was wearing a Playboy pajama and he talked with her about STD and the porn business and then he sat with boxershorts on the bed, now that makes it a danger to his campaign.

 

Really?

 

[Danderman123]

26 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Is this a playground bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Stormy Daniels provided specifics about the date and location of their encounter. It would be trivial for the Defense to provide records proving Trump wasn't there, didn't spend the night, or was with someone else.

[G_Money]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What was on display in court was Trump’s depravity.

 

 

Your imagination is not relevant to what the trial is about.

[Danderman123]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

 

Let me try if I understand this correct.

 

If people knew that Trump had sex with a porn actor while he was married that is not really so bad.

 

If people also know that he was wearing a Playboy pajama and he talked with her about STD and the porn business and then he sat with boxershorts on the bed, now that makes it a danger to his campaign.

 

Really?

 

I guess you didn't pay attention to the earlier testimony that demonstrated the level of panic in the Trump campaign after the Access Hollywood tape release. So quashing another bombshell was a high priority for Team Trump, at least until the election. 

[Danderman123]

1 minute ago, G_Money said:

Your imagination is not relevant to what the trial is about.

The trial is about business fraud, and Team Trump isn't interested in a defense for the actual charges.

[HappyExpat57]

The WORST part about all this AN pontificating is that it makes no difference WHAT she said. This is a case about covering up a stupid mistake by cooking the books, taking what WOULD have been a misdemeanor to a felony because of the WHY for the coverup.

[jerrymahoney]

18 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

When defense denies that affair, too, the prosecution will be able to cross examine both Stormy and McDougal for corroborating details about trump’s physicality (or lack thereof)….all for the jury and the world to hear.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger countered that "the details of her story are important" while saying the prosecution will not ask about "certain details that might be too salacious." She said Daniels would be asked to testify about "how she ended up engaging in a sexual act."

 

"It's not going to include any details about genitalia or anything of that nature," Hoffinger said.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-testimony-bookkeeping-gag-order-contempt/