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

[dmallord]

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

As you noted, Daniels' testimony would not have been required had not Trump's legal team errored at the beginning of the trial. The defense opened the door for her testimony. This counters Turley's view. It was from a former federal judge who was interviewed on television about the case who pointed out why it was necessary for Daniel's testimony to be heard.

Furthermore, the defense failed to object to the prosecution's line of questioning as the judge rightly pointed out that the defense didn't deal with that in an adequate manner. When you have the primary defense attorney, a virtual newbie at presenting before a federal crime case, you get that kind of lackluster defense. Can't blame that on the judge or the seasoned defense team. Question yourself as to why Trump hired such a low-skill level team - running out of good lawyers, perhaps?

The opening remarks to this trial by the defense declared that the alleged sex between Daniels and Trump did not occur; she lied, Trump claimed. This statement opened the door for the prosecution team to bring statements from Daniels to validate that her claims were true, that Trump lied about the sex, and that this alleged sexual encounter was the root cause of why Trump sought the NDA and paid the 10K in the first place. Had the defense avoided that line of defense, you are correct; Daniels would not have been needed on the stand to testify except for a poor opening statement by the defense.

The root of the case is predicated on the alleged falsification of the documents rising to a higher level of criminal involvement beyond the NDA misdemeanor level. Did you notice Karen McDougal, the other alleged sexual partner, isn't getting on the stand to detail her involvement with Trump? She isn't relevant either, and Trump's team didn't defame her in their opening remarks. The Prosecution is doing a good job so far; the defense is flailing.

Stormy's testimony weathered the defense's attempt to 'set the record straight,' according to Trump, about why Trump is on trial at all.

Johnathon Turley is correct. Judge Merchan 'could have' but wasn't obligated to restrict the scope. He 'could have' favored the defense's objections if they had made them. They failed. The line of questioning was within the boundaries of PG-13 testimony.

The viewpoint here that prevails is Judge Merchan's decisions, not 'armchair quarterback' Turley's take on 'could have decided.'

My take on her testimony is that it shows Trump's intent in a worse light than prior days of testimony before the jury. Overall, she held her ground, and Trump's team failed to negate her claims in the eyes of the jury.

 

[dmallord]

Is this illegal?

Falls under the same law as the sign at the zoo that says 'Do Not Feed Peanuts to the Elephants."

You see it done, but no one cares or pursues the matter.

 

[RoryN]

Breaking: Michael Cohen to take stand Monday.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is this illegal?

This is what "Honest Don" is on trial to determine.
The prosecutor obviously feels he has enough evidence to convict him on the various charges.
Your feelings/opinion don't matter.
My feelings/opinion don't matter either.
It's up to the jury to decide.
And yes, we all know Trump will appeal endlessly if/when he is convicted.

 

[HisArpy]

This is what "Honest Don" is on trial to determine.
The prosecutor obviously feels he has enough evidence to convict him on the various charges.
Your feelings/opinion don't matter.
My feelings/opinion don't matter either.
It's up to the jury to decide.
And yes, we all know Trump will appeal endlessly if/when he is convicted.

The prosecution can only convict IF the behavior is unlawful. So, the question remains, are the words Trump spoke illegal?

If you say yes, please provide statutory references showing that speaking those specific types of words is unlawful.

Please note; the words Trump spoke are not threatening nor do they show an intent to commit a crime.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The prosecution can only convict IF the behavior is unlawful. So, the question remains, are the words Trump spoke illegal?

If you say yes, please provide statutory references showing that speaking those specific types of words is unlawful.

Please note; the words Trump spoke are not threatening nor do they show an intent to commit a crime.

The prosecutor will not 'convict" Trump. The jury will decide if the evidence presented by the prosecutor is strong enough to merit conviction.

I'm not well versed in the statutes that Trump has been charged with, and neither are you. I'm not going to look them up either, as i have more productive things to do with my day. I'm content to let this courtroom drama play out, and to laugh at the deflection attempts you throw up here every day.

There is no statuatory "burden of proof" to justify my opinion to you or anyone else. My opinion is just that, an opinion. Just like yours, though less politically motivated than yours.

Having said that, I remain convinced that Trump is guilty.

 

[SmokingFap]

Trump got caught the other day whining about being forbidden to claim he was relying on "advice of counsel".

Federal law is VERY clear on this: you CAN claim "relying on advice of counsel" in a court of law BUT you have to WAIVE "attorney/client privilege" up front and surrender ALL emails, letters, etc to the prosecution.

Trump said that he simply DID want to claim "relying on advice of counsel" BUT he did did NOT want to WAIVE "attorney/client privilege" becoz that would be "unconstitutional".

It's hilarious that Trump thinks everything he doesn't like is actually "unconstitutional".

 

[KeithD]

A side issue on what's coming out in this trial that's worth lifting and rubbing the faces of board Trumpettes in is the evidence coming out (that we all knew anyway) about Trump's farce that he turned his business over to his sons while he was in the White House. In stark contrast to every other president and the demands of the office and that little performance he put on with stacks of paper, saying business control was handed over to Don Jr. and Erick, he continued to control, having business checks sent down from New York to Washington for him to sign in the Oval Office. Rampant corruption. Criminality that the Republican Party and the board Trumpettes own in their continued support for him.

 

[Rightguide]

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

I'm not going to be disappointed if the jury convicts. They are all Democrats and it wouldn't surprise me if they were all like you. It is clear however to all fair-minded people that this trial was a political stunt and not an exercise in judicial fairness.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I'm not going to be disappointed if the jury convicts. They are all Democrats and it wouldn't surprise me if they were all like you. It is clear however to all fair-minded people that this trial was a political stunt and not an exercise in judicial fairness.

"Perpetual Victimhood" on display once again.

 

[Rightguide]

A side issue on what's coming out in this trial that's worth lifting and rubbing the faces of board Trumpettes in is the evidence coming out (that we all knew anyway) about Trump's farce that he turned his business over to his sons while he was in the White House. In stark contrast to every other president and the demands of the office and that little performance he put on with stacks of paper, saying business control was handed over to Don Jr. and Erck, he continued to control, having business checks sent down from New York to Washington for him to sign in the Oval Office. Rampant corruption. Criminality that the Republican Party and the board Trumpettes own in their continued support for him.

There is no evidence to date that Trump personally altered company records to defraud the government or ordered anyone else to do so. Without this, he cannot legally be found to have violated NY state law.

 

[Rightguide]

"Perpetual Victimhood" on display once again.

Your TDS is the guiding light of this thread.

 

[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).

She added nothing to the case against Trump's alleged bookkeeping violations. Zero and you know it.

 

[Rightguide]

The prosecutor will not 'convict" Trump. The jury will decide if the evidence presented by the prosecutor is strong enough to merit conviction.

I'm not well versed in the statutes that Trump has been charged with, and neither are you. I'm not going to look them up either, as i have more productive things to do with my day. I'm content to let this courtroom drama play out, and to laugh at the deflection attempts you throw up here every day.

There is no statuatory "burden of proof" to justify my opinion to you or anyone else. My opinion is just that, an opinion. Just like yours, though less politically motivated than yours.

Having said that, I remain convinced that Trump is guilty.

In short, you choose to proceed in ignorance as do most on the left.

 

[butters]

still a huge trump fan, Westerhout attributes sentiments to trump re his family:

Madeleine Westerhout says she spoke with Donald Trump after the article about the Stormy Daniels story was published.

"He was very upset by it," Westerhout says. "My understanding was he knew it would be hurtful to his family."

Westerhout then clarifies that was her understanding but not that Trump specifically said that to her. "He didn't specifically speak about his family in that conversation," she says.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-10-24/index.html

it's the sort of thing people who like the other person tends to do: see them through rose-coloured glasses and assume they feel things others would likely feel (if such a story came out about them that 'wasn't true')

 

[AlexBailey]

She added nothing to the case against Trump's alleged bookkeeping violations. Zero and you know it.

The porn star spoke to Trump’s motivation to have the story covered up. Your denial doesn’t change this.

 

[butters]

Judge Merchan sided with the defense regarding not admitting into record statements trump made back in 1999 about campaign finance as a stretch too far, but refused defense's attempt to deny trump's tweets being entered as evidence.

also:

Paralegal Jaden Jarmel-Schneider said he identified an incoming call to Michael Cohen's phone at the same time that his recording ended.

For context: Prosecutors have said that Cohen's recording of his conversation with Doanld Trump about the Karen McDougal payment was cut off by an incoming call. Trump attorney Emil Bove on cross-examination of the computer forensics expert from the district attorney's office suggested that there was no incoming call.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-10-24/index.html

 

[butters]

despite team trump's objections to the summary chart of vouchers, checks and ledger entries, being entered as an exhibit, the jury gets shown it

This includes 11 invoices, 12 vouchers and 11 checks.

Each respective invoice, voucher or check in the demonstrative exhibit has a corresponding count number to spell out the indictment for the jury

 

[Altfountain]

As a non American with absolutely no affiliation to the place both politically and geographically, I would love to see the POS die in a prison. I cannot tell you how much I despise this poor excuse of a human being. I believe in extermination of bad actors to make the world a better place and he is one of the many I would like to see removed from society permanently.

 

[butters]

the prosecution want to show weisselberg's severance agreement (loadsa money and a non-disparagement agreement) to show the perspective of his former testimony and ties to trump; the defense says it would be 'unduly prejudicial' and that his not being there to testify was 'complicated'. lol. yeah, he's locked up in 'complicated'.

Judge Merchan wanted to know if either side had tried to compel him to appear; they hadn't, with the prosecution believing he'd just 'take the fifth'.

The judge wants to see evidence of weisselberg being compelled to see if he'd try to refuse to take the stand, plead the fifth or be compliant... if he appeared, first it would be without the jurors present. Judge M wants to see the attempt to have him there before he can decide on whether or not to admit the severance agreement as evidence.

 

[Rightguide]

The porn star spoke to Trump’s motivation to have the story covered up. Your denial doesn’t change this.

No it doesn't. It speaks to a manufactured motivation. His real motivation is the harm his actions might bring to his family and his wife. NDA's are legal.

 

[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 might help to remove your political blinders before analyzing the case after all it isn't all political there are some legal aspects involved as well that thwart the Soros-funded DA bringing the persecution. BTW, James and Willis are Soros-funded Marxists as well.

 

[butters]

team trump whines about cohen's tik tok posts and want a gag order on him till after the trial, asking that the judge make the prosecution team shut their witnesses up (paraphrased). No doubt they're sick to the back teeth of trump screaming and shouting over and over about how he's not allowed to say anything but everyone else can.

the prosecution says they don't have the power to shut witnesses up but have requested repeatedly that they don't discuss the case.

Judge Merchan instructs them:

"direct the people to communicate to Mr. (Michael) Cohen that the judge is asking him to refrain from making any more statements" about this case or Trump.

Merchan tells prosecutors to inform him this is coming from the bench.

that is "asking", not exactly a gag order but cohen would be wise to abide by it...

priceless, though, that trump felt he could defy an actual gag order repeatedly, right up till he found out he had to pay $1,000 per blurt.

of course, despite the judge's moments-ago request to cohen to zip it, trump came out of the court whining like an aggravated toddler late for his nap time that

"Everybody can say whatever they want," he said. "But I'm not allowed to say anything about anybody."

*trump hands doing that childish thing they do when tantruming*

 

[HisArpy]

A side issue on what's coming out in this trial that's worth lifting and rubbing the faces of board Trumpettes in is the evidence coming out (that we all knew anyway) about Trump's farce that he turned his business over to his sons while he was in the White House. In stark contrast to every other president and the demands of the office and that little performance he put on with stacks of paper, saying business control was handed over to Don Jr. and Erick, he continued to control, having business checks sent down from New York to Washington for him to sign in the Oval Office. Rampant corruption. Criminality that the Republican Party and the board Trumpettes own in their continued support for him.

It REALLY would be helpful if you klowns would actually read what's been going on before you opine about stuff you're ignorant of. In this case Trump wrote checks from his revocable trust account for the legal fees NOT the business account.

I'd tell you to get your act together BUT stuffing your foot into your mouth seems to be an unbreakable habit for the lefties around here.

 

[Lazaran]

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

Stormy Daniels courtroom testimony would have been unnecessary if the rapey, corrupt orange traitor had simply admitted to / acknowledged their encounter(s), and the details of their encounter(s).

By denying the encounter(s), (and Stormy Daniel’s details of the encounters), the rapey, corrupt orange traitor opened the door for the prosecution to have Stormy Daniels testify in court, so the credibility of her story, based on the details she provided, could be evaluated by the jury.

Once that ^ happened, it was up to the rapey, corrupt orange traitor’s defense team to object at the appropriate times and ask that certain parts of Stormy Daniel’s testimony be stricken and the jury instructed to disregard.

And yes, the details of their encounter(s) ARE relevant when it comes to the election interference aspects of the case.

Those highly believably gory (creepy) details might have affected the election.

Hope ALL of that ^ helps.



"Right"guide