Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[Rotadom]

And what are you contributing, JaF0?

Bitterness and hate

 

[Rotadom]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Trump continues to micro-manage his attornies, demand that they continue to categorically deny that Trump had ANY relationship with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary LINK.

 

[butters]

Oops - he did it again:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-06-24/index.html

from this link

McConney testified that he had a conversation with Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, about a need to “reimburse” Cohen.

McConney then showed jurors 12 checks, each for $35,000, that were paid to Cohen in 2017. Cohen sent invoices for those checks and asked that the payments be listed as part of a “retainer agreement.”

McConney also explained to the jury why Cohen was paid $420,000 in all – a total that included money set aside to cover taxes on the hush money payment to Daniels – and how each check was cut, first from Trump’s revocable trust and then from his personal account.

and this

The jury is now seeing the voucher records detailing the payments cut to Michael Cohen by the Trump Organization’s accounts payable department.

The records shows several rows and columns organized to record the payments. The first column is the voucher number, “when you send invoices out you create a voucher, a number automatically assigned to that invoice,” Jeffrey McConney explained.

The second column is the “comp” column, which is the company used to pay the invoice. DJT rev and DJT (Trump’s personal account) are listed.

 

[butters]

the invoices are for $35,000 a pop, right?

Deborah Tarasoff says that after 2015, any invoice for more than $10,000 had to be approved by Trump or one of his sons.

Asked who could sign checks for the "DJT account" in 2016 and 2017, Deborah Tarasoff says "only Mr. Trump."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-06-24/index.html

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The ledgers show the payments to be "legal fees" which they were. And AGAIN, not a crime.

lol, then I'm sure Trump will walk free, and you have nothing to bitch about Electric Carbon Water Boy...

 

[SmokingFap]

Oops. Trump's own lawyer elicits testimony proving the DA's case for them.

 

[Rightguide]

Bragg’s witnesses may be undercutting the case against Trump as latest testimony sinks key claim​

So far, the witnesses in the former president’s ‘hush money’ trial seem to be undermining the Manhattan DA’s case.

By Steven Richards
Published: May 6, 2024 11:11pm

Since the so-called Trump “hush money” trial started three weeks ago, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has called a handful of high-profile witnesses in his case against former President Donald Trump who have appeared to contradict Bragg's central claims.

Hope Hicks – a former communications aide for Trump – last week delivered testimony that undercut Bragg’s main charge, that Trump orchestrated the “hush money” payments to women claiming they had affairs with him to improperly influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

But Hicks was not the first witness to poke holes in Bragg’s case and to call into question the prosecution’s key witness, Michael Cohen.

Two other witnesses – David Pecker, the CEO of the National Inquirer who helped “capture and kill” the affair stories, and Keith Davidson the former lawyer to Stormy Daniels to whom hush money was paid – each gave testimony challenging the facts contained in the indictment.

More here on Bragg's Phony claims: https://justthenews.com/government/...ercutting-case-against-trump-latest-testimony

Commie Bragg should have went to a real law school.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Bragg’s witnesses may be undercutting the case against Trump as latest testimony sinks key claim​

So far, the witnesses in the former president’s ‘hush money’ trial seem to be undermining the Manhattan DA’s case.

By Steven Richards
Published: May 6, 2024 11:11pm

Since the so-called Trump “hush money” trial started three weeks ago, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has called a handful of high-profile witnesses in his case against former President Donald Trump who have appeared to contradict Bragg's central claims.

Hope Hicks – a former communications aide for Trump – last week delivered testimony that undercut Bragg’s main charge, that Trump orchestrated the “hush money” payments to women claiming they had affairs with him to improperly influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

But Hicks was not the first witness to poke holes in Bragg’s case and to call into question the prosecution’s key witness, Michael Cohen.

Two other witnesses – David Pecker, the CEO of the National Inquirer who helped “capture and kill” the affair stories, and Keith Davidson the former lawyer to Stormy Daniels to whom hush money was paid – each gave testimony challenging the facts contained in the indictment.

More here on Bragg's Phony claims: https://justthenews.com/government/...ercutting-case-against-trump-latest-testimony

Commie Bragg should have went to a real law school.

 

[coati]

Commie Bragg should have went to a real law school.

And that staement indicates that you should have gone to ANY elementary school in the USA.

 

[KeithD]

I woke up this morning thinking, "Great, more Trump suffering of Stormy Daniels' testimony," only to later realize it's Wednesday and no more trial until tomorrow.

 

[HisArpy]

lol, then I'm sure Trump will walk free, and you have nothing to bitch about Electric Carbon Water Boy...

Will you cry when he does or just spew more lies?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Will you cry when he does or just spew more lies?

If Trump goes to jail, and I highly doubt the falsifying business records trial,if it ends in a conviction, would lead to a jail term, would cause me to cry, or celebrate. I'm a spectator/commentator. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of the two of us, you seem to have an emotional attachment for Trump. Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question?

 

[Rightguide]

According to the DA, Trump is being prosecuted for fraudulently saying that his legal payments to Cohen for Cohen's legal services is unlawful because the bookkeeping says they were payments for legal services instead of recording them as campaign expenses.

Which, BTW, would have been ILLEGAL for Trump to do.

So they bring on Stormy Daniels to recite 18-year-old salacious details that have nothing to do with the charges at hand. Her testimony provided no probative value and was completely outweighed by prejudice to the defendant which is a violation of evidentiary law. The judge has proved his true motive of smearing Trump before the election. An Appeals court should toss the entire case. I see as well that Judge Cannon has vacated Trump's trial in the classified documents case. So no trial before the election. The Georgia case has been delayed as Fani Willis is now under investigation.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

So they bring on Stormy Daniels to recite 18-year-old salacious details that have nothing to do with the charges at hand. Her testimony provided no probative value and was completely outweighed by prejudice to the defendant which is a violation of evidentiary law. The judge has proved his true motive of smearing Trump before the election. An Appeals court should toss the entire case. I see as well that Judge Cannon has vacated Trump's trial in the classified documents case. So no trial before the election. The Georgia case has been delayed as Fani Willis is now under investigation.

Hey, did you read the transcript? The part where the Judge and Trump's lawyer were having a quiet discussion. A discussion where the Judge warned Blance that the jury could see and maybe hear Trump swearing under his breath while Stormy was testifying.

 

[Bn2f]

So they bring on Stormy Daniels to recite 18-year-old salacious details that have nothing to do with the charges at hand. Her testimony provided no probative value and was completely outweighed by prejudice to the defendant which is a violation of evidentiary law. The judge has proved his true motive of smearing Trump before the election. An Appeals court should toss the entire case. I see as well that Judge Cannon has vacated Trump's trial in the classified documents case. So no trial before the election. The Georgia case has been delayed as Fani Willis is now under investigation.

Why do you have to be a cock blocker to those on the left on this?
I mean, c’mon!
You and MGT got to look and enjoy entering Hunter’s dick pics into the congressional record, did you not?

 

[Rightguide]

Trump continues to micro-manage his attornies, demand that they continue to categorically deny that Trump had ANY relationship with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary LINK.

There is zero relevance or probative value to the charges against Trump in the testimonies of those two women. The fact that the probative value which is zero is completely outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant is a fundamental violation of evidentiary allowed law by the judge.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

There is zero relevance or probative value to the charges against Trump in the testimonies of those two women. The fact that the probative value which is zero is completely outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant is a fundamental violation of evidentiary allowed law by the judge.

It goes to show motive of why Trump covered up the payments. If the Jury can't understand the details of why Trump wanted NDA's then how can the State expect to prove it's case. If the Defence thinks the witness testimony is irrelevant, then they won't bother with cross examination.

 

[Rightguide]

Great song, but a little before my time.

 

[Rightguide]

Why do you have to be a cock blocker to those on the left on this?
I mean, c’mon!
You and MGT got to look and enjoy entering Hunter’s dick pics into the congressional record, did you not?

No, I didn't and I think MGT is way out over her skies.

 

[butters]

There's something i want to say, not about the actual trial but about the coverage of the jury's 'attentiveness':

I've seen multiple talking heads on varying channels discussing how the jury is responding to the evidence being produced, and i find some of their comments quite demeaning. The presenters seem convinced the jury can only truly be expected to be engaged when the more lurid or juicy tidbits of information are being put before them by the 'bigger name' witnesses. In fact, they seem delightfully surprised as to just 'how engaged, even taking notes' the jury members were during the course of Monday's 'dry and boring' follow the money evidence of data entry and email receipts.

That really speaks to a lack of respect for the jurors and an assumption of them having interest in only the most basic, gossip-mongerish and salacious evidence, as if they lack the ability to think for themselves. When it comes down to a whole bunch of not especially nice people (trump/daniels/cohen/pecker etc...) saying stuff about eachother, then it more naturally falls (imho) to the paper trails and data evidence to determine what can be seen as factual. That's not to say the witnesses are lying; their voices need to be heard, but their voices alone without the 'dry' evidence cannot be relied upon.

So when the presenters are almost giddily surprised that the jurors are taking notes on how the payments were made, who was responsible for signing cheques, what accounts payments were made from and why they are different to what might normally be expected to happen, it's a sign that the presenters had dismissed the jurors as dimwits already. To be fair, i was surprised they could find people who weren't already aware enough of the trump sagas—and that's on me—but that doesn't mean those same jurors have an inability to listen, think, and decide for themselves. The presenters might know more about the ongoing generalities of the trump sagas and the who's said whatness of them all, but that doesn't make them smarter people than the jurors and not knowledgeable about the kind of small book-keeping entries that came out in the trial to date.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There is zero relevance or probative value to the charges against Trump in the testimonies of those two women. The fact that the probative value which is zero is completely outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant is a fundamental violation of evidentiary allowed law by the judge.

Look at all the BIG WORDS our Rightguide is using today!
BIG BIG words!

 

[HisArpy]

So they bring on Stormy Daniels to recite 18-year-old salacious details that have nothing to do with the charges at hand. Her testimony provided no probative value and was completely outweighed by prejudice to the defendant which is a violation of evidentiary law. The judge has proved his true motive of smearing Trump before the election. An Appeals court should toss the entire case. I see as well that Judge Cannon has vacated Trump's trial in the classified documents case. So no trial before the election. The Georgia case has been delayed as Fani Willis is now under investigation.

The testimony is most definitely more prejudicial than probative but the question goes deeper than that. Is that prejudicial testimony more than minimal error.

I think it rises to a point it shows bias on the part of the court. The court has the authority to disallow testimony even without a motion by the parties and it failed to do so here. The judge even acknowledges that some of the testimony shouldn't have been allowed. The fact that the judge didn't stop the testimony when it wandered into irrelevancy and character assassination is sufficient in my mind to tell me the judge knew the jury was going to be tainted by the evidence but didn't care. That shows bias on the part of the court and should be enough to reverse on appeal.

 

[HisArpy]

There's something i want to say, not about the actual trial but about the coverage of the jury's 'attentiveness':

I've seen multiple talking heads on varying channels discussing how the jury is responding to the evidence being produced, and i find some of their comments quite demeaning. The presenters seem convinced the jury can only truly be expected to be engaged when the more lurid or juicy tidbits of information are being put before them by the 'bigger name' witnesses. In fact, they seem delightfully surprised as to just 'how engaged, even taking notes' the jury members were during the course of Monday's 'dry and boring' follow the money evidence of data entry and email receipts.

That really speaks to a lack of respect for the jurors and an assumption of them having interest in only the most basic, gossip-mongerish and salacious evidence, as if they lack the ability to think for themselves. When it comes down to a whole bunch of not especially nice people (trump/daniels/cohen/pecker etc...) saying stuff about eachother, then it more naturally falls (imho) to the paper trails and data evidence to determine what can be seen as factual. That's not to say the witnesses are lying; their voices need to be heard, but their voices alone without the 'dry' evidence cannot be relied upon.

So when the presenters are almost giddily surprised that the jurors are taking notes on how the payments were made, who was responsible for signing cheques, what accounts payments were made from and why they are different to what might normally be expected to happen, it's a sign that the presenters had dismissed the jurors as dimwits already. To be fair, i was surprised they could find people who weren't already aware enough of the trump sagas—and that's on me—but that doesn't mean those same jurors have an inability to listen, think, and decide for themselves. The presenters might know more about the ongoing generalities of the trump sagas and the who's said whatness of them all, but that doesn't make them smarter people than the jurors and not knowledgeable about the kind of small book-keeping entries that came out in the trial to date.

The court watchers have already convicted Trump. That the jurors haven't is where their surprise stems from.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The judge had to briefly stop the trial today and sent the jury away.

He then admonished Mr. Trump not to "audibly curse" in his courtroom. The judge understood that there might be some testimony that Mr. Trump might not like, but he told Trump that cursing was unacceptable.

Trump was highly agitated about Stormy Daniels' testifying that she put a naked Trump over her knees on a bed and whacked his flabby ass with a rolled up magazine.

That vivid vignette doesn't appear to be very "presidential" to me, I think that little anecdote won't play well at Trump's rallies either.