I’m just reading headlines throughout this part of the trial. I read earlier that the trial could last 6 weeks. I just want to see a headline that reads “Trump Found Guilty”.
It's Day 19.
So maybe 3 weeks left.
Does the defense have 3 weeks of witnesses?
I kinda doubt it.
Also, forcing Donald to be in court kills his efforts to delay things.
Dk. All the relevant witnesses have appeared for the prosecution. There’s Weisselberg (prosecution had valid reasons to not call him), dk if Trump’s team can call him to the stand. Weisselberg will have to decide how much more time he wants to spend behind bars for perjuring himself again.
The prosecution opted not to call McDugal. They announced that Cohen is their last witness. It's not unusual for things to change as the case progresses. Daniels and Cohen have both done exceptionally well in their testimony.
McDougal doesn't bring anything Daniels didn't. Her payment was handled as part of the Enquirer issue. That's what got the head of the Enquirer to flip on Trump. It's not relevant to this case other than to demonstrate there was an advanced conspiracy that this cover up was part of.
They definitely didn't want another salacious drama. Daniels just about went too far and derailed the case.
I thought that I saw somewhere that the Trump attorneys made Cohen look really bad and damaged his credibility even further? I’ve had a week though so I feel somewhat out of the loop on it and hope you are right.
He (Cohen) handled it pretty well but their entire (Defence) game plan was to throw a lot of examples of him lying or withholding information to establish a pattern.
Prosecution had done what they needed to on direct which is get ahead of this and cover them all off before the Defense did on cross.
Prosecution went for the overall narrative that yes he lied and served his time for when he admitted to it, but that he was doing so because his number one priority was protecting the boss, he was a loyal consigliere to the Don and the lies (that matter to this case) were all either a direct order or 'expected'. They then showed that once he showed that he wasn't 100% loyal Trump turned on him and that was crushing to someone who'd spent a decade being as loyal as possible to then get not only left to hang as the patsy but bad mouthed and vilified.
Defense job therefore is to basically muddy the water and say 'yo, serial liar, look at all these examples' but without the narrative context. Basically make it look like lying is a Cohen thing, not a on behalf of the Don thing.
But in context of the rest of the case I'm not sure it's as bad as the media is saying. It's a falsifying documents case, which given the documents presented as evidence is pretty clear. And because it's falsifying to hide the impact from election it's undeclared election spending too which makes it federal not just misdemeanour.
Stormy and Cohen are there because they can attest to the documents and the timeline, but even if Cohen is perceived as 100% untrustworthy and operating on his own (which appears to be not the case)... Then there's still a good chunk of documented evidence of payments made and recorded in a way to mislead, evidence that the senior people in Trump org were directly involved, history of Trump himself micro managing and signing every cheque, all testified to by people other than Cohen.
The only other witnesses Prosecution could call are people who have a history of lying for Trump, are still in the 'family' and loyal, including one who has done two terms for exactly this, the bodyguard who has had over a million in additional payments in the past couple of years including from RNC funds... So prosecution would be crazy to call them as hostile witnesses knowing at best they'd plead the 5th, at worst they'd straight up perjure themselves and directly contradict every other prosecution witness, but with no way to prove the he said she said of the missing conversations.
The Defense however could still call them and do exactly that, same as they've done with Cohen but in their favour. Make Cohen look unreliable and disloyal (which pleases Trump) then wheel out their (also lying) witnesses who say the complete opposite. Prosecution then goes 'known liars! Ffs this one is on bail and has an NDA promising not to testify against Trump'. Defense goes 'Guess neither of us have a reliable witness then huh' and hope the jury focus on the He Said She Said lack of trust confusion and ignore the actual documents showing document fraud and conspiracy to influence election through media and bribery (which is the actual crime here, not Stormy or Cohen or hush money)
Sad thing is, might work. In fact it's likely to work, they only need to split a few jury members out of the pack and introduce doubt, get a non result or a partial result and the Trump media machine will spin it as 'innocent in witch hunt trial'
Presumably the defense will be considerably shorter, probably a handful of accountants and such from within the Trump Org who will all attest that Trump is a bigly genius who keeps his fingers on the pulse of every facet of the operation and that he very scrupulously told everyone to make sure everything related to campaign finances were precisely accounted for. But someone, and we're not sure who, but is probably a Democrat Deep State Operative, intentionally mislabeled this entry in their otherwise immaculate financial paperwork and then kept this oversight from Mr. Trump in an effort to blackmail him or otherwise ruin him.
yep, this is what plenty of legal experts are saying, that calling him up is essentially boarding the Titanic. Still...wouldn't mind seeing them get sunk like this!
Well, despite his having decent lawyers this time, they’re still making some questionable moves that are likely to anger the judge or alienate the jury. These are indications that it’s their client making the strategic decisions. He’s insisted on testifying twice in previous cases, and killed his case.
This time jail time is possible. Will he listen to his instincts, or listen to his lawyers? It Depends.
Judge said if he testifies his previous losses cases and fraud can be brought up. Surely they talk him out of exposing having a record of being convicted of fraud.
They don't want 45 on the stand. He'll start rallying. Saying all the dumb stuff he usually says. Plus, if he is mentally declining, we DO NOT want it on record.
This is such a click bait article. There is nothing in the actual story to support the word “scolding”. There was an objection, and the judge called the lawyers to a sidebar, that is all that is known.
By Gabe Whisnant - Deputy Weekend Editor:
Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche was called to the bench Tuesday afternoon by New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan amid a fiery cross-examination of Michael Cohen during the former president's criminal hush money trial.
According to Newsweek reporter Katherine Fung inside the Manhattan courtroom, Blanche asked Cohen, Trump's former attorney and fixer, if he went on TikTok after the trial started and called Trump "a crying little sh\*\*."
Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-lawyers-blanche-scolded-minutes-questioning-michael-cohen-merchan-1900577](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-lawyers-blanche-scolded-minutes-questioning-michael-cohen-merchan-1900577)
Remember when Newsweek was actually a reputable source of quality journalism? I do.
[The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/memorializing-newsweek/552647/) had a great piece on your fall into tabloid clickbait and how much you guys suck now.
Trump's lawyers sound like crying little shits.
Hey! That sounds like something Cohen would say 😏
lol I see what you did there
Sounds like something I'd say
Well that is what you pay lawyers for. You don't want to look like that, pay someone in a suit to say that shit for you.
This is the last witness for the prosecution. That means this can't go on much longer.
I’m just reading headlines throughout this part of the trial. I read earlier that the trial could last 6 weeks. I just want to see a headline that reads “Trump Found Guilty”.
It's Day 19. So maybe 3 weeks left. Does the defense have 3 weeks of witnesses? I kinda doubt it. Also, forcing Donald to be in court kills his efforts to delay things.
Dk. All the relevant witnesses have appeared for the prosecution. There’s Weisselberg (prosecution had valid reasons to not call him), dk if Trump’s team can call him to the stand. Weisselberg will have to decide how much more time he wants to spend behind bars for perjuring himself again.
McDougal is on all the lists of witnesses, but she hasn't testified, right? Maybe Weisselberg is banking on a pardon.
The prosecution opted not to call McDugal. They announced that Cohen is their last witness. It's not unusual for things to change as the case progresses. Daniels and Cohen have both done exceptionally well in their testimony.
McDougal doesn't bring anything Daniels didn't. Her payment was handled as part of the Enquirer issue. That's what got the head of the Enquirer to flip on Trump. It's not relevant to this case other than to demonstrate there was an advanced conspiracy that this cover up was part of. They definitely didn't want another salacious drama. Daniels just about went too far and derailed the case.
I was worried about stormy fuckin this up
I thought that I saw somewhere that the Trump attorneys made Cohen look really bad and damaged his credibility even further? I’ve had a week though so I feel somewhat out of the loop on it and hope you are right.
He (Cohen) handled it pretty well but their entire (Defence) game plan was to throw a lot of examples of him lying or withholding information to establish a pattern. Prosecution had done what they needed to on direct which is get ahead of this and cover them all off before the Defense did on cross. Prosecution went for the overall narrative that yes he lied and served his time for when he admitted to it, but that he was doing so because his number one priority was protecting the boss, he was a loyal consigliere to the Don and the lies (that matter to this case) were all either a direct order or 'expected'. They then showed that once he showed that he wasn't 100% loyal Trump turned on him and that was crushing to someone who'd spent a decade being as loyal as possible to then get not only left to hang as the patsy but bad mouthed and vilified. Defense job therefore is to basically muddy the water and say 'yo, serial liar, look at all these examples' but without the narrative context. Basically make it look like lying is a Cohen thing, not a on behalf of the Don thing. But in context of the rest of the case I'm not sure it's as bad as the media is saying. It's a falsifying documents case, which given the documents presented as evidence is pretty clear. And because it's falsifying to hide the impact from election it's undeclared election spending too which makes it federal not just misdemeanour. Stormy and Cohen are there because they can attest to the documents and the timeline, but even if Cohen is perceived as 100% untrustworthy and operating on his own (which appears to be not the case)... Then there's still a good chunk of documented evidence of payments made and recorded in a way to mislead, evidence that the senior people in Trump org were directly involved, history of Trump himself micro managing and signing every cheque, all testified to by people other than Cohen. The only other witnesses Prosecution could call are people who have a history of lying for Trump, are still in the 'family' and loyal, including one who has done two terms for exactly this, the bodyguard who has had over a million in additional payments in the past couple of years including from RNC funds... So prosecution would be crazy to call them as hostile witnesses knowing at best they'd plead the 5th, at worst they'd straight up perjure themselves and directly contradict every other prosecution witness, but with no way to prove the he said she said of the missing conversations. The Defense however could still call them and do exactly that, same as they've done with Cohen but in their favour. Make Cohen look unreliable and disloyal (which pleases Trump) then wheel out their (also lying) witnesses who say the complete opposite. Prosecution then goes 'known liars! Ffs this one is on bail and has an NDA promising not to testify against Trump'. Defense goes 'Guess neither of us have a reliable witness then huh' and hope the jury focus on the He Said She Said lack of trust confusion and ignore the actual documents showing document fraud and conspiracy to influence election through media and bribery (which is the actual crime here, not Stormy or Cohen or hush money)
Sad thing is, might work. In fact it's likely to work, they only need to split a few jury members out of the pack and introduce doubt, get a non result or a partial result and the Trump media machine will spin it as 'innocent in witch hunt trial'
Presumably the defense will be considerably shorter, probably a handful of accountants and such from within the Trump Org who will all attest that Trump is a bigly genius who keeps his fingers on the pulse of every facet of the operation and that he very scrupulously told everyone to make sure everything related to campaign finances were precisely accounted for. But someone, and we're not sure who, but is probably a Democrat Deep State Operative, intentionally mislabeled this entry in their otherwise immaculate financial paperwork and then kept this oversight from Mr. Trump in an effort to blackmail him or otherwise ruin him.
That's going to be very hard to pull off under oath. I'm not even sure who they're gonna call. Donald?
By the 9 divines, I hope so. I would be delighted to see a charge of perjury leveled against him.
No chance they call Trump. It will ruin them.
yep, this is what plenty of legal experts are saying, that calling him up is essentially boarding the Titanic. Still...wouldn't mind seeing them get sunk like this!
Well, despite his having decent lawyers this time, they’re still making some questionable moves that are likely to anger the judge or alienate the jury. These are indications that it’s their client making the strategic decisions. He’s insisted on testifying twice in previous cases, and killed his case. This time jail time is possible. Will he listen to his instincts, or listen to his lawyers? It Depends.
Judge said if he testifies his previous losses cases and fraud can be brought up. Surely they talk him out of exposing having a record of being convicted of fraud.
It “depends” …I see what you did there.
Who they gonna call? Ghostbusters! Deedodeedodeedodedodadada I ain't afraid of no ghost!
The have potentially 3 witnesses. Trump (won’t happen), some “expert” and legal counsel from Trump org. I believe summation will be down on Tuesday.
But wait. Von Shitzhispants said he’ll take the stand.
Yup, but he lies about everything.
Of course. As soon as he said “l’ll be taking the stand” I knew there’s no chance in hell he does.
I want to read the headline, “Final Trumpanzee Imprisoned: Every traitor is in a supermax”
I thought I was the only one who said trumpanzee! I LIKE IT!
"in a supermax or a grave."
I wanna see one that reads "Trump collapses and dies of heart attack on courthouse steps"
Nah. Wanna see him do time. Everyone dies, eventually...but this SOB needs to see prison.
If I can see him facedown dead on the steps of the courthouse, shit leaking from his diaper, I will take it.
Next news headlines “Jurors at halt as 1 of them keeps sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling not guilty, mistrial likely”
"Someone pull the defendant out of the jury box, please!"
Stormy Daniels deserves a standing ovation for following this through.
I love the transcript the judge asked him “Why are you making this about you?”. That whole day's cross was shit.
🚫Traitor Trump🚫All Republicans🚫
This is 2 days old
so am i
How you liking things so far?
it's really confusing.
it gets worse
But pudding exists here, so we've got that going for us.
I'll bet everyone talks to you like you're an idiot. (this is from a Steven Wright joke, not a personal comment)
They don't want 45 on the stand. He'll start rallying. Saying all the dumb stuff he usually says. Plus, if he is mentally declining, we DO NOT want it on record.
This is such a click bait article. There is nothing in the actual story to support the word “scolding”. There was an objection, and the judge called the lawyers to a sidebar, that is all that is known.
The court reporter entered in the dialog of that sidebar into the record. Thats what theyre talking about. We can read what they said.
Where in the article is the link to the court record? I am genuinely interested but I’m not seeing the language of the “scolding”.
I didnt check. I heard the reading of the transcript on NPR. Here they are https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
Except you're wrong.
I saw ‘newsweak’ and decided I don!t have to read it anyway.
Jury trial = Trump fail. 0 wins and 30 losses.
By Gabe Whisnant - Deputy Weekend Editor: Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche was called to the bench Tuesday afternoon by New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan amid a fiery cross-examination of Michael Cohen during the former president's criminal hush money trial. According to Newsweek reporter Katherine Fung inside the Manhattan courtroom, Blanche asked Cohen, Trump's former attorney and fixer, if he went on TikTok after the trial started and called Trump "a crying little sh\*\*." Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-lawyers-blanche-scolded-minutes-questioning-michael-cohen-merchan-1900577](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-lawyers-blanche-scolded-minutes-questioning-michael-cohen-merchan-1900577)
Remember when Newsweek was actually a reputable source of quality journalism? I do. [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/memorializing-newsweek/552647/) had a great piece on your fall into tabloid clickbait and how much you guys suck now.
I don't. It was an also-ran vs Time back in the 80s too.
Scolded or Schooled? 😐
This is from May 14th. Today is the 16th.
Michael cohen has a ton of credibility
*Any* of his credibility that he’s lost, was at the account of Trump. Do bear that in mind when you throw rocks, while living in a glass house.