The former publisher of The National Inquirer will start the trial, putting Trump in a deep hole to start off. Pecker's testimony will be damning because it is hemmed in by the stipulations he and the company, AMI, made to avoid prosecution, basically confirming everything the prosecution is alleging against Trump.

Fucked by a pecker; imagine THAT!!

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Fucked by a pecker; imagine THAT!!

Pecker will seal his fate but Cohen and Stormy testifying while he has to sit there and listen just might blow a gasket.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Fucked by a pecker; imagine THAT!!

The Peckering you get, for the Peckering you gave...

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
The Peckering you get, for the Peckering you gave...

+1000

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Fucked by a pecker; imagine THAT!!

With a mushroom shaped head?????

quote:

Originally posted by DRG:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Fucked by a pecker; imagine THAT!!

With a mushroom shaped head?????

Maybe Stormy will fill in that detail.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

Pecker will seal his fate but Cohen and Stormy testifying while he has to sit there and listen just might blow a gasket.

I would pay money to watch that! Orange marmalade all over the floor!

I wonder if during the violation of gag order case if the prosecutors told or could tell the judge that he and the judicial system were being too easy on trump; cutting him slack that many other criminals would never get.

You can't say that trump is a criminal. He is judicially involved.

I guess NY doesn't have Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence, or care about relevance, or at least this Judge doesn't. Pecker's testimony is completely irrelevant, as it was about perfectly legal activity to buy a story and bury it, so it is not relevant at all, but it clearly violates Rule 403 (assuming NY is a semi-civilized society that tends to stick to the uniform rules of evidence),in that its relevance is outweighed by prejudice.

The reason the prosecution wants to offer this testimony has nothing to do with the alleged "crime" but rather is just to portray Trump as someone who "manipulates the system", albeit legally.

This whole prosecution is a joke.

But Democrats better be ready. I hope Republicans will follow the law, unlike Democrats, but we need to prosecute every democrat for everything just like they have done to Trump. Regardless of what happens to Trump, and especially if Trump is not the next President, although that is pretty unlikely.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I guess NY doesn't have Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence, or care about relevance, or at least this Judge doesn't. Pecker's testimony is completely irrelevant, as it was about perfectly legal activity to buy a story and bury it, so it is not relevant at all, but it clearly violates Rule 403 (assuming NY is a semi-civilized society that tends to stick to the uniform rules of evidence),in that its relevance is outweighed by prejudice.

The reason the prosecution wants to offer this testimony has nothing to do with the alleged "crime" but rather is just to portray Trump as someone who "manipulates the system", albeit legally.

This whole prosecution is a joke.

But Democrats better be ready. I hope Republicans will follow the law, unlike Democrats, but we need to prosecute every democrat for everything just like they have done to Trump. Regardless of what happens to Trump, and especially if Trump is not the next President, although that is pretty unlikely.

I simply cannot believe that you have ever so much as driven past an actual Law School, much less been inside one. Almost any act, perfectly legal in isolation, can be part of a criminal act if undertaken for corrupt purposes as part of a conspiracy.

Driving a car down a public street is perfectly legal, unless you are carrying bank robbers away from their crime.

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]

https://youtu.be/4MLnVU-P-us?si=C-fmxdlGHQytEw6l

Feller Named Pecker Talks at Trump Trial

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
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]

So who are you quoting here?

He appears to be quoting Rule 404(b) of the Rules of Evidence, but since I don't remember the exact wording of the federal rules, I can't tell if he's referring to the federal rules of evidence or the Kentucky rules.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
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.

So who are you quoting here?[/QUOTE]

I am quoting rule 404B of the KY Ruled of Evidence in response to Lavaca’s poor application of 403. The KY 403 rule is identical to the Federal Rule that acted as model rules to the states.

It controls the admission of prior bad acts.

Lavaca decided to post on two threads. So, I decide to respond in both threads.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I guess NY doesn't have Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence, or care about relevance, or at least this Judge doesn't. Pecker's testimony is completely irrelevant, as it was about perfectly legal activity to buy a story and bury it, so it is not relevant at all, but it clearly violates Rule 403 (assuming NY is a semi-civilized society that tends to stick to the uniform rules of evidence),in that its relevance is outweighed by prejudice.

The reason the prosecution wants to offer this testimony has nothing to do with the alleged "crime" but rather is just to portray Trump as someone who "manipulates the system", albeit legally.

This whole prosecution is a joke.

But Democrats better be ready. I hope Republicans will follow the law, unlike Democrats, but we need to prosecute every democrat for everything just like they have done to Trump. Regardless of what happens to Trump, and especially if Trump is not the next President, although that is pretty unlikely.

Your interest in revenge is disappointing.

quote:

Your interest in revenge is disappointing.

lavaca's rationale, which he thinks is reasoning, probably is representative of practically everyone who still clings to Trumpism.

It's the extent they will go to spin/twist justify their belief that Trump is being politically persecuted, and he did nothing wrong. The inherent implication is that the system is already corrupt to the extent that the only solution is to break it and extract revenge, which they can justify as a means.

That's beyond disappointing. It's disturbing.

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

(Edited)

After writing the above, I decided to do some reading about this matter. Choosing what to read is important, IMO. There is lots of BS out there, and certainly I'm not going to rely on Fox and having to sort the truth out of that.

NPR had some coverage on it, but with the latest news about NPR bias, I passed on that for the sake of Rightists herein. So, I chose a recent and thorough article from NYT.

It's a long article, full of info.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0...-gfcp&smid=url-share

Published April 9, 2024
Updated April 15, 2024

How a ‘Nerdy’ Prosecutor Became the First to Try Trump

The Inside Story of Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan D.A., campaigned as the best candidate to go after the former president. Now he finds himself leading Trump’s first prosecution — and perhaps the only one before the November election.

In summary, it's obvious that there is some political motivation involved in the prosecution.

But, what about the crimes Trump supposedly committed?

One thing for certain, a republican would never prosecute Trump. In such case, where evidence shows crimes, failure to prosecute is blatantly politically motivated.

Is there ethical equivalence, given the evidence and the DA's political affiliations, in choosing to prosecute vs choosing to NOT prosecute?

Lawyer: Did you ever have any intention of printing McDougal’s story about Trump?

Pecker: No.

Lawyer: Was your primary purpose of buying the story to suppress information regarding a political candidate?

Pecker: Yes.

Lawyer: And you were aware it was subject to campaign finance laws?

Pecker: Yes.

Lawyer: Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election in coordination with or at the request of a political campaign are unlawful?

Pecker: I did.

Lawyer: Did you report to the FEC?

Pecker: No.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Lawyer: Did you ever have any intention of printing McDougal’s story about Trump?

Pecker: No.

Lawyer: Was your primary purpose of buying the story to suppress information regarding a political candidate?

Pecker: Yes.

Lawyer: And you were aware it was subject to campaign finance laws?

Pecker: Yes.

Lawyer: Were you aware that expenditures by corporations made for the purpose of influencing an election in coordination with or at the request of a political campaign are unlawful?

Pecker: I did.

Lawyer: Did you report to the FEC?

Pecker: No.

How damned obvious does it need to be?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...944e796239444c&ei=76

Trump campaign accused of breaking federal law by hiding millions in legal payments
Story by Martha McHardy • 14h • 4 min read

Simple.

You write a book and agree to sell it to me for $1.


You are happy, I'm happy. You got money for your book, I got the book.

I decide I don't want to publish the book.

CRIME?

I falsify how the $1 is recorded for accounting purposes.

CRIME?

Yep.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Simple.

You write a book and agree to sell it to me for $1.


You are happy, I'm happy. You got money for your book, I got the book.

I decide I don't want to publish the book.

CRIME?

You are so bad at the Law I'm amazed you aren't one of Trump's stable of incompetents.

Lavaca, if your attention span is over 7 minutes, and you can recognize facts (admissible evidence) when presented, here's SOME, more to come:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...944e796239444c&ei=49

'What have we done?': Lawrence examines shocking Trump evidence revealed in trial

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell examines the unlikelihood that Donald Trump testifies in his own criminal trial, especially after prosecutors presented new evidence showing his alleged attempts to influence the 2016 election.

Here's feeding the monster and people like lavaca:

Note the difference in the "reporting" or commentary. Whatever facts may be buried in this are expanded with so much opinion, which is presented as factual, and the audience takes it as such.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...81e57ac6ef3000&ei=85

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...wk4?ocid=socialshare

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Simple.

You write a book and agree to sell it to me for $1.


You are happy, I'm happy. You got money for your book, I got the book.

I decide I don't want to publish the book.

CRIME?

The act itself isn't a crime. Conspiring to or falsifying records in order to hide it or cover it up is.

So would this be the same as John Edwards?
It seems similar from what I remember reading about it.

https://youtu.be/z_tnKbSLsp0?si=fYxf6STcA_2HuI3d

Analysis: Defense tries to poke holes in David Pecker's truthfulness