Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Juan Merchan, the judge, has asked Daniels, who is on a long digression, to slow down

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

Posted
22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Look, I tried to explain the ex post facto issue. High school civics anyone? And I remind you that this is criminal contempt.   That means the full force of all the constitutional protections afforded a criminal defendant are in play in a criminal  contempt proceeding- including any ex post facto issues - and absolutely including the fact that you’re looking at the highest bar possible, beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that you want Trump in jail more than you want his hopeful conviction(s) to be upheld is a bit shortsighted. 

You are acting like the guy carrying a torch because little Debbie’s rapist murderer got off “on a technicality.” The fact that the technicality is a bad chain of custody, and without enforcing that law the entire criminal justice system would be polluted by corrupt cops and DAs planting evidence (which is more important to the system and the nation than convicting Lil Debbie’s murderer) does not occur to people when emotions are rightfully inflamed. Like little Debbie‘s father I want the guy in prison for life - or dead. But Lawyer Ubet understands that chain of custody is far more important.. 

I get that because you are not a lawyer you miss a bunch of the competing nuances of law and procedure and prisoners rights - and statutes and case law governing a trial court’s ability to impose criminal sanctions - and the court’s desire to protect innocent jurors and court employees from MAGA fanatics - and a judge who was put on a novel criminal case with an ex President wanting to do everything within his power to protect the chance of a verdict being overturned on appeal.   I get that you want a simple black-and-white resolution to the shit stain that is Donald Trump on trial. I get it. Everyone gets it.  And I also get that you think everything is simple.

I wish that the practice of law was as simple as ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’.   I hate to break it to you, but that simplistic catch phrase would exclude, for example, legitimate defenses like constitutional challenges to statutes (or gag orders) being vague and/or over-broad.   You wanting to dumb it down to simple black-and-white choices does not make it so.

Now, regarding the corrupt SCOTUS, I’d like to borrow that torch…

Meh, Wildcat understood my layman's perspective much better.  Let me liken it to something else.  A while ago, the NCAA dragged their ass for 2 years to decide if Aaron Ross was allowed him to be eligible to play football at UT.  A few weeks before the 2005 Title Game, the NCAA holds an emergency meeting to decide if Matt Leinart can play football in the title game.     This is the type of shit that causes people to question the organization's integrity.

I do not doubt there are reasons for what they are doing.  I also think the optics are horrible.   You see this as them trying to dot the i's and cross the t's, and I see it as them treating this case like something else.   Let me defer to David Chappelle's more humorous perspective on it:

Quote

 

 

Posted

And this manly Corinthian, straight of central stone-casting, says to me.  With tears in his eyes.  He says, "Sir, what is your favorite letter of St. Paul to my peoples?"  And like Michael Bolton, I say to him...I say, "Oh, I like them all about the same I guess."  And he laughed heartily, and I did as well, as he said, "Oh Mr. President.  That's funny, I have the exact same problem."  

Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

If you've read francisco's summaries she has been speaking very quickly all day, rendering her hard to understand and has been making it hard for the court reporter to keep up. 

Posted
49 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

ohhhh fuuuuuck youuuuu

 

If ever there was a man more deserving of the title "National Ass-Clown" I'd be surprised.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

If you've read francisco's summaries she has been speaking very quickly all day, rendering her hard to understand and has been making it hard for the court reporter to keep up. 

Right but he also is admonishing the her and the prosecution for elaborating a questions asked and sustaining a lot of objections. Seems like a pearl clutcher

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
26 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, me. Among others. Millions of others negatively affected by her stupid and selfish decision. 

I went ahead and bolded the part where you sound exactly like every single Trumpkin moron in America since you can't see it in yourself. 

Come on now, the guy is from Ohio, and you're surprised he's got some right leaning take? It's a miracle he's where he is at politically to begin with..cut the guy some slack ok I can't even finish typing the sentence with a straight face. 

5 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

If ever there was a man more deserving of the title "National Ass-Clown" I'd be surprised.  

I can think of about 12 off the top of my head, easy. Becuase he pushed through support for Ukraine. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

And hubris by RBG and fuck off if you want to excuse her

I will happily fuck off.   I don't know why she clung to it, I don't know if she had her wits about her at the time.  She praised Kavanaugh as fast as she possibly could for surrounding himself with all women, especially after that hearing of his when his accuser came forth.   Either way, her judgement was fucking awful and underscores another issue with our government.  

Posted
36 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hang up your scalpel, doc. I’ve decided you’re too old to practice. That should be my decision and not yours, right?

i get the arguments. It’s easy to armchair QB the topic. But we have rights and freedoms in this country and RBG was totally within hers. If she only could’ve held on for a few more months.

Or better yet, if McConnell wasn’t a scurrilous, hypocritical scumbag. That’s the bigger issue. Ginsberg was a great person. McConnell is a massive piece of shit whom I can’t wait to talk about in the past tense. He deserves to die. She didn’t. C’est la vie. 

Surgeon's ability to practice medicine are subject to approval by others, specifically hospital credentialing committees and licensing boards.  These privileges must by routinely renewed at which time their competencies are reviewed. Doctors are often forced into retirement in this way.  If Sawz decides he wants to perform surgery into his 80's, the credentialing committee must approve this.  If he fucks up and harms a patient, not only he, but entire hospital board and the members of that committees are subject to not just criticism, but significant legal action.  

RBG may have been a great person, but she fucked up, fucked a lot of people in the process, and it is rightfully a  stain on her legacy. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

He fell asleep again this afternoon.

 

You know, a lot of people are saying it was a perfect nap, maybe manliest nap of all time.  I don't know, but that's what they're saying.  Sleepy Joe Biden was never man enough to take a nap in public while facing almost a hundred felony charges, believe me.

 

  • Haha 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

He fell asleep again this afternoon.

He probably came in his pants listening to the recounting of his little meenus getting the Stormy action and it's hard to stay awake after that.

  • Haha 4
Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

 

You know, a lot of people are saying it was a perfect nap, maybe manliest nap of all time.  I don't know, but that's what they're saying.  Sleepy Joe Biden was never man enough to take a nap in public while facing almost a hundred felony charges, believe me.

 

Two double quarter pounders and a large fry will put you in rest and digest mode though. I hated having early lunch in HS. Guaranteed to sleep through 4th period

Posted

Did any of you guys see the Stormy documentary on Peacock?

I believe the things she said about Trump and all the shit she’s gone through, but something about her (no pun intended) rubbed me the wrong way when I really wanted to like her for standing up to Trump. 

Spoiler

SPOILER: Halfway through the documentary she admits to having an affair with the filmmaker and her husband files for divorce. Her husband is also pissed she kept him in the dark about her whole involvement in the Trump scandal that was about to explode in the media. Her mother also berates her for lying about being mistreated as a child in an interview.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

If you go back and read Brisket's post from the other day, the decision making fits.  The judge is protecting this record from appeal.  Assuming that the fact they had sex is relevant, I'm not sure there's any contrary evidence to that fact in evidence.  To the extent that's the case, any details about the encounter would only serve to bolster the veracity of her testimony.  But such details, inasmuch as they are salacious, might also be considered under the rules of evidence to be prejudicial to the point that such prejudice would outweigh their relevance to the issues in the case, which could be a potential ground for appeal that the judge wisely is trying to head off.  At this point, they got plenty in, and don't let the cries from the media that the judge "chided her" about staying on track.  That happens plenty, and it's unlikely to sway a jury.  

 

Now, if they challenge her veracity on cross or if Trump takes the stand and denies anything happened, it possibly opens the door for the rest of the story.

 

TLDR, this isn't a case of Ward being a little hard on the Beaver.  This is a judge who believes Trump is going to lose and who is protecting this record from reversible error.

 

And, of course, we all want to see Trump dragged down with this testimony.  But, ultimately, letting it get too bad may help him on appeal.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Did any of you guys see the Stormy documentary on Peacock?

I believe the things she said about Trump and all the shit she’s gone through, but something about her (no pun intended) rubbed me the wrong way when I really wanted to like her for standing up to Trump. 

  Hide contents

SPOILER: Halfway through the documentary she admits to having an affair with the filmmaker and her husband files for divorce. Her husband is also pissed she kept him in the dark about her whole involvement in the Trump scandal that was about to explode in the media. Her mother also berates her for lying about being mistreated as a child in an interview.

 

She's an over-the-hill porn star; you were expecting Gandhi? 

  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
Posted
Quote

We just witnessed something that felt like a grade school back-and-forth. Susan Necheles gets Stormy Daniels to acknowledge she had mocked Trump’s looks on Twitter, and Daniels replies, “Because he made fun of me first.” Necheles says that one of them started it, but “you both continued it.”

 

That's our Donald! 

Posted
10 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

She's an over-the-hill porn star; you were expecting Gandhi? 

I wanted to like her personality even if she’s not a saint.

Posted
35 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Eww

 

so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Surgeon's ability to practice medicine are subject to approval by others, specifically hospital credentialing committees and licensing boards.  These privileges must by routinely renewed at which time their competencies are reviewed. Doctors are often forced into retirement in this way.  If Sawz decides he wants to perform surgery into his 80's, the credentialing committee must approve this.  If he fucks up and harms a patient, not only he, but entire hospital board and the members of that committees are subject to not just criticism, but significant legal action.  

And the physician's professional liability carrier also has a say regarding whether they continue covering an aging physician.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened

That's a good point, but It might be admissible as some sort of same transaction contextual evidence?  I get that that's more of a 404(b) (in Texas) exception and it still has to be relevant.  But saying it's not relevant leads us to a story where, once upon a time, Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels to sign a nondisclosure agreement about nothing.  The idea that their having sex isn't relevant is the type of technically-accurate discussion that makes people dislike lawyers.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 minute ago, Nivek said:

Is that not normal?

Some time ago, I wrote that gamesmanship in litigation is common.  So, yeah, to an extent.  The better question is, is it right?  Situationally, here we love it.  Elsewhere, maybe not so much.

It becomes problematic when a win at all costs mentality in litigators, particularly criminal prosecutors, makes them lose sight of any notion of actual justice.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Is that not normal?

Yes.  But imagine a scale.  Only relevant evidence is admissible, and all evidence is prejudicial.  But to be admissible, the evidence's relevance cannot be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

Isn't her story relevant to motive?  Her testimony is what she would have said in October 2016 but Trump wanted to avoid it being public because of the election.  He paid her off for campaign reasons and that's where all this goes.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

That's a good point, but It might be admissible as some sort of same transaction contextual evidence?  I get that that's more of a 404(b) (in Texas) exception and it still has to be relevant.  But saying it's not relevant leads us to a story where, once upon a time, Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels to sign a nondisclosure agreement about nothing.  The idea that their having sex isn't relevant is the type of technically-accurate discussion that makes people dislike lawyers.

I think here, but am not privy to the sidebars, that whether Daniels was a blackmailer or just had a story to bury, true or not, remains an issue.  So, her credibility is at stake.  So, according to the prosecution, she should be able to discuss her dealings with Trump from beginning to end.  Probably about the same thing, but I'm not that familiar with the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

Did Trump stipulate that the payment occurred and the reason for it? If not, isn't it relevant to show the transaction occurred and why it occurred? Further, isn't it relevant beyond credibility of the witness as it goes to his motive to pay her off and hide the nature of the payment? 

Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

Did Trump stipulate that the payment occurred and the reason for it? If not, isn't it relevant to show the transaction occurred and why it occurred? Further, isn't it relevant beyond credibility of the witness as it goes to his motive to pay her off and hide the nature of the payment? 

Yeah could be that.  This stuff gets fairly nuanced.

But the fact that it's highly prejudicial to Trump I think is what Merchan is on edge about and doesn't want too many gory deets coming in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I hope I'm not stepping on Francisco's toes, but the back-and-forth is a little spicy. I think I've got it in the right order.

image.png.87a6c58b058d2160508293382c7ad825.png

image.thumb.png.1dfbbc7cb07a9a6e875c1f0704cefe69.png

image.png.9613eb60156a85eb20381edff391107a.png

image.png.b5f61c0413967e78ac2c14be2ad1bb1c.png

image.png.450bb45592a4be931723952fb5762849.png

image.png.802af63ea230a58fa091e0017f5a7a60.png

image.png.281fc0723f24ece65361e9433e58e13b.png

image.png.9bc4cc4e0ba5959293a8d8fb6b3676ee.png

image.png.9a2f8e371df7093356431cb7c264daff.png

image.png.eebf09e96dd80d7cdef17c050493571b.png

image.png.4c8ebd54623112f3b56e9970c589cec0.png

image.png.87aa06a5c0bebe7947205e2852907b3f.png

 

atta-girl-9to5.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Just browsed through some of that above, and it looks to me that Judge Merchan's primary objection is on the issue of consent, which makes sense, because the claim isn't about rape necessarily, and it could be prejudicial (set aside what we know of trump the person, in the context of trial, it makes sense). I also saw that the Judge "admonished" defense counsel for not objecting more, and their response was that they tried to exclude a bunch of the testimony pre-trial, but the judge let it in. That's about the most competent thing I've seen from his lawyer. I've been in that position as well. Judge gives you very ill defined limitations, but if you cross the line that is known only in the judge's mind, the judge gets mad and turns out you. I've experienced it mostly when it comes to expert witnesses in civil trials, very difficult to navigate. The rest looks like attacking her credibility and motives (money), all seems in bounds, but in line with having a pretty weak case on the facts. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably about the same thing, but I'm not that familiar with the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.

Same as the civil rules.  Relevance is relevance.  They're cross-examining her over whether she had sex with Trump.  So the relevance of that testimony is now cumulative and any argument of error by Trump as to the admissibility of that fact (not the remaining details) would seem to be nugatory.  

Edited by dcbc
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hang up your scalpel, doc. I’ve decided you’re too old to practice. That should be my decision and not yours, right?

I hope to have the self awareness to know when to hang it up. But as mentioned above there are safeguards at the hospital and state medical board and specialty board level that prevent for the most part as several have pointed out. Two things can be true, that she had every right to continue until she dropped dead, and that it was an incredibly selfish and harmful act that will affect generations of Americans

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

While waiting for more updates, here's a Stormy-Donny timeline they've just added. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, but it's more content for you thirsty bastards.

Quote

 

A look at the history between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump.

Nearly two decades after Stormy Daniels and Donald J. Trump met in Nevada, they met face to face again in a Lower Manhattan courtroom in the first criminal trial against a former United States president.

Here is a timeline of their history:

July 2006
Mr. Trump attended the American Century Celebrity Golf Tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nev., where Wicked Pictures, the production company whose adult films she starred in, had set up a booth.

According to Ms. Daniels, the two met at the event, had dinner and then consensual sex in a hotel room. She said that Mr. Trump told her that she could appear on his show “The Apprentice.”

Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania, for about a year, and his youngest son, Barron, was born several months before. Though there are photos of Mr. Trump and Ms. Daniels at the tournament, he has denied that he had sex with Ms. Daniels.

July 2007
Ms. Daniels told “60 Minutes” on CBS News in 2018 that a year after the golf tournament, Mr. Trump invited her to his bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel to discuss her possible appearance on his reality television show “The Apprentice.” She never appeared on the show.

April 2011
Ms. Daniels considered selling her account of sex with Mr. Trump but ultimately did not, she told “60 Minutes.”

May 2011
She took a polygraph test, which supported her account that she had sex with Mr. Trump.

June 2016
Ms. Daniels wanted to go public with her account of the sexual encounter. A lawyer for Ms. Daniels, Keith Davidson, sent a text message to an editor of The National Enquirer, reading “I have blockbuster Trump story.”

July 2016
Mr. Trump secured the Republican Party’s presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

October 2016
David Pecker, then the publisher of The Enquirer, said he spoke with the tabloid’s editor, Dylan Howard, and told him that he did not want to associate the publication with a porn star, according to testimony in the 2024 criminal trial. Mr. Pecker said in the trial that he did not want to spend more money on hush-money deals involving allegations against Mr. Trump, after making two other deals in previous months.

Mr. Pecker testified that he told Mr. Howard to reach out to Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen.

Later in the month, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Cohen exchanged emails and phone calls about a possible hush-money deal to bury the story of Ms. Daniels’s alleged encounter with Mr. Trump. Mr. Howard was also part of the negotiations.

Near the end of the month, Mr. Cohen wired $130,000 from a newly formed entity, Essential Consultants, to Ms. Daniels.

November 2016
Mr. Trump won the presidential election.

February 2017
The repayment began from Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen’s hush-money deal and continued in parts throughout the year. The total payments to Mr. Cohen were $420,000 for the hush-money deal, a bonus and additional cash for tax considerations.

The Trump Organization recorded the payments as “legal expenses,” citing a legal retainer with Mr. Cohen. Prosecutors say that no legal retainer existed and recording the payments as “legal expenses” was a falsification of business records. They underpin the criminal charges against Mr. Trump.

January 2018
The Wall Street Journal reported that Ms. Daniels received a $130,000 hush-money deal from Mr. Cohen days before the 2016 election.

Later in the month, Ms. Daniels denied having an affair with Mr. Trump in a statement. Ms. Daniels said later that the statement was worded that way because of a nondisclosure agreement and that she signed the statement because she felt like she had no choice.

April 2018
The F.B.I. executed a search warrant on Mr. Cohen.

August 2018
Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court that month, admitting to making illegal campaign contributions to support Mr. Trump’s 2016 election, including his payment to Ms. Daniels.

March 2021
The Manhattan district attorney’s office opened an investigation into the hush-money deals involving Mr. Trump.

March 2023
Mr. Trump is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records stemming from Ms. Daniels’s hush-money deal.

May 2024
Ms. Daniels and Mr. Trump meet again at a Lower Manhattan Courtroom in his criminal trial.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah could be that.  This stuff gets fairly nuanced.

But the fact that it's highly prejudicial to Trump I think is what Merchan is on edge about and doesn't want too many gory deets coming in.

Oh, absolutely I agree with that. I'm just saying that its relevance isn't limited to Stormy's credibility. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

 

They see Trump and go up to him, two big burly Corinthians with tears in their eyes, and tell him, “Sir, the Bible you are selling is the most spiritual copy we have ever seen…”

Trump says he’ll buy the bar a round of drinks, and then leaves without paying.

They should know.  A reliable source told me it's bound in fine Corinthian leather.  

image.thumb.png.5e7518f858dbc62def6b2951583c3e06.png

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, absolutely I agree with that. I'm just saying that its relevance isn't limited to Stormy's credibility. 

Oh, they're going after her credibility.

image.thumb.png.3d27fafab240e2bbc6c708b48fe161af.png

Posted
31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

Posted
5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I hope to have the self awareness to know when to hang it up. But as mentioned above there are safeguards at the hospital and state medical board and specialty board level that prevent for the most part as several have pointed out. Two things can be true, that she had every right to continue until she dropped dead, and that it was an incredibly selfish and harmful act that will affect generations of Americans

To be more accurate, our Buckeye friend’s analogy should include the fact that if Sawbonz does not step down now, there will be a great chance that the next hospital administrator will replace him with someone who treats his patients with leeches and blood letting. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Same as the civil rules.  Relevance is relevance.  They're cross-examining her over whether she had sex with Trump.  So the relevance of that testimony is now cumulative and any argument of error by Trump as to the admissibility of that fact (not the remaining details) would seem to be nugatory.  

Well civil either for that matter.  And this may touch on prior bad acts, which is not something that comes up too much in IP litigation, so I only know the broad contours.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

Oh the jury may take that into account, for that reason and whether Trump is a general purpose dirtbag. 

But legally, whether they had sex or not is not relevant to the crime.  It may be relevant to some collateral issues.

And the judge is concerned with the jury taking that into account too much.  Thankfully, admission of evidence is typically not a fertile ground for appeal, especially when the judge is trying to "handle it," and not just make a haphazard decision, an abuse of discretion, if you will.

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

None of this makes fucking sense. The defense should literally be:
"Trump claims he never had sex with Ms. Daniels, repeatedly, although we have text messages from his employee at the time discussing Ms. Daniels and her payout, the squashing of the story in the national enquirier, the publisher of the Enquirer testifying that he bought the story to squash it before the election becuase it was damaging to Trump, we have the banking records showing Cohen drafting the payout and being repaid, and they the notoriously frugal and attentive to every financial detail Donald Trump claims complete ignorance. For a woman whom he claims he never had sex with. Either he's lying, which he has a well documented history of doing, or he paid a woman for not having sex with him. What's the most likely outcome here, jury?"

The defense rests.

 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh the jury may take that into account, for that reason and whether Trump is a general purpose dirtbag. 

But legally, whether they had sex or not is not relevant to the crime.  It may be relevant to some collateral issues.

And the judge is concerned with the jury taking that into account too much.  Thankfully, admission of evidence is typically not a fertile ground for appeal, especially when the judge is trying to "handle it," and not just make a haphazard decision, an abuse of discretion, if you will.

It's absolutely relevant becuase he claims he never had sex with her. Which also effects HIS credibility. Additionally, it goes back to "So you paid a woman to keep quiet that you didn't have sex with?"

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

I don’t think it makes any difference if they actually had sex, but it makes a huge difference that she will say that they had sex - hence the payoff. 

Because even if she didn’t have sex with him, Trump knows she can place him in a hotel room with her alone - and that she is a porn star.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well civil either for that matter.  And this may touch on prior bad acts, which is not something that comes up too much in IP litigation, so I only know the broad contours.

We all do, she's been in tons of films...  or so I've heard.

Posted
Just now, Gatorubet said:

I don’t think it makes any difference if they actually had sex, but it makes a huge difference that she will say that they had sex - hence the payoff. 

Because even if she didn’t have sex with him, Trump knows she can place him in a hotel room with her alone - and that she is a porn star.

Maybe. But if I’m on the jury that is not going to weigh in my mind. 



×
×
  • Create New...