Trump trial updates

[Cardinal]

Besides it not being relevant. May piss off the judge, too.

I mean, if the defense really wants to establish that the encounter was embarrassing enough to rise to a motive for covering up the affair in order to protect the campaign...okay?

 

[NWRatCon]

Curious.

So they requested a mistrial because the prosecution's questions of Daniels went into particulars of the sex act.

If the defense goes down that road to try to smear Daniels... Does that pull teeth on the mistrial claim for lack of probative value?

By trying to undermine every little detail are they shooting themselves in the foot.

WW

And reloading.

 

[Cardinal]

Curious.

So they requested a mistrial because the prosecution's questions of Daniels went into particulars of the sex act.

If the defense goes down that road to try to smear Daniels... Does that pull teeth on the mistrial claim for lack of probative value?

By trying to undermine every little detail are they shooting themselves in the foot.

WW

Hell if I know if it undermines it in a legal sense, but it sure as hell undermines it in every practical sense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And reloading.

???

WW

 

[NWRatCon]

I mean, if the defense really wants to establish that the encounter was embarrassing enough to rise to a motive for covering up the affair in order to protect the campaign...okay?

Exactly. And Stormy is not even getting paid, or having to pay, for this publicity. Full Disclosure.

 

[Cardinal]

And reloading.

FWIW, I find that a more practical way to reload is to click the latest tweet. By doing this you effectively reload the thread without having to scroll down through all the prior posts, which can eventually get pretty unwieldy if the thread goes on for long enough.

 

[NWRatCon]

???

WW

Re: "shooting themselves in the foot"... and reloading, like Kristi Noem, who couldn't kill a goat at point blank, but certainly missed the implications.

 

[jnug]

FWIW, I find that a more practical way to reload is to click the latest tweet. By doing this you effectively reload the thread without having to scroll down through all the prior posts, which can eventually get pretty unwieldy if the thread goes on for long enough.

Well you can rest assured that this absurd cross will come up if Trump losses and the Defense appeals.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Re: "shooting themselves in the foot"... and reloading, like Kristi Noem, who couldn't kill a goat at point blank, but certainly missed the implications.

WW

 

[jnug]

View attachment 67508856

WW

Since this morning's mess was likely concocted at the behest of the Client I am willing to bet that on this Morning Break Trump is back there offering "well that went well" and Blanche is pulling a Michael Cohen offering "No No No No No"

IMO that did not go well for the case and did not go well politically outside the courtroom either.

 

[SCrider]

"Tell us all the lurid details!"

Yeah, that's exactly what they shouldn't want. Trump supporters were miffed that she went into some detail the other day for actually a pretty good reason.

Tell us the lurid details of the thing our client says never happened. Seems like a strange tactic.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Possibly there will be a more definitive and legally defensible answer when the Defense presents its case. I have my doubts though.

I'm curious what that case could possibly consist of absent Trump testifying?

 

[Lutherf]

Tell us the lurid details of the thing our client says never happened. Seems like a strange tactic.

It's not all that strange if you pay attention to her prior interviews on the View, Anderson Cooper, etc. She described events substantively differently then as compared to what she described on Tuesday.

 

[Buckeyes85]

It's not all that strange if you pay attention to her prior interviews on the View, Anderson Cooper, etc. She described events substantively differently then as compared to what she described on Tuesday.

It's a good thing Trump will take the stand and straighten out all of the lies Ms. Daniels has told. And why he paid her $130k for a tryst that never occurred.

 

[trixare4kids]

Women who are not part of MAGA are "whores" and "skanks".

That's not what I wrote but I can see how someone like you would dishonestly change the context.

 

[Cardinal]

That whore is a lying sack of shit.

You clearly think that the guy you'll be voting for has bad taste in women.

 

[Buckeyes85]

You clearly think that the guy you'll be voting for has bad taste in women.

Yea, not a great defense:
I paid to have sex with this porn star;
Then I paid her 130k to keep the story quiet;
But she's a lying sack of shit, horse faced whore.

 

[US&THEM]

It's not all that strange if you pay attention to her prior interviews on the View, Anderson Cooper, etc. She described events substantively differently then as compared to what she described on Tuesday.

Did the facts change? Have you ever been under oath and testified?

 

[NWRatCon]

What's interesting about this case is really how routine it actually is. It's educational in that aspect. Most never get the chance to watch this in action, in real life, unless you've ever served on a jury.

The State has approached this case in a very professional, controlled manner. The defense has done what most defenses do, too. Because the burden is on the prosecution, they have to build their case specifically, ensuring that every element is covered, and usually, as here, the evidence comes in on a scrambled order - like those slide puzzles that the jury has to put together at the end. That's because we use each witness one at a time and their testimony may cover more than one issue. It's up to the prosecutor to put it together, to give them the instructions, at the end in their closing argument.

The defense's job is different. Surprisingly, in most cases they don't put on any witnesses at all, much less the Defendant. Their job is to identify reasonable doubts: to poke holes; provide alternate stories; to confuse the jury and make it seem more complicated or confusing than it actually is.

Both sides are doing their bit. We'll see which strategy prevails.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, question for the real lawyers here....

I was reading through transcripts and proceedings (no jury present) and sidebars (jury present but they can't hear) are in the transcripts.

If the jury requests transcripts as part of deliberation, or are they redacted to only the parts that the jury was allowed to hear or do they get to see all transactions on the record?

(I'm assuming not.)

WW

 

[Lutherf]

Did the facts change? Have you ever been under oath and testified?

When in the witness box you testify to feeling like you were drugged and not knowing what was going on and on a prior interview spoke about making out or recognizing the situation and thinking "I guess I should have expected this" then going along with the process that makes a LOT of difference. You are effectively telling the jury a different story than you told everyone else. Add that to the "hate Trump" and all the ways you tried to make money personally off the indictment then it speaks to a motive quite a bit beyond, "I just want the world to know the truth"

 

[Cardinal]

So, question for the real lawyers here....

I was reading through transcripts and proceedings (no jury present) and sidebars (jury present but they can't hear) are in the transcripts.

If the jury requests transcripts as part of deliberation, or are they redacted to only the parts that the jury was allowed to hear or do they get to see all transactions on the record?

(I'm assuming not.)

WW

I always thought that if an objection was sustained it would be stricken from the record, and that if the jury was meant to hear it they'd be present. And finally, if the judge wanted the jury to hear it, he'd say so when they came back.

At least that's been my assumption.

 

[WorldWatcher]

When in the witness box you testify to feeling like you were drugged ...

That is a misstatement. She said she was not on drugs and didn't insinuate she was on drugs.

WW

 

[911Sparky]

Did Stormy attend this morning?

I want to like this post 10 times!

 

[Buckeyes85]

So, question for the real lawyers here....

I was reading through transcripts and proceedings (no jury present) and sidebars (jury present but they can't hear) are in the transcripts.

If the jury requests transcripts as part of deliberation, or are they redacted to only the parts that the jury was allowed to hear or do they get to see all transactions on the record?

(I'm assuming not.)

WW

No, the jury never sees the sidebars.