Trump trial updates

[Lutherf]

What do you think it proves. I listened to it.

"We all know Stormy is lying" means nothing to you? I mean, he SPECIFICALLY mentions that she lied (or at least "everyone" believes she lied) about the guy in Vegas that she was on the stand testifying about yesterday.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

And found not guilty.

John Edwards Not Guilty on 1 Count, but Admits Moral Failing; Mistrial on 5 Other Counts

A North Carolina jury found former Sen. John Edwards not guilty today on one of six counts in a campaign-finance trial, and declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining charges, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on those counts.

abcnews.go.com

GREENSBORO, N.C., May 31, 2012— -- A North Carolina jury found former Sen. John Edwards not guilty today on one of six counts in a campaign-finance trial, and declared itself hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining charges, leading the judge to declare a mistrial on those counts.

Yes, Edwards was found not guilty, based on the facts of his case.

Perhaps Trump will get the same result, perhaps not. The facts are different in every case.

 

[US&THEM]

"We all know Stormy is lying" means nothing to you? I mean, he SPECIFICALLY mentions that she lied (or at least "everyone" believes she lied) about the guy in Vegas that she was on the stand testifying about yesterday.

They assumed it about Las Vegas, um ok.

 

[jnug]

"We all know Stormy is lying" means nothing to you? I mean, he SPECIFICALLY mentions that she lied (or at least "everyone" believes she lied) about the guy in Vegas that she was on the stand testifying about yesterday.

Every witness and the defendant are slimy in this case. We will have to see how or even if this is used in the continuing cross-examination of Daniels by the Defense and what bearing it has on the case. "Everybody knows" is not worth much as evidence in this case.

The matter of whether Daniels wanted the money or wanted out of the spotlight as motivations for the deal she struck does not much matter. The fact is there was a deal struck to hide the Sexual Encounter. Daniels motivation is not nearly as important as Cohan's and Trump's motivation.

If they are going to try to attack Daniels statements about being threatened, she has no incentive to retract her statements in that regard now. Plus it is only ancillary to the case. You folks must watch too much Perry Mason.

 

[Athanasius68]

Pecker testified as the very first witness that he got shaky helping FPOTUS#45 and once he checked with his lawyers the informed him of his criminal liability.

Hence the non-prosecution agreement for his actions.

So, as with Cohen, just because Peckers lawyers said he had criminal liability doesn't make it true.
Federal campaign finance law is complex with the FEC and DOJ often butting heads over whether something is a violation or not.
To say nothing of the campaigns'.

And that is because that law isn't just about 'intent.' Just because something benefits a campaign doesn't mean it is a campaign expenditure. Even if the intent is to benefit the campaign.

So Pecker said to the DOJ 'I'll cooperate with you, as long as you agree not to prosecute if I did anything wrong. '
Hence the agreement, which is not an admission of guilt

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with any Federal election law violation. He's charged under state law.

Which has no bearing on New York law which is attempting to influence New York elections through illegal means.

Which are the federal campaign finance laws.

Cohen was convicted of "illegal means" and Pecker admitted to it in testimony.

Now apply the state laws.

WW

 

[Athanasius68]

What a leap of logic, the NDA is not illegal so there is no fraudulent intent? How are those 2 even connected? And why not record the payment as that for a legal NDA? Why try to cover it up as "legal fees?"

What else is there? Nothing.

And did not contest the validity of the NDA? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Did not contest it with whom and for what reason would he have? To claim he didn't owe her money? Has he admitted he owed her the money and paid her?

It means that Trump is not contesting the NDA and the money given to Daniels.
There is nothing for her testify to that was relevant to the actual charges Trump faces.

 

[jnug]

What else is there? Nothing.

Interesting answer to the poster's question. Its like he is on Earth1 and you are on Earth2.

It means that Trump is not contesting the NDA and the money given to Daniels.
There is nothing for her testify to that was relevant to the actual charges Trump faces.

Daniels testimony provides an incentive for Cohen and Trump to pay to keep the material about the Sexual Encounter out of the news and out of public view.

This has been explained to you a zillion times in this thread.

 

[justabubba]

You mean in this particular case? I'd say just follow it, and we'll see.

Of course, Trump tried very hard to interfere with the 2020 election, before and after. From the Ukraine extortion to the GA Secretary of State strong-arming. Not to mention the insurrection.

i am unclear as to your response

here is your post, the one which caused me to question exactly what tRump did to interfere with the election:

He interfered in an election.

am i to read your reply that the one in which he interferred was the 2020 election and not the 2024 election?

if not, please explain what he did to illegally interfere with the 2024 presidential election

 

[Lutherf]

Every witness and the defendant are slimy in this case. We will have to see how or even if this is used in the continuing cross-examination of Daniels by the Defense and what bearing it has on the case. "Everybody knows" is not worth much as evidence in this case.

The matter of whether Daniels wanted the money or wanted out of the spotlight as motivations for the deal she struck does not much matter. The fact is there was a deal struck to hide the Sexual Encounter. Daniels motivation is not nearly as important as Cohan's and Trump's motivation.

If they are going to try to attack Daniels statements about being threatened, she has no incentive to retract her statements in that regard now. Plus it is only ancillary to the case. You folks must watch too much Perry Mason.

Oh? All the sex stuff and relationship stuff is immaterial? That's weird. It sure seemed to be material yesterday!!! What reason would Bragg have to bring her in yesterday if all her shit is immaterial? Hey! I know.

It's because the whole purpose of this case is to smear Trump and the facts, the laws and the whole concept of "justice" doesn't matter as long as the ****ing political goal is met!!!

 

[justabubba]

No. But what does that have to do with this?

Paid off a porn star. Claimed it as legal expense.

But I'm happy that you agree about Hillary -- that she didn't buy the opp research but only paid her lawyers for legal expenses.

the FEC fined her for doing exactly that:

The Federal Election Commission has agreed to a fine of over $100,000 against the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign over an investigation into alleged misreporting of spending related to the now-infamous Steele dossier.

The FEC fined both organizations after a pair of now years-old complaints — one from the Campaign Legal Center and another from the conservative Coolidge Reagan Foundation — alleged that the party and campaign reported payments to the powerhouse Democratic law firm Perkins Coie as legal expenses, when in actuality some of the money was earmarked for “paying Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump,” as the Campaign Legal Center’s original complaint read. ...

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/...ign-fine-dossier-spending-disclosure-00021910

 

[trixare4kids]

Personally? Yes. I think she actually made up the whole story about boinking Trump. I also think she made up the story about the guy in the parking garage. Do I think anyone is going to bother trying to disprove those accusations? No, not at all.

Nope, not at all.
She's evil because she blackmailed Trump. If she didn't come looking for $$$, this thread would not have existed.

 

[jnug]

Nope, not at all.
She's evil because she blackmailed Trump. If she didn't come looking for $$$, this thread would not have existed.

Bullshit...people are tossing around words like extortion and blackmail glibly in this thread. Those that do belong in Russia where you can get away with that sort of crap.

 

[jnug]

"We all know Stormy is lying" means nothing to you? I mean, he SPECIFICALLY mentions that she lied (or at least "everyone" believes she lied) about the guy in Vegas that she was on the stand testifying about yesterday.

Who is we and how do they know. That testimony won't go anywhere because none of the "WE" have any direct knowledge of the incident Daniels claims.

 

[US&THEM]

Oh? All the sex stuff and relationship stuff is immaterial? That's weird. It sure seemed to be material yesterday!!! What reason would Bragg have to bring her in yesterday if all her shit is immaterial? Hey! I know.

It's because the whole purpose of this case is to smear Trump and the facts, the laws and the whole concept of "justice" doesn't matter as long as the ****ing political goal is met!!!

It wouldn’t be unless Donny tells the truth. Just admit he banged her.

 

[US&THEM]

Nope, not at all.
She's evil because she blackmailed Trump. If she didn't come looking for $$$, this thread would not have existed.

And Mcdougal? She make it up too? Are you guys really going to pretend Trump hasn’t cheated on every wife he has had?

 

[Ambig]

i am unclear as to your response

here is your post, the one which caused me to question exactly what tRump did to interfere with the election:

Yeah, the other guy said there was no interference. I replied that there was interference.

Ask the other guy why he insists there was no interference. I was just batting balls.

am i to read your reply that the one in which he interferred was the 2020 election and not the 2024 election?

Trump? All elections. All contests and golf games. Trump lives to cheat.

if not, please explain what he did to illegally interfere with the 2024 presidential election

Ask the other guy. I'm just batting balls.

 

[Ambig]

the FEC fined her for doing exactly that:

I'm not much interested in that, but thanks.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Which begs the question...who is actually directing the Trump defense?

I presume he is and that's why he's destined to be convicted.

 

[Buckeyes85]

What else is there? Nothing.



It means that Trump is not contesting the NDA and the money given to Daniels.
There is nothing for her testify to that was relevant to the actual charges Trump faces.

Not contesting payment and the NDA? Did he agree that he paid Daniels (or reimbursed someone who paid) in order to obtain the NDA from Daniels?
The prosecution alleges he intentional fudged the business records to hide the payment he made to keep her quiet about the tryst.
Defense says no. Ok, then why did he pay?
Is someone more likely to hide a payment to a third party if it's known they had an affair with that person and want to keep it quiet? Undoubtedly. And that makes her testimony relevant without question. No rationale jurist looking at it would say otherwise.

 

[Threegoofs]

Nope, not at all.
She's evil because she blackmailed Trump. If she didn't come looking for $$$, this thread would not have existed.

No, the thread wouldn’t have existed if she didn’t get paid by Trump thru Cohen and have that payment laundered as ‘legal expenses’.

Glad to catch you up with what’s going on.

 

[Lutherf]

It wouldn’t be unless Donny tells the truth. Just admit he banged her.

You're really hung up on that. Trump, whether he hit that cow or not, isn't being charged with ANYTHING related to what she testified to yesterday. As I said, the ONLY reason to put her on the stand was to slime Trump and give all the NeverTrumpers something to rub one out to in their free time. The good thing for Trump is that herr testimony was so ****ing shady as to throw the integrity of the whole case into question....unless you're one of those people so busy rubbing one out to "Yeah, his hit that shit" that you miss EVERYTHING else.

 

[Buckeyes85]

You're really hung up on that. Trump, whether he hit that cow or not, isn't being charged with ANYTHING related to what she testified to yesterday. As I said, the ONLY reason to put her on the stand was to slime Trump and give all the NeverTrumpers something to rub one out to in their free time. The good thing for Trump is that herr testimony was so ****ing shady as to throw the integrity of the whole case into question....unless you're one of those people so busy rubbing one out to "Yeah, his hit that shit" that you miss EVERYTHING else.

So he admitted to an affair with her and paying her to keep quiet about it?
I missed that part.
This line of argument by you trumpers is beyond stupid.

Imagine a guys wife turns up dead under somewhat mysterious circumstances.
Husband is put on trial for murder.
Turns out he was having an affair with his secretary. That fact is totally irrelevant because having an affair is not a crime and he wasn't charged with having an affair. Right?

That's how dumb your argument is.

 

[Lutherf]

So he admitted to an affair with her and paying her to keep quiet about it?
I missed that part.
This line of argument by you trumpers is beyond stupid.

Imagine a guys wife turns up dead under somewhat mysterious circumstances.
Husband is put on trial for murder.
Turns out he was having an affair with his secretary. That fact is totally irrelevant because having an affair is not a crime and he wasn't charged with having an affair. Right?

That's how dumb your argument is.

When did Trump admit to the affair?

-edit-

Let me take that a little farther.

In the hypothetical you propose the matter of the affair would certainly be relevant but testimony regarding details of any sexual relations would certainly NOT be relevant and could ONLY serve a prejudicial, rather than a probative, purpose

 

[SCrider]

When did Trump admit to the affair?

He won't admit it in public because he needs people like you to continue to believe in him.
hush-money payments are normally a good way to tell when someone is guilty of doing something.

 

[Nickyjo]

From a strictly legal standpoint, what probative value is there to having Clifford testify about the tryst? Does this testimony offer ANYTHING related to the charges?

She says yes. Trump says no. She gives all sorts of detailed information that boosts her credibility. It’s not sufficient in and of itself, I suppose, but when added to what preceded and what may follow, i.e., Cohen, it can nail the case. But let’s see what the defense has to offer.