I couldn’t find a thread just about this case, and thought we should have one since it’s Trump’s first criminal trial. He has to attend every day, as I understand it. Here is a quick reminder of what it’s about. His former lawyer Michael Cohen already went to prison for his involvement in this case.
Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (2 Viewers)
- Thread starterMT15
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
I've read that this is being directed by Trump himself with him wanting to embarrass or humiliate Daniels on the stand more than any sound legal reason
DaveXA
Well-known member
Offline
He's gonna end up with more egg on his face than hers with that strategy.
I would believe that. And it would be completely on brand for Trump to sabotage his defense by directing them to go ugly.
And Stormy's story isn't even the issue -- Trump isn't on trial for having sex with Stormy, it's not a "he said/she said" issue, he's on trial for falsifying records. It seems like it might be smarter to dismiss her importance and get her off the stand.
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
Not to mention that is was originally the defenses strategy to limit how much Daniels could talk about the extraneous details of their sexual encounter. They're going against their initial plan and pretty much eliminating any chance they have of appeal on this subject given how much detail they're going into with the questioning in their cross. They've certainly going a lot more into detail than the prosecution did.
This totally tracks with Trump's ego and need to disparage other people to the maximum amount possible when they oppose him though.
Again, totally on brand. I just read that the cross examination was longer than the direct.
And the bottom line is she got paid, whether or not her story was true, and the crime was in the record keeping, which she would have had no knowledge of. It seems the only questions should have been:
- "Did you negotiate directly with or receive money directly from Trump?" No.
- "So to your knowledge Michael Cohen handled everything, and could have been operating on his own?" Yes
- "And you have no knowledge of how Michael Cohen billed or was paid for his services or how these payments were classified for business purposes?" Yes
- "No further questions."
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Read where? I don't think anybody outside of the defense team knows that but it seems very expected to me. This is how I think a trial attorney would cross examine a witness like this in a case like this.
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Perhaps but the prosecution put her on and elicited quite a bit of testimony from her about it all. At minimum the defense wants to attack her credibility and make inferences about her motivations. I don't think the defense can soft play a witness like this.
And certainly the prosecution anticipated that, she's clearly prepared and seems to have done fairly well with it.
fooferdoggie
Well-known member
Offline
its not hard she is used to dealing with idiots.
It's in the CNN feed...
Live updates: Stormy Daniels finishes testifying in Donald Trump's hush money trial
Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial continues in New York. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
It's in the CNN feed...
Live updates: Stormy Daniels finishes testifying in Donald Trump's hush money trial
Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial continues in New York. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.www.cnn.com
That strikes me as pure speculation. It assumes that Trump's experienced criminal defense lawyers would have done something different but for Trump's anger . . . the cross examination seems like exactly what she should have expected it would be. I don't know, obviously, but I don't think this observer knows either, to what degree Trump's personal input is having on the nature of the cross examination.
The irony is that the news shows tonight are going to want to focus on Stormy, even though it's old news that she got paid and why she got paid, when then book keeper testifying after her will surely be a lot more relevant to the criminal charges.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
It wasn't the CNN article posted above but it was along similar lines
GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
I, too, saw several reports on TV for both current and former prosecutors and defense attorneys outlining what Chuck said about going after Stormy, but at this point is going overboard with the cross examination.
- Thread starter
- #482
OP
OP
MT15
Well-known member
Offline
She’s not a stupid person. I think the perception of people who work in porn is that they are too stupid to do anything else, which makes her being able to more than hold her own against Trump’s lawyer pretty satisfying.Trump's lawyer is doing everything she can run roughshod over Daniels and discredit her as much as possible, but from what I'm reading the blows don't seem to land all that well. Daniels seems pretty well equipped to handle them and scoring her own shots against Trump and his lawyer. I don't know how it's playing out in court to the jury, but she's holding up better under pressure than I would have thought.
=============="You're putting words in my mouth": Daniels and Necheles go back and forth about tweet
Donald Trump's attorney Susan Necheles asks Stormy Daniels if she said she'd be instrumental in putting Trump in jail.
"Show me where I said I’d be instrumental in putting President Trump in jail," Daniels responds.
The defense references a tweet from Daniels where she wrote: "Exactly! Making me the best person to flush the orange turd down."
Daniels responds, "I don't see instrumental or jail anywhere in that; you're putting words in my mouth."
"Pretty sure this is hyperbole, if somebody is going to call me a toilet ... I can say I’m going to flush somebody," Daniels says of the tweet.
Pushing her about the tweet, Necheles says, "You don't want to admit you meant President Trump." "Oh I absolutely meant — uh — Mr. Trump," Daniels says as she took a pause and didn't say" President" Trump.
Daniels says her effort to sell merchandise based on indictment is "not unlike Mr. Trump" himself
Stormy Daniels turned a question around to highlight Donald Trump's own efforts to sell merchandise based on his criminal indictment.
"You’re celebrating the indictment by selling things from your store?" Necheles asks.
"Not unlike Mr. Trump," Daniels responds.
Stormy Daniels being asked if she fabricated story about Trump
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels about her history making porn movies.
"You have a lot of experience of making phony stories about sex appear to be real," Necheles says.
"Wow," Daniels says with a pause. "That’s not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real just like what happened to me in that room."
They're sparring over whether Daniels made up the story with Donald Trump.
=================
"You're putting words in my mouth": Daniels and Necheles go back and forth about tweet
Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial continues in New York. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
On CNN they were talking a bit about this that people today view porn a lot differently than they did in the 80s and 90s
Lapaz
Well-known member
Offline
Whether her motivation was money, hatred for Trump, or anything else, her motivations don't seem to matter. I don't even understand why it matters whether she is credible, nor if she ever met Trump, because none of those affect whether Trump paid her, and then falsified the purpose of the payments. He paid the doorman for something that didn't happen, but he may not have falsified records for that. All that matters is that he knowingly falsified records to prevent the story from becoming public and whether that was politically motivated. Daniels' testimony is salacious and believable, but for legal purposes why does Daniels' motivations and credibility matter?
Bigdaddysaints
Well-known member
Offline
I'm waiting on a last ditch effort form the defense saying she was paid by the democrats to do it to set him and extort him ...lol
superchuck500
U.S. Blues
Offline
Trump “audibly cursed” during Daniels’s testimony. Also requested to amend the gag order to “respond” publicly to Daniels - judge denied. “The record speaks for itself” Judge Merchan said.
www.rawstory.com
Judge shuts down Trump's attempt to amend gag order: 'Track record speaks for itself'
New York Judge Juan Merchan refused a motion by former President Donald Trump's attorneys to amend the gag order against the former president on Thursday afternoon, reported MSNBC's Adam Klasfeld.Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued that the former president should be allowed to "respond publicly"...
www.rawstory.comCreate an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.