Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

[wing2000]

When there is a concern that something the jury should not have heard reached the jury, they are asked by the judge if they are aware of it.

By the judge...now I understand. Thank you.

 

[camille70]

They polled the jury today to see how many saw Daniel’s post about testifying. I don’t know what the results were

The jury should have been sequestered.

 

[BPPLEE]

The jury should have been sequestered.

Yeah. I don’t think it’s going to be difficult to find reversible error in this case

 

[Pommer]

Yeah. I don’t think it’s going to be difficult to find reversible error in this case

Here’s hoping, huh?

 

[perplexed]

Daniels was a terrible witness for the prosecution, her testimony was not necessary to prove the charges, her credibility was destroyed during cross examination and the prosecution had to know this would happen. This seems more like an attempt to damage Trump than to get a conviction.

How was her credibility destroyed during cross examination ?

 

[BPPLEE]

How was her credibility destroyed during cross examination ?

She said she didn’t care about money she wanted to get the story out then admitted she took money to keep quiet about it, and has since profited greatly from selling her story. She admitted that she hates Trump and wants him to go to jail.
There were inconsistencies in the details when she has told the story.
She had dinner with Trump, then she didn’t really have dinner etc…
She talks to dead people (maybe she can use this talent to communicate with Biden) and chases ghosts

 

[Pommer]

She talks to dead people (maybe she can use this talent to communicate with Biden) and chases ghosts

Too bad the jury isn’t privy to this “information“.

 

[BPPLEE]

Too bad the jury isn’t privy to this “information“.

I thought it came out during testimony
”At one point, Trump attorney Susan Necheles said Daniels is a woman who has a “lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real.” The attorney cited Daniels’s experience writing adult films and working on a reality show that purports to talk to dead people’s relatives — suggesting that since those are made-up scenarios, Daniels also lied about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump.”

 

[SimplyMe]

I thought it came out during testimony
”At one point, Trump attorney Susan Necheles said Daniels is a woman who has a “lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real.” The attorney cited Daniels’s experience writing adult films and working on a reality show that purports to talk to dead people’s relatives — suggesting that since those are made-up scenarios, Daniels also lied about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump.”

That seems to be quite a stretch to claim that simply because someone writes fiction as a job that they believe their fiction is reality. By that logic, Ronald Reagan, and even Donald Trump, should never have been President since they both acted in fictional films, so must believe that fiction is real.

 

[wing2000]

I thought it came out during testimony
”At one point, Trump attorney Susan Necheles said Daniels is a woman who has a “lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real.” The attorney cited Daniels’s experience writing adult films and working on a reality show that purports to talk to dead people’s relatives — suggesting that since those are made-up scenarios, Daniels also lied about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump.”

...and her answer was classic:
"The sex was real, just as it was in that room"

 

[wing2000]

Daniels was all over the place....and the prosecution could have asked more pointed questions to keep her from her narratives. But the defense attorney was even worse, with the judge even calling her out for not objecting more. It seems the defense strategy was to let Daniels talk...and then try to have her dimissed as a witness. That obviously failed...and their lack of objejections will not server them well in a court of appeals....

 

[BPPLEE]

...and her answer was classic:
"The sex was real, just as it was in that room"

What does that have to do with the charges? Was that necessary to prove the charges?

 

[BPPLEE]

That seems to be quite a stretch to claim that simply because someone writes fiction as a job that they believe their fiction is reality. By that logic, Ronald Reagan, and even Donald Trump, should never have been President since they both acted in fictional films, so must believe that fiction is real.

I wasn’t talking about that. Just that she contradicted herself and there were inconsistencies in her story. And that it came out that she communicates with the dead

 

[BPPLEE]

Daniels was all over the place....and the prosecution could have asked more pointed questions to keep her from her narratives. But the defense attorney was even worse, with the judge even calling her out for not objecting more. It seems the defense strategy was to let Daniels talk...and then try to have her dimissed as a witness. That obviously failed...and their lack of objejections will not server them well in a court of appeals....

Sounds like spin to me. There hasn’t been any testimony that proves Trump is guilty of the charges yet as far as I can tell.

 

[ralliann]

Daniels was all over the place....and the prosecution could have asked more pointed questions to keep her from her narratives. But the defense attorney was even worse, with the judge even calling her out for not objecting more. It seems the defense strategy was to let Daniels talk...and then try to have her dimissed as a witness. That obviously failed...and their lack of objejections will not server them well in a court of appeals....

They objected to her testifying because she had nothing to testify about concerning a crime. Which she had no knowledge about the accounting of Donald trump. The Judge rejected to that objection. So what if they had sex or not? It is not illegal. So what if he paid here for non-disclosure, No crime there either. He did the same thing with a doorman, which accused him of fathering a child, Trump paid him as well. That was proved to be a lie. Wealthy people do that stuff all the time. It can be a form of extortion. But preferable in some cases to go through the courts, it's cheaper and easier.

 

[wing2000]

What does that have to do with the charges? Was that necessary to prove the charges?

What does the attorney's questioning her story have to do with the charges?

 

[wing2000]

Sounds like spin to me. There hasn’t been any testimony that proves Trump is guilty of the charges yet as far as I can tell.

It is strange the defense did not object to Daniel's comments more....

 

[BPPLEE]

What does the attorney's questioning her story have to do with the charges?

Credibility of the witness. Anyone who testifies can expect to be cross examined. The question is why was this witness there in the first place?
Whether Trump had sex or not has nothing to do with how he recorded payments to Cohen.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Credibility of the witness. Anyone who testifies can expect to be cross examined. The question is why was this witness there in the first place?
Whether Trump had sex or not has nothing to do with how he recorded payments to Cohen.

When the defense opens by alleging that the events that prompted those payments never happened, then establishing that there was reason for Trump (or his proxies) to pay off Stormy Daniels is relevant.

 

[BPPLEE]

When the defense opens by alleging that the events that prompted those payments never happened, then establishing that there was reason for Trump (or his proxies) to pay off Stormy Daniels is relevant.

It doesn’t matter if the allegations were true or not. Suppressing them to influence the election is the claim and then not recording them as campaign contributions. It makes no difference as far as the charges if Daniels story was true or not