The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today

[George K]

Oh, Ms. Daniels Clifford, were you lying then, or are you lying now?

[Jolly]

Point is, she lied. Publicly. Legally.

[Jolly]

I've said before, Trump would LOVE for this judge to jail him.

[jon-nyc]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Oh, Ms. Daniels Clifford, were you lying then, or are you lying now?

I think we all know the answer to that.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Point is, she lied. Publicly. Legally.

And Trump's telling the truth, presumably.

[Renauda]

@Doctor-Phibes said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Point is, she lied. Publicly. Legally.

And Trump's telling the truth, presumably.

Personally, I cannot imagine either one of them telling anything other than falsehoods. On any topic, in court under oath or out of court before the cameras. Lies and more damn lies. They simply don’t know any better.

[George K]

Remember, this trial isn't about sex. If that were the case we'd be talking about JFK Clinton. It's about an NDA, which somehow they've managed to contort into an election finance violation - even though the event occurred a decade before the election.

[Axtremus]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Remember, this trial isn't about sex. If that were the case we'd be talking about JFK Clinton. It's about an NDA, which somehow they've managed to contort into an election finance violation - even though the event occurred a decade before the election.

But act(s) of covering it up was committed during the election and allegedly campaign funds were used in the coverup.

[George K]

Covering it up is not a crime. THat's the exact definition of an NDA.

Yesterday, Trumps banker said that Trump knew nothing about where the funds were allocated from.

The "felony" part of this trial is that there was an election crime (funds diverted to cover up a crime). No crime has been adjudicated. Makes it difficult to tag a felony onto it, doesn't it?

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Never did, never will.

Exactly, and I think that is a problem.

(As Paul Ryan said today - character matters)

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

.....this trial isn't about sex

But in the public mind, it is. Though I dont think that this willl change anybodies (voters) mind one way or the other.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

(As Paul Ryan said today - character matters)

We're way past that. You're not wrong, of course, but people look at how things are going and say..."huh?"

But in the public mind, it is (about sex).

Why do you think that is? Perhaps because EVERY story refers to it as the "Hush Money Trial?" Again, there's nothing illegal about an NDA. Happens between people, corporations, etc. all the time.

Bragg has distorted it, as I mentioned it into something else.

REmember, the Feds declined this case years ago.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

(As Paul Ryan said today - character matters)

We're way past that. You're not wrong, of course, but people look at how things are going and say..."huh?"

But in the public mind, it is (about sex).

Why do you think that is? Perhaps because EVERY story refers to it as the "Hush Money Trial?" Again, there's nothing illegal about an NDA. Happens between people, corporations, etc. all the time.

Bragg has distorted it, as I mentioned it into something else.

REmember, the Feds declined this case years ago.

Because it is more "exciting".

Same reason most stories about President Biden's son's laptop start out with talking about the photos on there of him with drugs, prostitutes, etc.

[George K]

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Same reason most stories about President Biden's son's laptop start out with talking about the photos on there of him with drugs, prostitutes, etc.

That's right. Titilation always wins.

But, your analogy falls a bit short because the laptop contains evidence, or at least suggestions, of actual crimes.

Being naked with a hooker, snorting cocaine, while pulling her hair is probably not illegal (well, the cocaine part is). Documenting your father's participation in alleged bribery probably is.

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@George-K said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

(As Paul Ryan said today - character matters)

We're way past that. You're not wrong, of course, but people look at how things are going and say..."huh?"

But in the public mind, it is (about sex).

Why do you think that is? Perhaps because EVERY story refers to it as the "Hush Money Trial?" Again, there's nothing illegal about an NDA. Happens between people, corporations, etc. all the time.

Bragg has distorted it, as I mentioned it into something else.

REmember, the Feds declined this case years ago.

Because it is more "exciting".

Same reason most stories about President Biden's son's laptop start out with talking about the photos on there of him with drugs, prostitutes, etc.

Why do you think they put Stormy Weather on the stand today? Pure sensationalism.

Look, this is lawfare. Stormy is for electoral consumption. The trial is done simply for election interference. Bragg knows that if he doesn't get a conviction, he's kept Trump off the campaign trail and they've kept the sex aspect at the forefront . Even if he does get a conviction, it's going to be overturned...In two years Waaay after the election.

Lawfare. Election interference.

Just another day in TDS Land.

[taiwan_girl]

@George-K Agree. Just like having an affair with a pornographic actress is not a crime.

It is not the crime, but the coverup.

[Jolly]

What coverup?

[George K]

The judge might have committed a reversible error yesterday.

Remember, this is not about sex, this is about money that was allegedly used to secure an NDA and claim it was a "campaign expense."

Last week, Harvey Weinstein's trial was declared a mistrial because the state had women testify about what a loathsome creature Weinstein is. The problem is that these women were NOT part of the lawsuit. The appellate court ruled that their testimony was prejudicial, since they had nothing to do with the case at hand. Mistrial.

In the Trump case, the judge allowed Clifford to testify about her sexual encounter with Trump. He permitted it over the objections of the defense which asserted that the fact that Trump was in his underwear has nothing to do with campaign finance and had no probative value. It is salacious, tawdry and prejudicial. The objection was overruled.

However...after the jury was dismissed, the Merchan upbraided Bragg's counsel saying that this kind of testimony has nothing to do with the case and "we didn't need to hear about any of that."

But he allowed it, in front of the jury.

As the saying goes, you can't put the shit back into the horse.

As McCarthy said, "Merchan scolds prosecutors for doing what he allowed them to do."

California’s Minimum Wage Wipes Out Thousands of Jobs
Stormy Testimony Shows: Trump’s Humiliation Is the Point of Bragg’s Prosecution
For nothing more than the purpose of humiliating the Democrats’ political nemesis and their opponent in the 2024 presidential election, Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has proffered Stormy Daniels’s sensational story of a sexual encounter with Donald Trump in the unprecedented, media-saturated first-ever trial against a former U.S. president.

Trump’s lawyers objected to the testimony, which — as I’ve previously contended, here, here and here — is not relevant to the business-records falsification charges in the case. In particular, Team Trump strenuously objected to graphic details of the sexual encounter that Daniels claims she had with Trump in 2006. As we’ve come to expect, Judge Juan Merchan overruled Trump’s counsel.

But then, quite remarkably, after allowing the jury to hear the salacious testimony — a minute-by-minute account of the alleged tryst — Merchan had the jury leave the courtroom and proceeded to dress down the prosecutors for doing what he allowed them to do.

“I think the degree of detail we’ve been going into here is just unnecessary,” Merchan admonished Bragg’s assistants. Well, yeah, that’s why the defense objected. The judge’s job is to prevent inadmissible and/or unduly prejudicial evidence from being exposed to the jury — not to admit it and then whine about its admission.

On this point, New York’s governing test is set out in Rule 4.06 (“exclusion of relevant evidence”), which instructs a judge to forbid the introduction of evidence if its probative value is merely “outweighed” by the “danger” that it would “create undue prejudice to a party” or “confuse the issues and mislead the jury.” New York’s rule — at least if it is applied as written — is more favorable to criminal defendants than is the federal analogue, Rule 403, which directs that evidence be precluded only if such dangers as unfair prejudice and jury confusion “substantially outweigh” probative value.

[Jolly]

The judge knew what he was doing. The introduction of tawdry details is just political fodder and he knew it. He promoted it. Shucks, the whole trial is nothing but a political circus with everything but Tom Thumb thrown at the wall.

The finger-wagging at the prosecution is simply a little bit of face saving. Where do you go when you know you've gone too far?

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:

Why do you think they put Stormy Weather on the stand today?

Because Stormy is party to the hush money deal that is at the center of the allegations.
You should be surprised and suspicious if Stormy is not put on the stand.