Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

It seems as if Blanche will seek to convince the jury that everything that happened was appropriate and done by the book, not even worthy of notice. That Cohen was Trump’s lawyer, and he was paid for legal services. But he’ll also seek to distance his client from the matter: “President Trump had nothing to do with the invoice,” he says.


Blanche is not addressing any of the underlying claims by prosecutors so far, focusing strictly on the payment process.

 

Blanche downplays the 34 charges of falsfying records Trump faces as a “business records violation.”


He points toward the disparity between the $130,000 hush money payment and what was repaid to Cohen. He asks them, if Trump really was so frugal, would he have repaid Cohen so much? “This was not a payback,” he says, adding of Cohen: “He was President Trump’s personal attorney.”


“Ask yourself, would a frugal business man -- would a man who pinches pennies -- repay $130,000 debt to the tune of $420,000?”

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

And now, it's time for defense.  Batting first, Todd Blanche

 

Blanche highlights that Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence, which is something that some of his more heated critics sometimes lose sight of.


Blanche explains why they all call Trump “President Trump,” saying he’s earned it and it’s the office he’s held. Then he mentions that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee.

 

Todd Blanche is now up, with the defense's opening statement.

J
“President Trump is innocent,” are the first words of Blanche’s opening. ’President Trump did not commit any crimes.”


“He is cloaked in innocence,” Todd Blanche says of Trump

 

Blanche says that the prosecution told a “clean nice story,” but that it is not as simple as they would have the jury believe. He says that many of the documents in evidence are almost a decade old. The testimony, he suggests, is similarly old. And, he says, the story that jurors just heard “is not true.”

 

 

"Nuh uh! Thank you your honor." (sits down)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blanche makes it clear that the defense will continue to deny that Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels. I’m curious whether that will affect the plan for Daniels to testify; it had seemed to be up in the air, but the defense may have just opened the door for prosecutors to ask directly.

 

Prosecutors have objected three times during Blanche’s opening statement. Justice Merchan just called them to the bench.


The prosecution wins the objection and Blanche loses a little bit of his opening. He moves back to saying that there is “nothing illegal” about entering a nondisclosure agreement.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.a629116401cc0cbfb7e86d5eefa772ed.png

Two things from the defense presentation jump out at this layperson.

The choice of cloaked in innocence is odd to me. It suggests that though not innocent himself, Trump has a cloak of innocence protecting him. The idea of a cloak is most often associated with secrecy and deceit. Contrast it to, "He is innocent through and through." The usage just leapt out at me as a strange word choice for a carefully conceived presentation.

Second, the idea that evidence is too old to be valid made me laugh. I imagine a criminal appeal where the lawyer's argument is, "My client should be released! His signed confession is more than ten years old. You can't seriously consider that to be evidence!"

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if they don't result in convictions, this trial and others work as wonderful suppressive fire on Trump. For the uninitiated, that'd be something like a burst of machinegun fire on the general area of the enemy, where even if its unlikely to hit anything, it makes it harder for them to do anything back to you, and leaves you able to move easier.

die mothafucka die.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blanche equates the “catch-and-kill” scheme involving The National Enquirer, alleged by prosecutors, to ordinary editorial decisions made by newspapers.


Blanche is now trying to portray The National Enquirer’s practices as similar to how other news outlets operate, in terms of deciding when and how to publish a story. That is not correct.

 

Now Blanche turns to Stormy Daniels, who he says is also “biased” against Trump. He narrates their meeting, saying at the time, Trump was working on a very popular tv show called “The Apprentice.”


“Ms. Clifford has made a life off these communications,” Blanche says, attacking Daniels by her government name, Stephanie Clifford. He says the money she made from the Cohen payoff was pure opportunism on her part, and adds that she has made a lot more money since the story came out.


It certainly sounds as if Blanche expects Daniels to testify. He says that “her testimony, while salacious, does not matter,” arguing that she knew nothing about the actual crimes charged here.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The choice of cloaked in innocence is odd to me. It suggests that though not innocent himself, Trump has a cloak of innocence protecting him. The idea of a cloak is most often associated with secrecy and deceit. Contrast it to, "He is innocent through and through." The usage just leapt out at me as a strange word choice for a carefully conceived presentation.

Agree 100%

Might as well have just come out and said, "You can't prove that he did what he did."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 


theY just Need one person out of 12 to agree with them

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:


theY just Need one person out of 12 to agree with them

That just gets them a mistrial. They will re try the case and he will have to sit through all this again. At some point during one of these trials he is going to have an epic meltdown 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump.   When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury has nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Historically speaking, fascists really do their best work while in a comfortable jail cell surrounded by their friends. Sounds like a great fucking idea. 

How about we pick an American owned island in the pacific and drop him off, and have a one of those robot m donalds’ there to make his meals. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump.   When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury has nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.

I have always told every witness in every trial or deposition I’ve been in that as we start the proceedings, there is a bucket of credibility filled to the brim that goes with them.    when they are found to be lying, the bucket gets kicked over.   And usually all of the credibility spills out on the floor.   If the jury thinks you are lying, they normally do not care if you are lying 20% of the time or 60% of the time, they know you were lying.   

I’m not talking about normal memory impaired things like the exact time or day exact words, but I’m talking about lying about important things. You normally either have credibility or you don’t.  there is very likely a pattern jury instruction telling the jury that if they find a witness non-credible, they can disregard everything that person says in their testimony. Not 20%, not 40%, but all of their testimony.    

That seems like a rookie mistake, or something they had to say to please the boss   it may be the best thing we have going for us is Trump will direct parts of the trial.

I think it's probably an attempt to muddy what is meant by "influencing an election."  Like, portraying yourself in your best light is technically an attempt to influence an election (I'm a stable genius!).  Portraying your opponent in their most negative light is as well (sleepy Joe).  Attempting to influence an election also covers paying off a porn star to avoid talking about an affair, and likewise stoking an insurrection at the capitol to stop certification.

I think they are trying to equate what Trump did with regards to Stormy as nothing more than successful campaigning.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How about we pick an American owned island in the pacific and drop him off, and have a one of those robot m donalds’ there to make his meals. 

Or save a few bucks and shoot him against a wall?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

Well then all of these charges, indictments, and trials against Trump are just American patriots exercising their democratic right to influence elections.  So Trump can stop saying otherwise. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Trump supporters have united behind their man.

 

This drives a lot of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  The idea of Trump's machismo.

13 hours ago, tx ind said:

Every time there's a story of him running out of cash it's not surprising, the best part is what happens next.  You move to the anticipation of what the next grift will be, we've gotten sneakers, bibles, 5% cuts from down ballot folks, what's next?

Women of Trump calendar?  

30 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 

I wonder if they intend to use the "definition of sex" defense Clinton used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

internet what GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

the bond hearing is also going on. Here's where they are right now - meeting to see if they can reach a "settlement of sorts" on ensuring the bond collateral is kept in cash:

 

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

it was Trump's attorneys who made the suggested remedy. I think it was on them to make it work. Also I think that the original bond was designed so that Trump could find a way to get out of paying it but it didn't work.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

 

12 minutes ago, The Dog said:

it was Trump's attorneys who made the suggested remedy. I think it was on them to make it work. Also I think that the original bond was designed so that Trump could find a way to get out of paying it but it didn't work.

Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016

trumpco is doing all this to throw sand in the gears and delaydelaydelay. Of course trumpco could have handled this outside of court, but then it would have been neat and tidy and expedient and completely counterproductive to their desired outcomes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.eac7dff60fa3949d2da3194cfc5a29b7.png

Again, I'm a layperson, but I do know how to put together a rational argument. I think the assertion that Trump is influencing the statement is a sound one. If these are good lawyers, I'd be shocked if they created this statement in a vacuum.

Trump's basic defense against any accusation is to call the accuser a "never-Trumper." He's a never-Bidener, should we discount everything he says? I see strong Trump influence on that tack. I don't see myself using that as an argument. The "very popular tv show" also sounds like a Trump phrase as he is obsessed with ratings and lying about them.

Stormy made a life off these communications? She used "pure opportunism" to get Trump to fork over 6 figures? Huh? She's made money since on this story, so she must be evil. I still don't think that holds much sway in a trial. Who wouldn't cash in?

* I love this last sentence. She knew nothing about the actual crimes alleged here. Well, Blanche, she can confirm she got paid off and anything she may have witnessed indicating why.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Smax said:

I'm so tired of hearing his voice, bitching whining lying about being the victim here

I'M SO TIRED OF HEARING HIS VOICE, BITCHING WHINING LYING ABOUT BEING THE VICTIM HERE.

TRUTH!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

image.png.eac7dff60fa3949d2da3194cfc5a29b7.png

Again, I'm a layperson, but I do know how to put together a rational argument. I think the assertion that Trump is influencing the statement is a sound one. If these are good lawyers, I'd be shocked if they created this statement in a vacuum.

Trump's basic defense against any accusation is to call the accuser a "never-Trumper." He's a never-Bidener, should we discount everything he says? I see strong Trump influence on that tack. I don't see myself using that as an argument. The "very popular tv show" also sounds like a Trump phrase as he is obsessed with ratings and lying about them.

Stormy made a life off these communications? She used "pure opportunism" to get Trump to fork over 6 figures? Huh? She's made money since on this story, so she must be evil. I still don't think that holds much sway in a trial. Who wouldn't cash in?

* I love this last sentence. She knew nothing about the actual crimes alleged here. Well, Blanche, she can confirm she got paid off and anything she may have witnessed indicating why.

 

It reads to me like a typical opening statement when you have a weak case, you have to at least try to give the jury reasons to not believe the witnesses against the defendant. Saying that she is "biased" against Trump is consistent with ordinary jury instructions that the jury is to be the sole judge of credibility of a witness and can take any "biases" into consideration. He just needs one to buy into it for a mistrial but it does not read like an opening statement of a party that has a strong basis for acquittal. If Trump had written it, the term "whore" and "slut" would be all over it, regardless of legal rules or decorum.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client has never even met the plaintiff.  Well, maybe once or twice, I don't know, people say there are pictures.  Look, he meets a lot of people, ok? He's very popular and when you're popular everyone wants to meet you and get a picture and the flashes go off and it's like flash, pop, pop pop pop.  Like popcorn, right? All the popping and then you eat it and it's like you aren't eating anything at all, but it tastes so good.  So good.  But not the bailiff.  The bailiff, look, the bailiff, ahhhhhhh.   And the plaintiff.  Some very good people are saying that she isn't the plaintiff, but she is, and she isn't, she isn't even the defendant's type, and he never met her before.  Thank you."

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016

trumpco is doing all this to throw sand in the gears and delaydelaydelay. Of course trumpco could have handled this outside of court, but then it would have been neat and tidy and expedient and completely counterproductive to their desired outcomes. 

How many times do we have to tell you that the bond issue is not delaying anything. We understand your fever dream that this is a problem, but even after being told it’s not a problem you insist on saying the bond delays the appeal.  Just stop!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

This drives a lot of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  The idea of Trump's machismo.

Women of Trump calendar?  

I wonder if they intend to use the "definition of sex" defense Clinton used?

 

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

She has publicly described what his junk looks like, if he's going to deny sexual relations with her, it seems pretty obvious to me how to prove whether she's telling the truth, but please, please, please, no.

 

It wasn't sex b/c he's too small for actual penetration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 'stache said:

She has publicly described what his junk looks like, if he's going to deny sexual relations with her, it seems pretty obvious to me how to prove whether she's telling the truth, but please, please, please, no.

pubbeas chudus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...