He acts like it is the judges fault that trump decided to pay for sex with a porn star while his third wife was recovering from child birth. Talk about clueless.
There was a motion to exclude her testimony, and the judge said she could testify, but not as to the morbid details. He warned the prosecution beforehand, but the over-stepped. Still, as I posted before, I think her testimony is relevant — not for whether it was truthful — but WHY Trump wanted to silence her before the election.
I think the prosecution doesn’t need to show her story is real at all; it just needs to show that there was a threatened story about to come out that would be damaging to the election. In fact, I think that the more Trump tries to degrade Daniels and discredit her story, the more damage he does to his own case — why did he go through all this trouble to protect his family when Daniels is so untrustworthy.
I would think he may find some sympathetic members of the jury if it were proven that she was lying and he was just trying to prevent those lies from being made public which could damage his campaign and embarrass him. Even if that technically doesn't matter under the law, it could still resonate with the jury.
Marcy with her amazing memory and granular knowledge of all filings points out that Aileen Cannon ordered the public filing of details about Trump's sleeping arrangements over Special Counsel objection:
wrt the falsification of business records, djt was the one who authorized the markup to cover Cohen's taxes on the payment. 150k in principal plus whatever else they needed to add so Cohen would net 150k. Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher (nbcnews.com) Donald Trump was the third person in the room in August 2015 when his lawyer Michael Cohen and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker discussed ways Pecker could help counter negative stories about Trump's relationships with women, NBC News has confirmed. As part of a nonprosecution agreement disclosed Wednesday by federal prosecutors, American Media Inc., the Enquirer's parent company, admitted that "Pecker offered to help deal with negative stories about that presidential candidate's relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided." The "statement of admitted facts" says that AMI admitted making a $150,000 payment "in concert with the campaign," and says that Pecker, Cohen and "at least one other member of the campaign" were in the meeting. According to a person familiar with the matter, the "other member" was Trump.
Yet another lesson in how bad actors can manipulate the system and there's very little that can be done about it. One of the lasting legacies of the Trump era.
With about 2 minutes left in this episode, which followed yesterday's testimony, Ben Wittes restates his point, which I may not have fully understood. He thinks that the prosecution really needs someone besides Michael Cohen that will testify that Trump directly authorized both the hush money payment and the reimbursement to Cohen. Just his opinion. Take it for what it's worth Trump Trials and Tribulations: N.Y. Trial Dispatch (May 6, 2024) - The Lawfare Podcast
I thought a lot of yesterday's testimony covered this. The invoices to pay Cohen, since they were all over $10k, were stapled to the checks and approved by Trump himself. Trump's Accountants testified that either Trump or one of his sons had to approve all expenditures over $10k. And DJT's own signature appeared on the checks to Cohen. Maybe Trump's lawyers will say he was just signing checks and was ignorant as to why they were paying Cohen? But then we have established pattern with the doorman and Karen McDougal. Payments Pecker confirmed Trump knew about and approved. And the reason Pecker didn't pay Daniels was Trump wasn't paying Pecker back. Can one truly have reasonable doubt that Trump didn't know what Cohen was doing when there's testimony Trump was fully informed on the related catch and kill schemes? Guess that's for the defense to try and convince the jury to do.
I agree with all that. I think they went into all that because they do not have a witness other than Cohen that will say Trump authorized all. I think that will be enough but what do I know. They commented that the witness was helpful in explaining accounting procedure to the jury
the accountant said that djt personally signed all checks and authorized the markup from what Cohen paid her and what they needed to pay Cohen to cover the tax hit. am I missing something
You're not missing anything. I was just passing on his opinion that to meet the standard for beyond a reasonable doubt, and to persuade the jury, they need to have some statement out of some witness' mouth other than Michael Cohen that Trump said this is what we are doing and authorized it. Obviously he's speculating.
Imagine this closing from the defense. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard a lot of testimony from witnesses called by the prosecution, individuals that work close up with Mr Trump for years, his secretary, his clerks, etc. They were involved in all aspects of the transactions the prosecution tries to characterize. You know one thing the prosecution never asked them, likely because they knew the answer? Did you hear from Mr Trump or see a note from him authorizing this action for this reason, saying it was part of a cover-up and falsification of business records? You have only heard that from Michael Cohen. So you have to believe that only he knows the truth of a transaction that no one else in the Trump organization knows about. The judge will shortly instruct you that you are not supposed to return a guilty verdict unless you're absolutely convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the crime, and that Mr Trump is individually criminally liable. You are not supposed to speculate. I'm just putting it out there. He didn't say that. But that's what I thought about when he did.
You also heard testimony from multiple longtime employees and saw the words of djt himself re: how djt micromanaged everything. Can say a lot more but that is the core of the rebuttal that he didn't know nothing. Excuse brevity, typing on phone
Key word, reasonable, not any and all doubt. Have been on a few juries and had that discussion on at least 3 that I can recall
I think it's pretty telling that Trump's legal team hasn't insisted that Stormy Daniels participate in a lineup or some other identification procedure.
President Trump might have played this one beautifully by not admitting to a sexual affair with Daniels. Her testimony today was a disaster. This is not your every day defendant. When you claim you “blacked out” before you hit the bed but you don’t remember how it happened and you weren’t drugged or drunk in any way, that presents a credibility quandary. Even the prosecution lamented this afterward. Joke trial from the start, but even I didn’t realize it was this flimsy.
