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

[Rightguide]

How does not objecting, after the first objection, to the various points the defense felt 'objectionable' play out with the jury?

Is it the judge's job to come to the 'defense' of Trump's lawyers and coach them on how to persuade the jury to reject her remarks if they do not point them out?

If you, as a defense lawyer, sit on your hands and say nothing further, I would think the jury would take the claims by the prosecutor's witness as valid.

Trump's outburst and swearing certainly were observed by the jury and heard by them as well. How does that sit with them?

She sounds believable.

You sound uninformed.

 

[ll74]

Delay is success..lol...of course

 

[Rightguide]

How does not objecting, after the first objection, to the various points the defense felt 'objectionable' play out with the jury?

Is it the judge's job to come to the 'defense' of Trump's lawyers and coach them on how to persuade the jury to reject her remarks if they do not point them out?

If you, as a defense lawyer, sit on your hands and say nothing further, I would think the jury would take the claims by the prosecutor's witness as valid.

Trump's outburst and swearing certainly were observed by the jury and heard by them as well. How does that sit with them?

She sounds believable.

The job of the judge is not to prosecute, he is there to make sure the law is followed and the proceedings are fair to the defendant. Here are the words of Professor of Law, Jonathan Turley in regard to the judge:

"The most maddening moment for the defense came at the lunch break when Merchan stated, “I agree that it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.”

He then denied a motion for a mistrial basis on the testimony and blamed the defense for not objecting more.

That, of course, ignores the standing objection of the defense to Daniels even appearing, and specific objections to the broad scope allowed by the court. This is precisely what the defense said would happen when the prosecutors only agreed to avoid “genitalia.”

There was no reason for Daniels to appear at all in the trial.

Even if he was adamant in allowing her, Merchan could have imposed a much more limited scope for her testimony. He could also have enforced the limits that he did place on the testimony when it was being ignored by both the prosecutors and the witness."
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/new-york-post/20240508/281548000979448

 

[Rightguide]

Delay is success..lol...of course

The reason of course is the corruption and malfeasance of the prosecution in both cases.

 

[RobDownSouth]

objecting to Stormy Daniels being allowed to testify is ludicrous. She was a key player in Trump's catch-and-kill chicanery. Anything other than her direct testimony would have been hearsay. Trump could have then testified that he never ever met the woman and the prosecution could then not refute his lie (Trump has said many times, but never under oath, that he never committed adultery with that woman). Now the jury has heard Daniels testify under oath for the first time that they did in fact engage in hanky-panky (technically "hanky-panky-spanky", but I digress).

 

[ll74]

The reason of course is the corruption and malfeasance of the prosecution in both cases.

Delay is delay
Success is not delay

 

[RobDownSouth]

The reason of course is the corruption and malfeasance of the prosecution in both cases.

The fact that you don't like the way the trial is progressing is not evidence of "corruption and malfeasance of the prosecution", no matter how badly you really Really REALLY want it to be.

 

[butters]

no, not at all unusual that trump's personal cheques to be signed were directed to be sent to his personal 'body man's home rather than the Whitehouse

Bookkeeper Rebecca Manachio is testifying as a custodian of records for the Trump Organization, as prosecutors have entered into evidence a series of emails and Fedex records.

The jury sees FedEx invoices for checks Manachio says she sent to Washington for Trump to sign while he was president. They have seen two instances where Manachio mailed checks to the home of Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, instead of directly to the White House.

Schiller also mailed the checks back, according to Manachio.

Asked who directed her to mail the checks to Schiller, Manachio said that either then-CFO Allen Weisselberg or Trump assistant Rhona Graff told her to do so.

By September 2017, Manachio said she began mailing the checks to Trump's then-body man John McEntee, who would later became the director of the White House personnel office and one of Donald Trump's most trusted aides.

"I will need the boss's personal checks mailed to me," McEntee said in an email to Rhona Graff.

"Who is John McEntee?" the prosecutor asked Manochio.

"Couldn't tell you," Manochio said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=edb4b7d29b8a44eb94e8a3e2f9e90efc&ei=45

 

[butters]

team trump to refile for a mistrial as well as attempt to preclude some of Karen McDougal's testimony and modify part of the gag order...

Judge Merchan said the trial will continue till 4, then he'll hear the arguments.

 

[HisArpy]

team trump to refile for a mistrial as well as attempt to preclude some of Karen McDougal's testimony and modify part of the gag order...

Judge Merchan said the trial will continue till 4, then he'll hear the arguments.

Merchan will deny the motion just like he did the last time.




In other news; the defense is appealing the gag order as Unconstitutional. I think they'll win in part, lose in part, and not recover the contempt fines. Merchan will lose face in the eyes of his peers as this sets up the first steps towards a reversal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

no, not at all unusual that trump's personal cheques to be signed were directed to be sent to his personal 'body man's home rather than the Whitehouse

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=edb4b7d29b8a44eb94e8a3e2f9e90efc&ei=45

Gosh, it's almost like Trump seemed determine to obfuscate the paper trail of his hush money payments.

 

[HisArpy]

Gosh, it's almost like Trump seemed determine to obfuscate the paper trail of his hush money payments.

Is this illegal?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is this illegal?

To conceal a crime? I'd say yes.

 

[Rightguide]

objecting to Stormy Daniels being allowed to testify is ludicrous. She was a key player in Trump's catch-and-kill chicanery. Anything other than her direct testimony would have been hearsay. Trump could have then testified that he never ever met the woman and the prosecution could then not refute his lie (Trump has said many times, but never under oath, that he never committed adultery with that woman). Now the jury has heard Daniels testify under oath for the first time that they did in fact engage in hanky-panky (technically "hanky-panky-spanky", but I digress).

Uninformed BS. Her salacious testimony had nothing to do with the alleged corporate accounting process Trump is accused of using to violate federal election laws.

 

[Rightguide]

To conceal a crime? I'd say yes.

How is an NDA illegal and what is Bragg's authority to prosecute a federal law violation?

 

[Rightguide]

The fact that you don't like the way the trial is progressing is not evidence of "corruption and malfeasance of the prosecution", no matter how badly you really Really REALLY want it to be.

It's obvious in the Georgia and Florida cases. The NY case is a political persecution. Three weeks in not a single bit of evidence has yet to be introduced to show his guilt of any crime that has been alleged.

 

[butters]

in case anyone didn't know trump, in his own words:

"My motto is: Always get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades," read another quote.

"When you are wronged, go after those people because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it."

Also: "Get the best people and don't trust them."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=edb4b7d29b8a44eb94e8a3e2f9e90efc&ei=45

 

[HisArpy]

To conceal a crime? I'd say yes.

What crime? Entering legal fees payments into the books as legal fees isn't a crime.

 

[HisArpy]

in case anyone didn't know trump, in his own words:

"My motto is: Always get even. When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades," read another quote.

"When you are wronged, go after those people because it is a good feeling and because other people will see you doing it."

Also: "Get the best people and don't trust them."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=edb4b7d29b8a44eb94e8a3e2f9e90efc&ei=45

Is this illegal?

 

[RobDownSouth]

What crime? Entering legal fees payments into the books as legal fees isn't a crime.

Reimbursing your lawyer for paying off your hush money expenditures and calling them "legal fees" isn't kosher as I recall.

There's no documentation to back up exactly what sort of "legal work" was done. A panel of lawyers was talking on TV the other day about how real lawyers send exact breakdowns of what they are working on and how long they worked on legal matters. Oh, and Cohen wasn't on retainer either.

Keep grinding, Arpy.

 

[Rightguide]

Reimbursing your lawyer for paying off your hush money expenditures and calling them "legal fees" isn't kosher as I recall.

There's no documentation to back up exactly what sort of "legal work" was done. A panel of lawyers was talking on TV the other day about how real lawyers send exact breakdowns of what they are working on and how long they worked on legal matters. Oh, and Cohen wasn't on retainer either.

Keep grinding, Arpy.

You mean NDAs right?

So then there is no evidence of a crime either.

 

[RoryN]

 

[RobDownSouth]

You mean NDAs right?

So then there is no evidence of a crime either.

we obviously disagree, so we'll let the jury decide.
Be prepared to be disappointed!

 

[butters]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-09-24/index.html

Judge Merchan denies mistrial attempt by team trump for a second time

Merchan says he disagrees with the Trump team's assertion that Stormy Daniels gave a new account in her testimony this week.

He notes that the people do not have to prove the encounter happened but because the defense has called her credibility into question, prosecutors have to make an effort to show her story is credible to prove their case.
"The more specificity Ms. Daniels can provide about the encounter, the more the jury can weigh whether the encounter did occur and if so whether they choose to credit Ms. Daniels’ story," Merchan says.

Merchan says: "For some unexplained reason that I still don't understand" there was no objection to certain testimony cited in the motion for a mistrial and again today.
"Why on earth she wouldn't object to the mention of a condom I don’t understand," Merchan says of Necheles.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Trump got the gavel against his muttering exactly once today, when Stormy Daniels testified that Trump said that he and Melania sleep in separate bedrooms.