quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
We don't know if there was a crime. That question is to be answered by the jury. They will get all the evidence and testimony, so they are the only ones qualified to render a verdict. Let wait until they decide before we praise or hang Trump.

Honstly, I just think he guilty of being dumb. He did what lots of married men have done on lots of "golf geteaways". Not saying its right but we all know it happens. He just managed to make a huge mess of it. His biggest issue is his ego.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
We don't know if there was a crime. That question is to be answered by the jury. They will get all the evidence and testimony, so they are the only ones qualified to render a verdict. Let wait until they decide before we praise or hang Trump.

Honstly, I just think he guilty of being dumb. He did what lots of married men have done on lots of "golf geteaways". Not saying its right but we all know it happens. He just managed to make a huge mess of it. His biggest issue is his ego.

If that was all President Trump was accused of doing, I would agree.

The issue is not he has sex w a porn star.

The issue is he falsified hush money payments to benefit the campaign in excess of campaign finance laws, and so mandatory disclosure.

If all he did was have sex w get and deny, or use a 501c to pay her off, there is no legal issue.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
We don't know if there was a crime. That question is to be answered by the jury. They will get all the evidence and testimony, so they are the only ones qualified to render a verdict. Let wait until they decide before we praise or hang Trump.

Honstly, I just think he guilty of being dumb. He did what lots of married men have done on lots of "golf geteaways". Not saying its right but we all know it happens. He just managed to make a huge mess of it. His biggest issue is his ego.

How many people on golf get-aways pay hookers $130,000 to keep quiet and then have their accountants categorize it as a business expense in order to enhance their chances of being elected POTUS?

I don't know those golfers.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
We don't know if there was a crime. That question is to be answered by the jury. They will get all the evidence and testimony, so they are the only ones qualified to render a verdict. Let wait until they decide before we praise or hang Trump.

Honstly, I just think he guilty of being dumb. He did what lots of married men have done on lots of "golf geteaways". Not saying its right but we all know it happens. He just managed to make a huge mess of it. His biggest issue is his ego.

How many people on golf get-aways pay hookers $130,000 to keep quiet and then have their accountants categorize it as a business expense in order to enhance their chances of being elected POTUS?

I don't know those golfers.

Hence why i said he made a big mess of it.

Here's a good analysis of the trial activity today:

https://youtu.be/dIJrbpxmdZE?si=8XKUcr763kI_5oro

Stormy Daniels finishes strong.

May 9, 2024
It was a jammed-packed day in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial. Stormy Daniels finished her testimony and seemed to get the better of Trump's defense attorney when she tried to cross-examine her.

In a surprise move, prosecutors announced that they will not call Karen McDougal to testify. Although prosecutors did not say why they had decided against calling McDougal, there is very likely a relationship between how well Daniels did on the witness stand and the prosecution's decision to forgo calling McDougal, as this video discusses.

================================================

The gag order is also discussed in the video.

Here are some of the comments below the video:

"Trump can absolutely respond to Stormy Daniels. From the witness stand!"

"I'm sure his lawyer asked him to shut up. The more the founding farter talks, the more damage he'll do. When you take the stand, you ask for cross-examination."

"Donald if you want to refute Stormy's testimony
Take the Stand !! Under Oath Like a Man not a Coward.."

"If Trump, the chicken hawk, wants to rebut Stormy Daniels's testimony, why doesn't he take the stand?"

"My sincere prayers go out to Ms Daniels. Two minutes under Trump, a lifetime dealing with the fallout of his malignant narcissism."

Does anyone want to see some disgusting spin?

Fox feeding the monster:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...lRg?ocid=socialshare

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:


Stormy Daniels finishes strong.

Ive searched the internet, for sure no the first time ive seen her finish strong.

I do not disagree w the judge concerning the denial yesterday for a mistrial.

However, I am concerned that a panel of judges setting in appellate review might vacate a verdict and remand due to the actual sex performance testimony yesterday as too prejudicial to its relevance.

The saving grace may be that the Defense Team did not object. Why, like the bench, I have no idea.

The Judge’s reasoning for why some sex testimony is relevant bc of Defense opening statements is accurate, but there is line.

Maybe harmless error. Maybe my concern is not the answer to the question.

I think the prosecution has gotten a little unnecessarily too cute, or too smart.

They do not need to prove the sex. They need the jury to believe the sex happened bc of the believe Daniel’s the rest falls in line.

Let's talk about the gag order.

I read or heard that Trump's lawyer, on his behalf, asked the judge to allow Trump to comment to the press about Stormy Daniels testimony, in his defense, of course. So unfair that he isn't allowed to defend himself was the rationale.

The judge denied the request, of course.

Here's the deal - Trump wants to slander this witness in particular, and all witnesses, beyond slander, but threatening, etc.

And he wants to do it in the court of public opinion where there is no cross-examination, nor under oath with the jeopardy of perjury, nor under the judge's gavel when he inevitably goes off the rail.

That not the way this sort of thing normally works. If he really wanted to do it right and ethically, he would take the stand. But the problem is that he CAN'T tell the truth, and he will have to face cross examination. He WILL do great harm to himself and his defense if his attorneys allow him to take the stand.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows that, even Fox. But Fox spins it, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I do not disagree w the judge concerning the denial yesterday for a mistrial.

However, I am concerned that a panel of judges setting in appellate review might vacate a verdict and remand due to the actual sex performance testimony yesterday as too prejudicial to its relevance.

The saving grace may be that the Defense Team did not object. Why, like the bench, I have no idea. (Mistake)

The Judge’s reasoning for why some sex testimony is relevant bc of Defense opening statements is accurate, but there is line.

Maybe harmless error. Maybe my concern is not the answer to the question.

I think the prosecution has gotten a little unnecessarily too cute, or too smart.

They do not need to prove the sex. They need the jury to believe the sex happened bc of the believe Daniel’s the rest falls in line.

That's why the prosecution nixed McDougal as a witness.

The consensus from what I've seen is that Daniel's testimony satisfied all the points the prosecution wanted to make, so far.

Cohen's Testimony is scheduled for Monday. That's the critical part, and sparks will fly. Daniels testimony was just setting the stage for the actual crimes. Sex is not the crime. Falsifying records to cover the payment to protect his candidacy is.

https://youtu.be/2vjVxj2nbto?si=y0MjhBpDWN21Awue

That does not mean the unnecessary details of that testimony was not too prejudicial.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That does not mean the unnecessary details of that testimony was not too prejudicial.

I'd like to know more about what she said in order to guess whether it was prejudicial. Did she talk about his small penis?

She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

Frankly, I don’t know how he could possibly libel or slander her.

If Trump wants to get his say about her, he can take the stand and say it; he can say whatever he wishes within the bounds of law after the trial is complete; and he can sue her for her statements.

He also has the option of producing proof and demanding she be charged with perjury…


I don’t get where he is being denied his rights… he just doesn’t get to do it while he’s in court.

Making a published and false statement. I doubt she is even a public figure in this context to require malice.

One does not get to make one a public figure due to their bad actions that created the public knowledge of the person. There is case law on that matter. I can find it if you need to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That does not mean the unnecessary details of that testimony was not too prejudicial.

I'd like to know more about what she said in order to guess whether it was prejudicial. Did she talk about his small penis?

Not using condoms.

See here for quotes from the judge. I agree it should have been objected to. I also fear it is unnecessary as to cast a potential verdict in jeopardy. However, I repeat, Defense did not object.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/0...p-attorneys-mistrial

Maybe they filed a motion on the issue, which was denied. That should preserve the objection, no?

In KY it does not. A denied motion in limine objecting to admissibility requires objection to be renewed at trial to preserve. There is an exception for plain error.

I do not know about NY.

I don't even know the Alaska rule on that. I always objected at trial every time there was a basis, just to be on the safe side.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That does not mean the unnecessary details of that testimony was not too prejudicial.

I'd like to know more about what she said in order to guess whether it was prejudicial. Did she talk about his small penis?

Not using condoms.

See here for quotes from the judge. I agree it should have been objected to. I also fear it is unnecessary as to cast a potential verdict in jeopardy. However, I repeat, Defense did not object.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/0...p-attorneys-mistrial

Well, isn't it obvious why Trump didn't use a condom? They just don't make any that small and short. To admit that into evidence would be prejudicial.

===================================

(Excerpt from the article linked in the quote above)

For the second time this week, Merchan expressed surprise that Trump’s lawyers had not objected more when Daniels was on the stand. And for the second time this week, Merchan rejected their motion for a mistrial.

Another example listed by Merchan was the testimony about Trump not wearing a condom. Merchan said he was surprised attorney Susan Necheles did not object.

“Why on earth she (Necheles) wouldn’t object to the mention of a condom I don’t understand,” Merchan said.

Daniels testified on Tuesday that Trump did not wear a condom when they had sex and described telling Trump during their conversation at the hotel dining room table her sexual partners during filming of her movies always wore a condom.

Merchan also referred back to the defense’s opening statement when Blanche denied there was ever a sexual encounter between Daniels and Trump. The judge said that assertion opened the door for the prosecution to make an effort to show her story was credible to prove their case, allowing them to ask more detailed questions about the encounter.

“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 said.

How much testimony and detail is needed in order to show that they had "consensual" sex?

It has to be embarrassing sitting there as some sort of "playboy" while an ex partner tells the whole world what a lousy lay you were.

I'm of the opinion that within the range of emotions Trump is capable of, embarrassment is not included. His ego and narcissism have well developed defense mechanisms blocking that.

I think many of us still underestimate Trump's narcissism, and project some sort of "normal" upon him.

Rage, pent up, is more his thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm of the opinion that within the range of emotions Trump is capable of, embarrassment is not included. His ego and narcissism have well developed defense mechanisms blocking that.

I think many of us still underestimate Trump's narcissism, and project some sort of "normal" upon him.

Rage, pent up, is more his thing.

Ketchup throwing mad.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
That does not mean the unnecessary details of that testimony was not too prejudicial.

I'd like to know more about what she said in order to guess whether it was prejudicial. Did she talk about his small penis?

Not using condoms.

See here for quotes from the judge. I agree it should have been objected to. I also fear it is unnecessary as to cast a potential verdict in jeopardy. However, I repeat, Defense did not object.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/0...p-attorneys-mistrial

Well, isn't it obvious why Trump didn't use a condom? They just don't make any that small and short. To admit that into evidence would be prejudicial.

And it would obviously be political.

After all what good Christian Nationalist or Christofascist, neo-fascist, cult, republican would want a leader proven, factually, of having a small dick? Although proven to be a seditionist, pussy grabber, liar, adulterer, con artist, grifter, fraudster, farter martyr, etc. is acceptable, no self-respecting fascist or fascist-lite or wannabe is gonna want or vote for a hero with a small dick.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

Frankly, I don’t know how he could possibly libel or slander her.

If Trump wants to get his say about her, he can take the stand and say it; he can say whatever he wishes within the bounds of law after the trial is complete; and he can sue her for her statements.

He also has the option of producing proof and demanding she be charged with perjury…


I don’t get where he is being denied his rights… he just doesn’t get to do it while he’s in court.

He can't sue her for statements she made in court. Court testimony is privileged.

Even if you can prove perjury?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

Frankly, I don’t know how he could possibly libel or slander her.

If Trump wants to get his say about her, he can take the stand and say it; he can say whatever he wishes within the bounds of law after the trial is complete; and he can sue her for her statements.

He also has the option of producing proof and demanding she be charged with perjury…


I don’t get where he is being denied his rights… he just doesn’t get to do it while he’s in court.

He can't sue her for statements she made in court. Court testimony is privileged.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

You are assuming that she's always hated him. She didn't say she's always hated him. She said she hated him now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b101824d7e0ae6&ei=21

Fox News Host Confronts GOP Senator on Going After Judge Merchan's Family
Story by Rachel Dobkin • 7h

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

You are assuming that she's always hated him. She didn't say she's always hated him. She said she hated him now.

She most likely didnt "hate" him at some point. That said, how dumb can you be? If you are very public figure and a pornstar suddenly goes backt to you room, you dont think there is an agenda? Hes an idiot and shes in it for the publicity. Im also saddened for him because shes not that hot. Nice hotel bars are full of girls that look like her or better that wont ruin your life.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Even if you can prove perjury?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

Frankly, I don’t know how he could possibly libel or slander her.

If Trump wants to get his say about her, he can take the stand and say it; he can say whatever he wishes within the bounds of law after the trial is complete; and he can sue her for her statements.

He also has the option of producing proof and demanding she be charged with perjury…


I don’t get where he is being denied his rights… he just doesn’t get to do it while he’s in court.

He can't sue her for statements she made in court. Court testimony is privileged.

Probably still can't sue over it, but may depend on the jurisdiction.

Dr. Butler, I was curious to know more about the issue myself, and found this brief article by a litigator at a law firm. https://beresfordlaw.com/are-y...statements-in-court/

The article is a marketing tool to promote the law firm's services, but the article strikes me as legally sound. I think the man knows what he's talking about; what is says is in accord with what I've read before.

He's talking about Washington State law specifically. The rule may vary in your state.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by MtElkHunter:
We don't know if there was a crime. That question is to be answered by the jury. They will get all the evidence and testimony, so they are the only ones qualified to render a verdict. Let wait until they decide before we praise or hang Trump.

Honstly, I just think he guilty of being dumb. He did what lots of married men have done on lots of "golf geteaways". Not saying its right but we all know it happens. He just managed to make a huge mess of it. His biggest issue is his ego.

If that was all President Trump was accused of doing, I would agree.

The issue is not he has sex w a porn star.

The issue is he falsified hush money payments to benefit the campaign in excess of campaign finance laws, and so mandatory disclosure.

If all he did was have sex w get and deny, or use a 501c to pay her off, there is no legal issue.

The issue does not exist. His accountant put legal expense on a form for the payment to a lawyer. The check was a personal check that covered $330,000 60K of which was his lawyers cut, 130K was for the NDA not sure what the rest covered. But to most of us if you give a lawyer money you would call it a legal expense. That said the crux of the case is the labeling the pay out a legal expense. It can't have anything to do with the campaign because it was paid with a personal check. As for the jurors it must be nice to pick from a voter pool of 97% Dumrats whom we all know lack any concept of morals, ethics or right and wrong. A judge who's daughter is fund raising off the trial and has raised more than 90 million off the case so far for the Dumrats party. Yep if you call this any kind of justice you are of weak moral character.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

You are assuming that she's always hated him. She didn't say she's always hated him. She said she hated him now.

She most likely didnt "hate" him at some point. That said, how dumb can you be? If you are very public figure and a pornstar suddenly goes backt to you room, you dont think there is an agenda? Hes an idiot and shes in it for the publicity. Im also saddened for him because shes not that hot. Nice hotel bars are full of girls that look like her or better that wont ruin your life.

Last I heard porn whore sex is legal.

Of weaker moral character even than the man on trial? Not even a close call.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhog:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
She stated in court that she hates him.

Yet she consensually had sex with him. (Again, per her)…

She’s a porn actress.

You are assuming that she's always hated him. She didn't say she's always hated him. She said she hated him now.

She most likely didnt "hate" him at some point. That said, how dumb can you be? If you are very public figure and a pornstar suddenly goes backt to you room, you dont think there is an agenda? Hes an idiot and shes in it for the publicity. Im also saddened for him because shes not that hot. Nice hotel bars are full of girls that look like her or better that wont ruin your life.

Last I heard porn whore sex is legal.

. . . yes, but falsifying business records to cover that up . . . therein lies the rub. It’s the cover up that generally brings someone down.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Let's talk about the gag order.

I read or heard that Trump's lawyer, on his behalf, asked the judge to allow Trump to comment to the press about Stormy Daniels testimony, in his defense, of course. So unfair that he isn't allowed to defend himself was the rationale.

The judge denied the request, of course.

Here's the deal - Trump wants to slander this witness in particular, and all witnesses, beyond slander, but threatening, etc.

And he wants to do it in the court of public opinion where there is no cross-examination, nor under oath with the jeopardy of perjury, nor under the judge's gavel when he inevitably goes off the rail.

That not the way this sort of thing normally works. If he really wanted to do it right and ethically, he would take the stand. But the problem is that he CAN'T tell the truth, and he will have to face cross examination. He WILL do great harm to himself and his defense if his attorneys allow him to take the stand.

Everybody, and I mean everybody, knows that, even Fox. But Fox spins it, of course.

In reality a gag order is used against witnesses not the defendant. Gag orders are used to protect the accused from slander and poisoning the jury pool. As for slandering Cohen has been going full bore with it. I don't ever remember an accused person having a gag order issued against him or her except Trump, weird. And Trump in several cases without merit so far.

Last I heard porn whore sex is legal.[/QUOTE]

. . . yes, but falsifying business records to cover that up . . . therein lies the rub. It’s the cover up that generally brings someone down.[/QUOTE]

So you have no idea that the business record in question was a personal check? That it was indeed a legal expense? That calling the payment a legal expense is the entirety of this case? That the Porn Whores testimony has nothing to do with the case? I believe a couple of post dated checks are also in contention. Checks made out in advance to pay Cohen's retainer fee. They are calling that falsifying business records.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Of weaker moral character even than the man on trial? Not even a close call.

What evidence do you have of Trump's character flaws? What you have heard on regime media? Are you that concerned with Trump's dick?

When you look at Biden's issues Trump appears almost saintly. Ten million unvetted foreigners, outrageous debt spending, putting men in women's sports and locker rooms, supporting gender mutilation and the murder of the unborn, taking millions from Russia, China and Ukraine just for the short list.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhog:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Of weaker moral character even than the man on trial? Not even a close call.

What evidence do you have of Trump's character flaws? What you have heard on regime media? Are you that concerned with Trump's dick?

When you look at Biden's issues Trump appears almost saintly. Ten million unvetted foreigners, outrageous debt spending, putting men in women's sports and locker rooms, supporting gender mutilation and the murder of the unborn, taking millions from Russia, China and Ukraine just for the short list.

If trump is convicted is it appealable to SCOTUS or just the SC of New York state?

quote:

Originally posted by Redhog:

What evidence do you have of Trump's character flaws?

Good, you confirmed what I suspected. You’re a troll.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Redhog:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Of weaker moral character even than the man on trial? Not even a close call.

What evidence do you have of Trump's character flaws? What you have heard on regime media? Are you that concerned with Trump's dick?

When you look at Biden's issues Trump appears almost saintly. Ten million unvetted foreigners, outrageous debt spending, putting men in women's sports and locker rooms, supporting gender mutilation and the murder of the unborn, taking millions from Russia, China and Ukraine just for the short list.

If trump is convicted is it appealable to SCOTUS or just the SC of New York state?

Substantively President Trumps can only appeal to the NY State Court of last resort. I do my think, for someone reason, NY calls “supreme.”


President Trump has to allege violations of Federal due process rights that are accepted for review by the federal Supreme Court to get to the Supreme Court. He has to preserve any such issue in this trial, and exhaust the question before the state appellate courts.

The Supreme Court will not decide NY state law. The Supreme Court will only hear a due process challenge of an incorporated Federal Right.

The Supreme Court just refused to grant cert if a due process challenge concerning jury selection out of Texas over a death penalty conviction.