Max Stonetrail said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

So if docs show payoff then I am 100% sold they had sex and Trump paid her off through Cohen. Any right wing types trying to argue otherwise on those two points if the docs exist, I call B.S.

My opinion from the middle, who has mostly tired of both the left and right wing's antics.

---

You can call BS, but this would not be the first time someone paid someone off just to not get an accusation that is not true, but somewhat believable, out there. It's like settling to avoid the expense of a lawsuit. The existence of the docs doesn't necessarily prove sex one way or the other. DC is one big swap meet, so if infidelity is grounds for not being elected, that place would be almost empty.

I would be curious what "right wing antics" are at play here. This seems pretty one sided to me.

---

Isn't there a bogus story by a doorman about a ******* Trump child that was caught and killed and proven not true? I would bet on Trump boning the skank but I'd chalk it up to a skank doing everything thing she could to "audition" for the Apprentice.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Common sense says Cohen isn't paying $130K money to Daniels without being directed to, knowing that Trump is reimbursing him. And common sense is a guy like Trump isn't giving a dime to Daniels if they didn't have sex.
Plus Trump has a history of infidelity.

So if docs show payoff then I am 100% sold they had sex andTrump paid her off through Cohen. Any right wing types trying to argue otherwise on those two points if the docs exist, I call B.S.

That said, I also call B.S. on the left wing side for this politically motivated circus trying to hang a felony 'election interference' charge on Trump. Yes, he is an unfaithful husband and he pays off women to stay quiet. But this trial seems stupid.

My opinion from the middle, who has mostly tired of both the left and right wing's antics.

---

Except he did pay a doorman $20000 to hide an illegitimate child with a women that it was proved he never had sex with. He just didn't want do deal with the pr.

I've probably watched a few too many episodes of crime related tv shows. But I thought that if the prosecutor has absolutely failed to make a case, when the prosecution is done, the defense could ask the judge to simply dismiss the charges without ever having to put on a defense. No?

aggiehawg said:

---

Some elaoration for those not on X? TIA.

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1788941592901939578.html?utm_campaign=topunroll

northeastag said:

---

I've probably watched a few too many episodes of crime related tv shows. But I thought that if the prosecutor has absolutely failed to make a case, when the prosecution is done, the defense could ask the judge to simply dismiss the charges without ever having to put on a defense. No?

---

That is correct. It is called different things in different jurisdictions but basically asking the judge to take the case away from the jury for a failure of proof by the prosecution. Some call it a JOA or judgment of acquittal or a motion for a directed verdict.

The defense can lose on that motion and still decline to present a case in chief for the defense and go straight to closing arguments as well. That doesn't happen often as some defense will be advanced but it is their option.

Thank you.

Insanity! How on earth is this not a felony committed by Bragg and his minions? It sure would be if team Trump did it.

I’d love if we had actual journalists that would report on this ongoing travesty.

Sadly, proper journalism is dead. They’re just scribes for the regime. https://t.co/vQkLDk3t1T

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 10, 2024

Sounds like intentional spoliation of evidence the remedy of which is a jury instruction that the missing three pages are presumed to be in Trump's favor.

Saw it on an episode of Ally McBeal one time.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Sounds like intentional spoliation of evidence the remedy of which is a jury instruction that the missing three pages are presumed to be in Trump's favor.

Saw it on an episode of Ally McBeal one time.

---

That show was both annoying and them funny at the same time. The scenes in the unisex bathroom were funny, if odd.

I'd imagine there is a motion regarding that on Monday morning before Cohen takes the stand.

jt2hunt said:

---

I could easily see Cohen doing this on his own to pay her off knowing that he'd be reimbursed for legal expenses without having to discuss with Trump what he paid off or why. If this wasn't the case, then why the rush the election was already near it didn't matter. The story was out there that part doesn't hold water.

---

That sounds like right wing B.S. spin. Somebody had to authorize from Trump organization side to reimburse that $130K. To suggest people are just writing checks like that on their own without Trump's knowledge or approval strains credibility.

Now, Elevating this to a felony 'election interference' charge is the left wing B.S. this trial itself is 'election interference' in my opinion.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

I could easily see Cohen doing this on his own to pay her off knowing that he'd be reimbursed for legal expenses without having to discuss with Trump what he paid off or why. If this wasn't the case, then why the rush the election was already near it didn't matter. The story was out there that part doesn't hold water.

---

That sounds like right wing B.S. spin. Somebody had to authorize from Trump organization to reimburse that $130K.

---

Seems like something a prosecutor would want to prove. You're only assuming.

Then again, nothing alleged is even a crime.

Quote:

---

That sounds like right wing B.S. spin. Somebody had to authorize from Trump organization side to reimburse that $130K.

---

Don, Jr., Eric and weisselberg were in charge in 2017 since Trump was in the WH, per testimony of Controller McConney.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That sounds like right wing B.S. spin. Somebody had to authorize from Trump organization side to reimburse that $130K.

---

Don, Jr., Eric and weisselberg were in charge in 2017 since Trump was in the WH, per testimony of Controller McConney.

---

Which one had the time machine so the logging of a non-disclosure agreement payment to a lawyer as a "legal expense" in business records in 2017 could retroactively/illegally affect the outcome of the 2016 election?

Hope Hicks agrees. She says it would've been very out of character for Cohen to do this on his own.

Still, I don't think the State Has anyone yet saying Trump definitively knew about or ordered the payment. That's going to come from Cohen, who has, to put it mildly, some credibility issues.

Remember, the "crime" here is not paying. It's the paperwork later. So even if Trump did not know about the payment the time, in theory, he could still commit a crime later on by creating a fraudulent document

Of course, We haven't really seen any evidence he created the fault document either! Lol

Quote:

---

Except he did pay a doorman $20000 to hide an illegitimate child with a women that it was proved he never had sex with. He just didn't want do deal with the pr.

---

Where is the evidence that Trump paid this? That money was paid by national choir, and it was not in exchange for a nondisclosure agreement.

Im Gipper said:

---

Hope Hicks agrees. She says it would've been very out of character for Cohen to do this on his own.

Still, I don't think the State Has anyone yet saying Trump attentively. That's going to come from Cohen, who has, to put it mildly, some credibility issues.

---

Didn't she also say that Cohen would go off and create problems that he then went and "fixed"?

Yep. Fixed of his own problems. .

sounds like the wheels are coming off this farce quicker than expected, no?

I haven't been following much since its a complete joke witch hunt trial, but that sums it up?

Pumpkinhead said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

I could easily see Cohen doing this on his own to pay her off knowing that he'd be reimbursed for legal expenses without having to discuss with Trump what he paid off or why. If this wasn't the case, then why the rush the election was already near it didn't matter. The story was out there that part doesn't hold water.

---

That sounds like right wing B.S. spin. Somebody had to authorize from Trump organization side to reimburse that $130K. To suggest people are just writing checks like that on their own without Trump's knowledge or approval strains credibility.

Now, Elevating this to a felony 'election interference' charge is the left wing B.S. this trial itself is 'election interference' in my opinion.

---

NOPE.

Of course, someone had to authorize the reimbursement. Did you follow the testimony? Did you hear where they had to pay out a larger bonus retroactively due to Cohen feeling like he get shorted?

No one person said someone was writing checks on their own.

Now, Cohen submits his fees or reimbursements. Does Trump approve them? His underling that testified says he did so.

At that time in 2017, Trump was no longer making those decisions since he had the Trump Organization put into conservatorship. He signed some checks when needed, but so far it sounds like he was relying on others to tell him when to sign. I believe some checks were initially signed by Don Jr., Eric, and Weisellberg without Trump at all.

Exactly.

jt2hunt said:

---

Exactly.

---

Now I do believe the prosecution charged conspiracy so I guess they will claim that Don Jr., Eric, and Weisellberg were in on it?

SwigAg11 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Exactly.

---

Now I do believe the prosecution charged conspiracy so I guess they will claim that Don Jr., Eric, and Weisellberg were in on it?

---

There are ZERO conspiracy charges in the indictment.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Exactly.

---

Now I do believe the prosecution charged conspiracy so I guess they will claim that Don Jr., Eric, and Weisellberg were in on it?

---

There are ZERO conspiracy charges in the indictment.

---

Thank you for the clarification. Maybe I'm getting confused with talks had on this thread about the cited NY laws and what those state.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

Exactly.

---

Now I do believe the prosecution charged conspiracy so I guess they will claim that Don Jr., Eric, and Weisellberg were in on it?

---

There are ZERO conspiracy charges in the indictment.

---

Thank you for the clarification. Maybe I'm getting confused with talks had on this thread about the cited NY laws and what those state.

---

I don't blame you at all because this crap case keeps using U-turns on why they brought this case.

Maria B expressing her displeasure.

Maria Bartiromo brings the heat.

Fantastic clip from this morning.pic.twitter.com/lqIH7f00Rc

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) May 10, 2024

She's the best.

Ahead of Michael Cohen’s testimony against Trump Monday, @CNN legal analyst says, “I’ve never seen a witness who’s lied to Congress, who’s lied to court, who’s lied to the IRS, who’s lied to the Southern District of New York, who lied to his banker.” WATCHpic.twitter.com/62MSPQ5feC

— Simon Ateba (@simonateba) May 10, 2024

Can't make this stuff up. Even CNN propagandists are taken aback.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

if the objection was sustained, then the question/answer shouldn't have continued and the 'anecdotes' wouldn't be testified about/in the record

---

we don't have the transcript yet, but was there an example of this happening?

---

Gee, even the CNN feed had the condom question and answer on it and they have been heavily editing what they post.

---

there was no objection to the condom question, so not sure what that means.

there are no examples in any of the daniels testimony where an objection was sustained yet the witness continued to give an anecdote.



the trump attorney objected at least 37 times during the daniels testimony, about 25 were sustained. so this idea they can't object in real time because they are afraid of the judge does not make much sense

northeastag said:

---

I've probably watched a few too many episodes of crime related tv shows. But I thought that if the prosecutor has absolutely failed to make a case, when the prosecution is done, the defense could ask the judge to simply dismiss the charges without ever having to put on a defense. No?

---

At the close of the prosecution case, if there is no evidence to support the charge, then the judge is supposed to dismiss the case on motion by the defendant. That motion is not made until the prosecution closes its case

From what I've seen, if they closed their case yesterday, the right thing to do would be to dismiss the case. I don't think anyone is expecting the judge to do that at any point, reardless of what the facts at law are.

I think everyone agrees that Michael Cohen is going to have a ton of credibility problems with his testimony. But remember, when Trump moves to dismiss tgr case when the prosecution is finished, the judge does not weigh the credibility of the witnesses.

In all likelihood, Cohen will probably give the prosecution something that is legally sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss or however, it is named in New York State court

BMX Bandit said:

---

northeastag said:

---

I've probably watched a few too many episodes of crime related tv shows. But I thought that if the prosecutor has absolutely failed to make a case, when the prosecution is done, the defense could ask the judge to simply dismiss the charges without ever having to put on a defense. No?

---

At the clothes of the prosecution case, if there is no evidence to support the charge, then the judge is supposed to dismiss the case on motion by the defendant. That motion is not made until the prosecution closes its case

From what I've seen, if they closed their case yesterday, the right thing to do would be to dismiss the case. I don't think anyone is expecting the judge to do that at any point, reardless of what the facts at law are.

I think everyone agrees that Michael Cohen is going to have a ton of credibility problems with his testimony. But remember, when Trump moves to dismiss tgr case when the prosecution is finished, the judge does not weigh the credibility of the witnesses.

In all likelihood, Cohen will probably give the prosecution something that is legally sufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss or however, it is named in New York State court

---

Do granted directed verdicts from a judge usually occur because the prosecution forgets to get something into evidence during their case in chief?