Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (9 Viewers)

[MT15]

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.

 

[coldseat]

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?

I think her credibility matters only in the sense that if the jury accepts her claim of having had sex with Trump, then that increases Trump's motive to pay to cover it up and lie about it on his financial statements. So it really goes to Trump's motives. If the defense is successful in getting the jury to believe that she lied about it and it was more of an extorsion plot, then maybe Trump's motives were different or weren't as clear.

 

[DaveXA]

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?

While I completely agree, I do think weakening her credibility is more about trying to curry sympathy with the jury and put doubt in their minds about why the payment was made. Jurors can be swayed, and defense attorneys will do what they can to sway them. Of course, overdoing it can end up hurting the defense as well, so they would need to proceed carefully. I feel like the defense spent way too much time in cross. I don't know how the jury would judge that tho.

 

[superchuck500]

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?

Because if jurors are asked to listen to listen to a person’s testimony, the person’s credibility and motivation are always at issue - it is fundamental that if they are asked to believe something, they have to decide if it is credible. And parties are allowed to attempt to bolster or attack the witness’s credibility.

Any witness on the stand is subject to a credibility examination by the parties.

 

[FullMonte]

I don't understand why (well, I do actually understand why) Trump's team didn't simply object to Stormy before testimony, and offer to stipulate that she and Trump had sex on one occasion, in 2006, at whatever location it was in exchange for the prosecution agreeing to stipulate that she was never contacted by Donald Trump about any payment. That would have removed the need to have her testify.

 

[MT15]

Daniels' testimony is salacious and believable, but for legal purposes why does Daniels' motivations and credibility matter?

The only thing I can think of is that if the story seems believable and reflects badly on Trump (and it does both of these things) it provides the motive to suppress the story. It shows why Trump would be so desperate to prevent it coming out after the Access Hollywood tape, that he would falsify business records.

 

[MT15]

They are saying now that Trump’s team is again arguing for a mistrial due to the salacious nature of her testimony, saying it has tainted the jury against Trump. They said on TV that the prosecution offered to submit to the court under seal a document of the actual salacious details about their encounter that they have refrained from using. lol.

and the judge has denied their motion for a mistrial.

 

[fooferdoggie]

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.

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.com

sure just let me call her names no big deal. what a asshat.what he is afraid of jail? I thought he said he would welcome it?

 

[Lapaz]

I think her credibility matters only in the sense that if the jury accepts her claim of having had sex with Trump, then that increases Trump's motive to pay to cover it up and lie about it on his financial statements. So it really goes to Trump's motives. If the defense is successful in getting the jury to believe that she lied about it and it was more of an extorsion plot, then maybe Trump's motives were different or weren't as clear.

He paid the doorman that claimed he had a bastage child, and that wasn't true, so why wouldn't he pay Daniels, whether true or not? He has a track record of paying regardless of the truth. What matters is that the payments were politically motivated, so he falsified the purpose of the payments in his taxes to hide that he had broken campaign laws. That doesn't hinge on whether the Daniels story is true or not. He could do that for a false story and it would still be illegal. To me Daniels is just a sideshow, and her character isn't relevant to his guilt.

 

[Booker]

They are saying now that Trump’s team is again arguing for a mistrial due to the salacious nature of her testimony, saying it has tainted the jury against Trump. They said on TV that the prosecution offered to submit to the court under seal a document of the actual salacious details about their encounter that they have refrained from using. lol.

and the judge has denied their motion for a mistrial.

 

[DaveXA]

Looks like the defense is gonna make it SOP to request a mistrial. Lol.

 

[J-DONK]

He paid the doorman that claimed he had a bastage child, and that wasn't true, so why wouldn't he pay Daniels, whether true or not? He has a track record of paying regardless of the truth. What matters is that the payments were politically motivated, so he falsified the purpose of the payments in his taxes to hide that he had broken campaign laws. That doesn't hinge on whether the Daniels story is true or not. He could do that for a false story and it would still be illegal. To me Daniels is just a sideshow, and her character isn't relevant to his guilt.

I have no idea why they spent so much time on her. What Daniels did with Trump doesn't matter. All that matters is that she signed an NDA when Trump was running for office, and for events that happened over a decade earlier.

 

[Lapaz]

While I completely agree, I do think weakening her credibility is more about trying to curry sympathy with the jury and put doubt in their minds about why the payment was made. Jurors can be swayed, and defense attorneys will do what they can to sway them. Of course, overdoing it can end up hurting the defense as well, so they would need to proceed carefully. I feel like the defense spent way too much time in cross. I don't know how the jury would judge that tho.

There are 2 attorneys on the jury, and I think they will realize that her honesty is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that she got paid, and then Trump committed crimes to cover that up. That could've been proven with a paper trail, so I don't think her testimony was needed at all. It's very interesting, and I'm glad she testified, but I don't think it should change anything.

 

[fooferdoggie]

They are saying now that Trump’s team is again arguing for a mistrial due to the salacious nature of her testimony, saying it has tainted the jury against Trump. They said on TV that the prosecution offered to submit to the court under seal a document of the actual salacious details about their encounter that they have refrained from using. lol.

and the judge has denied their motion for a mistrial.

Man I think those lawyers have never been to court before. or just are just puppets of the idiot puppet master.

 

[efil4]

LOL so now it comes to light that TRump would receive blank checks at the White House from the Trump Org to sign for bill payments


AFTER he said he had "divested" all interest in the Trump Org.


Keep peeling that onion law dogs....love it.

 

[Lapaz]

The only thing I can think of is that if the story seems believable and reflects badly on Trump (and it does both of these things) it provides the motive to suppress the story. It shows why Trump would be so desperate to prevent it coming out after the Access Hollywood tape, that he would falsify business records.

I agree that that is the most useful element of Daniels' testimony. I think the defense used Daniels to irritate Trump and to make him less sympathetic. Whether the story was true or not, he would've been desperate to suppress the story, since it was within a couple of weeks of the election, and shortly following Access Hollywood. At the time, I think a lot of women could've gotten paid if they had come forward with claims.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't understand why (well, I do actually understand why) Trump's team didn't simply object to Stormy before testimony, and offer to stipulate that she and Trump had sex on one occasion, in 2006, at whatever location it was in exchange for the prosecution agreeing to stipulate that she was never contacted by Donald Trump about any payment. That would have removed the need to have her testify.

Yeah that’s clearly a big question - and another example of how Trump’s way of doing things is bad for his own interests. He’s a walking case study in self-destructive behavior - yet millions see him as a talented leader. It’s so crazy

 

[superchuck500]

Judge Merchan is now responsible for the “death of New York City”

 

[superchuck500]

They are saying now that Trump’s team is again arguing for a mistrial due to the salacious nature of her testimony, saying it has tainted the jury against Trump. They said on TV that the prosecution offered to submit to the court under seal a document of the actual salacious details about their encounter that they have refrained from using. lol.

and the judge has denied their motion for a mistrial.

And on the basis that Trump’s team didn’t object and then went back over it on cross.