quote:

This country is truly upside down and liberals need to get some help.

The folks that need help are the ones who think Trump is suitable to be POTUS.

It's obvious that he did have an affair with Daniels, but he continues to say he didn't. It's obvious he did pay her hush money which he says he didn't. It's obvious his minions leaned on various people to stop the story coming out several years ago, which he denies. It's obvious he screwed the other one ( the payboy model who's name I can't recall), but he insists he didn't.

This guy is vain, dishonest, amoral, insecure and frankly childish. That anyone could think him suitable for the office of president amazes me.

. . . amazes a lot of us.

All it takes is one sneak juror to get the hung jury. Trump will claim vindication and the poll numbers will surge in his favor, until the next trial begins.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:

It's obvious that he did have an affair with Daniels, but he continues to say he didn't. It's obvious he did pay her hush money which he says he didn't. It's obvious his minions leaned on various people to stop the story coming out several years ago, which he denies. It's obvious he screwed the other one ( the payboy model who's name I can't recall), but he insists he didn't.

I don't understand his defense strategy. Seems to me he might claim he was being extorted. But, he denies the payments, the affairs/sex, everything. So, claiming extortion would mean he has to admit something.

His best defense strategy is Fox spin.

I wonder how they will spin it when he's convicted?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

Was she still pregnant at the time or was Barron already born? I've seen it stated both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by nute:


This guy is vain, dishonest, amoral, insecure and frankly childish. That anyone could think him suitable for the office of president amazes me.

Agreed, however, it is a cult and cult followers don't have any logic or reason they just have to agree and believe everything and anything the leader says or does. It makes it easy to follow instead of thinking and reasoning things out for themselves. Once you have a cult follower that truly believes in the leader it is almost impossible to break that person away from the cult.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

Was she still pregnant at the time or was Barron already born? I've seen it stated both ways.

He allegedly banged Stormy 4 months after Barron was born, actually cheating on Karen McDougal, who he started banging the month before when Barron was 3 months old.

If you think he started a several-month affair with the brunette, shtuuped the blonde a month later and those were the only times he was unfaithful to his communist rental I have a bridge in Baltimore you might be interested in...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

Was she still pregnant at the time or was Barron already born? I've seen it stated both ways.

He allegedly banged Stormy 4 months after Barron was born, actually cheating on Karen McDougal, who he started banging the month before when Barron was 3 months old.

If you think he started a several-month affair with the brunette, shtuuped the blonde a month later and those were the only times he was unfaithful to his communist rental I have a bridge in Baltimore you might be interested in...

I have plenty of bridges, but thanks for the offer. Who knows what was going on during their "courtship" as well. Guess he wasn't very creative at covering it up, but maybe he didn't count on Cohen going the other way.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

Was she still pregnant at the time or was Barron already born? I've seen it stated both ways.

He allegedly banged Stormy 4 months after Barron was born, actually cheating on Karen McDougal, who he started banging the month before when Barron was 3 months old.

If you think he started a several-month affair with the brunette, shtuuped the blonde a month later and those were the only times he was unfaithful to his communist rental I have a bridge in Baltimore you might be interested in...

I have plenty of bridges, but thanks for the offer. Who knows what was going on during their "courtship" as well. Guess he wasn't very creative at covering it up, but maybe he didn't count on Cohen going the other way.

If they start coming after everyone who has brought a blonde girl home from a golf tournament im in big trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

Was she still pregnant at the time or was Barron already born? I've seen it stated both ways.

He allegedly banged Stormy 4 months after Barron was born, actually cheating on Karen McDougal, who he started banging the month before when Barron was 3 months old.

If you think he started a several-month affair with the brunette, shtuuped the blonde a month later and those were the only times he was unfaithful to his communist rental I have a bridge in Baltimore you might be interested in...

I have plenty of bridges, but thanks for the offer. Who knows what was going on during their "courtship" as well. Guess he wasn't very creative at covering it up, but maybe he didn't count on Cohen going the other way.

If they start coming after everyone who has brought a blonde girl home from a golf tournament im in big trouble.

But do you do it when you're married to a brunette?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . while his wife was at home pregnant with his child. I simply cannot fathom how a Christian can support the man.

Was she still pregnant at the time or was Barron already born? I've seen it stated both ways.

He allegedly banged Stormy 4 months after Barron was born, actually cheating on Karen McDougal, who he started banging the month before when Barron was 3 months old.

If you think he started a several-month affair with the brunette, shtuuped the blonde a month later and those were the only times he was unfaithful to his communist rental I have a bridge in Baltimore you might be interested in...

I have plenty of bridges, but thanks for the offer. Who knows what was going on during their "courtship" as well. Guess he wasn't very creative at covering it up, but maybe he didn't count on Cohen going the other way.

If they start coming after everyone who has brought a blonde girl home from a golf tournament im in big trouble.

But do you do it when you're married to a brunette?

No she was a rebound from the brunette so i guess im ok afterall.

Two news stories:

A Dem introduced a bill to remove Trump's secret service protection "in anticipation" of his conviction, So not only do they regard it as a forgone conclusion, if not this time, on the next "trumped" up charge, but they really want him dead.


Second, one of the jurors who was seated said that Trump was "fascinating" so the prosecutors started to dig and found out he had been arrested 30 years ago for removing campaign signs -- mostly Republican -- and got the supposedly unbiased judge to remove him from the jury on that basis.

Yeah, this is a real fair trial. Like Judge Roy Bean's.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

If they start coming after everyone who has brought a blonde girl home from a golf tournament im in big trouble.

Did you pay the blonde off to keep her mouth shut, then write off the payoff on your taxes?

I didn’t think the prosecution or defense, or plaintiff or defendant, in any lawsuit wanted a fair trial. Just like all the cons in prison, they’re all innocent and none of them got a fair trial. The Trumplicans always sound so whiny.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Two news stories:

A Dem introduced a bill to remove Trump's secret service protection "in anticipation" of his conviction, So not only do they regard it as a forgone conclusion, if not this time, on the next "trumped" up charge, but they really want him dead.


Second, one of the jurors who was seated said that Trump was "fascinating" so the prosecutors started to dig and found out he had been arrested 30 years ago for removing campaign signs -- mostly Republican -- and got the supposedly unbiased judge to remove him from the jury on that basis.

Yeah, this is a real fair trial. Like Judge Roy Bean's.

You're not a trial lawyer, are ya?

There you go Mike, admitting you and your like don't want a fair trial. What we always knew.

And yes, it is the prosecution's duty to ensure it is a fair trial.

I am seriously beginning to wonder if you are really a trial lawyer, at least not a trial lawyer that has spent considerable time picking juries and trying cases to a jury. Although I am not a trial lawyer, I spent decades around very, very good trial lawyers from very good law firms litigating high value cases. None of them wanted a fair trial. They wanted a judge sympathetic to their position and they wanted a jury panel that fit a profile that made them more likely than not to support their position. They did not want a "fair trial" they wanted to win. That's why they were hired. And the other side wanted the exact same thing. That is what made the system work, two sides doing their best to achieve a result satisfactory to their client. And it was no different civilly or criminally. I was also involved in a fairly high profile corporate prosecution (e.g., the indictment of a subsidiary and four employees that was announced by the US AG). I can assure you that the prosecutors simply wanted to win, they were not seeking "truth and justice", they wanted scalps. They were doing their best to "win". So was our team . . . and we did.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am seriously beginning to wonder if you are really a trial lawyer, at least not a trial lawyer that has spent considerable time picking juries and trying cases to a jury. Although I am not a trial lawyer, I spent decades around very, very good trial lawyers from very good law firms litigating high value cases. None of them wanted a fair trial. They wanted a judge sympathetic to their position and they wanted a jury panel that fit a profile that made them more likely than not to support their position. They did not want a "fair trial" they wanted to win. That's why they were hired. And the other side wanted the exact same thing. That is what made the system work, two sides doing their best to achieve a result satisfactory to their client. And it was no different civilly or criminally. I was also involved in a fairly high profile corporate prosecution (e.g., the indictment of a subsidiary and four employees that was announced by the US AG). I can assure you that the prosecutors simply wanted to win, they were not seeking "truth and justice", they wanted scalps. They were doing their best to "win". So was our team . . . and we did.

So unfair. trump is just worried that he won't get the trial that HE WANTS, but it's highly likely that the facts that will be presented will work against him a lot more than they will for him.

Mike,

I won't dignify your derogatory comment with a lengthy response. Suffice it to say that there is a significant difference between criminal cases and civil cases. I have never handled a criminal case, but have always been under the impression that when someone's liberty is at issue, the prosecutors have an obligation not to lie, manipulate the evidence, mislead the judge to depart from the law, etc. in order to get a conviction.

Damn, I've been practicing in the civil arena for 37 years, and the rules are pretty much the same, but with one significant difference. Yes, it's an adversary system and I do everything within the bounds of the Rules of Ethics to secure a favorable result for my clients.

The prosecutor has an additional duty that the civil litigator does not. On the civil side, I have to disclose only what the other side asks me for. If they don't ask, I don't have to disclose. The prosecutor must disclose any exculpatory evidence and has a duty not to railroad a defendant.

Well, if it is irrelevant, then 403 would not apply to exclude it.

403 concerns relevant evidence that is excluded bc the evidence’s probative value is outweighed by undue prejudice or confusion of the issued. However, the evidence is relevant.

I guess President Trump does not have lawyers who know how to file motions in limine or make a record with objections for appeal.

Maryland v Brady is the case fountain head case on disclosure. However, on KY we are not required to disclose a witness list. Nor, are we required to disclose non-Brady material that is discoverable by the Defense.


404B may make this testimony permitted.

b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;

(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and

(C) do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.


It demonstrates a common scheme by President Trump to influence news narratives concerning the campaign.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Mike,

I won't dignify your derogatory comment with a lengthy response. Suffice it to say that there is a significant difference between criminal cases and civil cases. I have never handled a criminal case, but have always been under the impression that when someone's liberty is at issue, the prosecutors have an obligation not to lie, manipulate the evidence, mislead the judge to depart from the law, etc. in order to get a conviction.

Damn, I've been practicing in the civil arena for 37 years, and the rules are pretty much the same, but with one significant difference. Yes, it's an adversary system and I do everything within the bounds of the Rules of Ethics to secure a favorable result for my clients.

The prosecutor has an additional duty that the civil litigator does not. On the civil side, I have to disclose only what the other side asks me for. If they don't ask, I don't have to disclose. The prosecutor must disclose any exculpatory evidence and has a duty not to railroad a defendant.

. . . so please share with us some examples of the prosecution failing to live up to their ethical and statutory obligations in Trump's "unfair" trial . . . that should not be hard since surely Trump's esteemed counsel would have called those issues to the attention of the judge. You and others wailing about the trial being "unfair" does not make it unfair. Let's hear some examples counselor.

Texas institutionally protects insurance defense attorneys.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Two news stories:

A Dem introduced a bill to remove Trump's secret service protection "in anticipation" of his conviction, So not only do they regard it as a forgone conclusion, if not this time, on the next "trumped" up charge, but they really want him dead.


Second, one of the jurors who was seated said that Trump was "fascinating" so the prosecutors started to dig and found out he had been arrested 30 years ago for removing campaign signs -- mostly Republican -- and got the supposedly unbiased judge to remove him from the jury on that basis.

Yeah, this is a real fair trial. Like Judge Roy Bean's.

That's not true, the Bill would remove Secret Service protection from any protectee convicted of a felony.

A felon who is convicted and going to prison should not receive that protection.

They need to be treated like anyone else so convicted.