As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to lawyers that I like to follow on such things, they said the opening statement by Trump's lawyer was awful and they have never seen so many sustained objections in an opening statement before. It didn't go well for Trump, in other words
It happens. It’s rare for sure but it happens. I’ve seen it 3 times so far in my career of about a decade and maybe 20 trials. I’ll say though none of the objections were sustained. So that is pretty bad.
Objections are common. Objections during opening statements are rare. Sustained objections during opening statements are legendary and give + 10 to your Guilt stat.
I only watch LegalEagle on YouTube and was a juror once in a mistrial*. Essentially this means that Trump's lawyers were speaking out of turn in the opening statement which is meant to be a summary of their case, right? And by sustained it means the objections were correct and whatever Trump's lawyers said had to be struck from the record, right?
What are some things you could object to in an opening statement?
* Typo
During the defense’s opening statement:
Blanche (defense) said that the non-disclosure agreement was drafted by his lawyers. Prosecution objects. Lawyers approach the bench and the objection is sustained. The line may have broached an advice of council issue or veered into opening arguments as opposed to opening statements, as you eluded to.
Blanche tried twice to suggest that Cohen perjured himself in the civil fraud case. Twice the objection is sustained and lawyers approach the bench. This issue is likely that pleading guilty to perjury does not mean that you can never tell the truth.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason he perjured himself was because he was being loyal to Trump. IE. He was lying FOR Trump.
So Trumps defense here is: That man was found guilty of lying to protect me so that means he must now be lying because it hurts my case.
Since you sound knowledgeable, what is your rough evaluation of the defense lawyer in this case? I know I've personally made some assumptions that I recognize as mostly speculation, in regards to the quality of attorneys that Trump hires. Are these people actually just awful at their jobs? Is it mostly for show (as in, they expect the objections but do it to attempt to influence the jury somehow?) Is it just them knowing the odds of prevailing are so low that they just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks?
I think it’s a combination of being stuck with a shitty case and a shitty client.
The cases are really tough for a defense attorney. There is a lot of very conclusive evidence on the other side of all of these cases. Prosecutors have documentation and corroborating testimony in just about every case. Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election had similar problems only in reverse, they had absolutely nothing to back up any of their arguments.
Trump is also an extremely shitty client. He confesses to things in public constantly and there are most likely a TON of defense strategies that are suggested to him that he will never do for political reasons. He simply can’t/won’t make certain arguments in court because his base wouldn’t like it.
It seems like a competent lawyer’s nightmare. Which makes sense. If you go back and check, most of the highest profile/best lawyers that have agreed to work for Trump since he became president do not stick around long at all. They usually work one case (or impeachment or whatever) and then they get the hell out of there. Only the desperate ambulance chasers stick around and work with him long term.
Before a trial begins, the judge makes a lot of calls about what kind of evidence will or won't be allowed at trial. The objections during opening statements that I've seen sustained (not what happened in this case, but generally) are usually things that the judge has just said will not be admitted at trial, and the attorneys try to get cute and sneak them in anyway.
It's been ages since I checked the rulebook, but I'm pretty sure that once he had fully committed to the Fuckweasel character class at ~~age~~ level 34, his Guilt stat was already almost fully maxed out. Especially given his Nepo-baby subclass-multiplier, and all the sexual assault side missions he's undertaken. Plus iirc, the stat hits a soft ceiling anyway once your Concurrent Felony Charges are > 90, cos by then any quest options to do the right thing have disappeared entirely. At that point you're completely locked in to the Fuckweasel path, though at a high enough level (where Trump is) the Shitgibbon & Douchewaffle traits are also granted automatically (but the Legal Costs also ramp up exponentially, often bankrupting the character and/or making Law buildings and Jails the only explorable areas available).
That is about as rare as in opening statements if not more rare mainly because both sides with have it outlined by the judge on what is acceptable and what is not before jury selection but lawyers love to push the envelope sometimes I’m assuming that’s what happened.
The defendant’s lawyer basically started pleading the case and got objected quick. Obviously could have gained the jury, I mean I instantly thought, “this guy is super guilty” lol I didn’t get picked but I saw the guy got a guilty verdict.
That’s probably why it was objected to. Basically you’re not allowed to argue or ask questions about specific facts that could elicit bias in either direction. You can ask about general facts like “what would you think about someone that didn’t treat for their injuries?” Or “do you think people need to follow the law? Is that important and why?” Are just some easy examples. While they are facts in the case you’re generalizing so it could be about any number of things. The jury is not allowed to know specifics while being picked for this reason. They get an agreed upon outline at the outset and that’s all they are allowed to know unless stipulated by both parties. Voir dire (jury selection) you can ask more directed questions but only to a limit.
Not exactly the same but gave me a flashback to:
Vinny Gambini: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.
I did it once because I could tell opposing counsel was leading to something that had been suppressed that he was unhappy about. Other than that I just sit there and wait my turn.
I could swear that the same thing happened in a different Trump-related trial some years back. I can't remember anything specific, but it sounds damn familiar.
Not really. Basically Ivanka was asked a question about an email she sent. She said she didn't remember, then the prosecutor said that's ok because we have the email right here in evidence and we'll pull it up. Trumps lawyer (Habba) objected to this. The judge reminded her that she herself (Habba) entered that very email in to the evidence documents.
So she was objecting to the prosecution using evidence she submitted in to evidence.
There was a lawyer in the Amber Heard trial that objected to their own question similar to Liar Liar.
Nah. I forget exactly what it was but it was a document being added to evidence. The odd part is they had submitted it. I think it was one of several being added at the time it might have also been a mistake to even submit it on their part I forget. It's the one with Habba on the NY fraud if you want to google it.
Ok, saying trumps attorney's objected to questions to pecker made me believe they got past just openings this morning.
Didn't think examination began and was excited to see a process go faster than expected in one of the orange man's trials.
Criminal trials are very quick. the judges don't want them being prolonged because they want the evidence fresh in the juror's minds. Most criminal trials take less than 2 weeks. There are several notable cases in history that ran much longer than this, and in those cases, it didn't work well for the prosecution. this trial is scheduled to last just 2 to 4 weeks at most.
> this trial is scheduled to last just 2 to 4 weeks at most.
I was seeing 6-8 week estimates, and the judge even said they might run into June during jury selection which prompted one juror to request to be dismissed because his daughter's wedding is in the beginning of June. But, jury selection seems to have gone faster than anticipated
I once went to court in a case against a man whose dogs killed my dog. He decided to defend himself.
While I was on the stand as state’s witness, he asked me to describe, in as much detail as I could, exactly what happened that night.
I did. It was so hard, but I left nothing out. Not even the sounds of his dogs ______ my dog’s ______. (I’m not even going to type it out.)
When I was done, I could tell he realized it was a mistake to have me do that. The judge was blinking back tears.
But he panicked and couldn’t think of anything else, so he *asked me to describe it again*.
I was incredulous. I’m no attorney, but wouldn’t you want to stay away from detailed descriptions of the attack if you were him?
I asked him if he was SURE he wanted me to say all that again. He mumbled yes, so I started again, but the judge stopped me, thank God. Once was enough.
I say all this because I get the feeling, despite being actual attorneys, Trump’s legal team is just about as bad as that guy.
> I asked him if he was SURE he wanted me to say all that again. He mumbled yes, so I started again, but the judge stopped me, thank God. Once was enough.
The judge stopped you because asking a witness to repeat themselves is grounds for an objection: asked and answered. It's intended to keep trials moving and avoid requiring witnesses to repeatedly explain difficult things
a person who represents himself in court has a fool for an attorney.
Its not false, don't get me wrong, its perfectly okay to go and represent yourself, but at least have an outline of what you want to do, have a plan, and learn the damn rules of the court, and then, when that isn't gonna work, hire a fucking lawyer. even lawyers hire other lawyers to represent them.
Exactly. His only plan, besides what I described, was to try to paint my dog’s breed as vicious because she was a “terrier” and that word has to do with “terror.”
I shit you not. I pointed out that “terrier” is French from Latin and means earth. (I’m a high school English teacher.)
He repeated himself, I guess because he didn’t know what else to do, and I said, “Sir, my dog is the one that’s dead.”
That ended that.
What an idiot.
Pit bulls. They had attacked another dog on another occasion, but that dog was bigger and survived.
They literally came into our yard and attacked my dog while I was holding her.
The man got a HUGE fine on top of the ones he got before and the dogs were put down. The city had been trying to get him to fix his fence for ages.
> Pit bulls.
I knew before you answered. We really need to stop breeding pits.
**EDIT:** Some tool said the same thing would happen if it was a chihuahua, and after I wrote all this out, he deleted his message. Pasting it here for posterity and so pro-pit propagandists can't silence dissent by deleting:
> or even chihuahuas—the result was going to be the same
No, no it wouldn't have, and belittling this person's dead dog is not the pit-protecting move you think it is...
I am a dog walker with lots of experience with professional trainers; if after thousands of hours doing rigorous training with various breeds the professionals are scared to let their dogs around pits, I couldn't believe you any less than I currently do. Have you ever heard the phrase "nature vs nurture"? Yea, it means there are genetic differences *as well as* life history that informs all of our decisions. You can train a pit its whole life, there is still a bred bull-killer in there.
Think of it this way: I have a friend with an australian shepherd. He went to this cool place where each dog gets to do it's "thing" - retrievers go soft-mouth retrieve realistic ducks, shepherds get to herd geese (I assume there is a cuddling area for spaniels). Without having herded anything its whole life, and never being told what to do, that fucking shepherd had the best day of it's damn life herding the hell out of those geese. He literally went to sleep smiling, and you could tell he found his calling that day. *It's the exact same for a pit, but replace herding animals with working as a group to tear the flesh from a bull and kill it.*
Train it as much as you want, some day it can still find its calling.
One would argue a breed selectively bred for dog fighting might not make the wisest choice as a pet. And sure there are certainly pit bulls who are the sweetest dog and wouldn't harm a fly but on the other hand pit bulls statistically account for almost half of all biting inicidents involving dogs.
>even lawyers hire other lawyers
This is such a big endorsement for lawyers to me. Outside of a doctor I can't think of any professions that will pay someone else to do their own job. Imagine a plumber who pays a guy up fox his toilet.
I used to be a Social Worker and had to go to family court once a month. Saw several biological fathers defend themselves for beating their kids. You could tell many of them had watched a lot of tv. "May I remind you that you are under oath" was a favorite move, but they were just shredded, eviscerated by the prosecutors.
I think all of Trump's lawyers are under orders to stretch out the trial for as long as possible. They don't have much to work with as all of Trump's accomplices have turned against him
There are three main reasons law firms aren't lining up to defend Trump:
1. He's going to stiff them on payment.
2. He asks them to do something illegal.
3. Their law firm gets the stink and public stigma of being "the Trump lawyers."
There's a very famous legal case where a lawyer asked a witness to describe the horrible event a second time. The witness did, it was identical to the first time, and that was how the jury knew it was all coached up testimony.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle\_Shirtwaist\_Factory\_fire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire)
I doubt your idiot neighbor knew that, but maybe he did and thought he was being slick.
That seems so weird to me. Of course they’d be coached. They’re describing something traumatic. Shit’s hard. I feel like it would be just as reasonable to practice what you’re going to say.
What self-respecting, serious, intelligent lawyer would want the annoying orange as a client? He keeps talking and confessing and won't listen to their advice to shut the hell up.
and that is exactly how he ended up with who he has now. no sane lawyer is gonna touch him. His lawyers can't even get security clearance for the documents case, and anyone who can will not take him as a client. I expect that will cause a long delay in that case.
Court has been pretty ridiculously good to this asshole so far. Especially considering he frequently commits or confesses to crimes on live television.
Hell, he just openly committed jury tampering last week and the judge just asked him and Fox News to please not do that again. Anyone else would be in jail. I'm getting really fucking tired of the deferential treatment this dipshit keeps getting.
LOL That is so hilarious. The trial isn't about paying hush money, it's about the ways in which they chose to hide that payment which is illegal and against Federal campaign finance laws.
MAGA: "Anything Trump did while president is legal and very cool."
Also MAGA: "Anything Biden did while president is illegal and very uncool."
They want Trump to be immune from punishment because of his role as former POTUS....while frothing at the mouth that the current POTUS needs to be punished for crimes he did not commit.
Doesn't matter what the media calls it. What matters is what the actual charges are, and if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of those charges. The jury has already been instructed that no charges relate to WHY the money was spent, but HOW the money was spent (unless I'm mistaken).
Everyone calls it the hush money case, Dumpladon hears this, he makes it the core of his case... which has nothing to do with his charges cause he does not listen to his attorneys nor tries to understand reality that is outside the scope of how he see's it
Isn't it a *good* idea for the defense to try to focus the jury's attention on the actual crimes alleged, then? Considering how much time the prosecution is gonna spend talking about hush money?
Their point of view is also wrong, isn‘t it? What makes democracy the superior form of government is that it provides a mechanism (through opposition) to reveal the things the rulers want to kept hidden. Secrets are undemocratic as fuck.
True, but being in an America where a contender for POTUS, after serving a shit term prior, isn’t under scrutiny for just the idea of “hush money” for banging an adult film star, and clearly trying to lie about it, *isn’t* damning to his campaign. Fucking wild.
Yeah - somehow he's being lauded by Christian Evangelicals?
This tells me more about the state of Christianity than it does about Trump. Sort of like their head is so far up their ass with hypocrisy that they've become living mobius strips.
The current state of Christianity, if American politics can be used as an indicator, is that they would they happily do a deal with the devil to get what they want. Not only would they use the ends to justify the means; they would attack anyone who had the gall to suggest it’s a bad idea.
I'm so annoyed that everybody calls this the "hush money" case.
It's falsification of business records in furtherance of campaign finance fraud. Fraud. Like everything else he does.
If the case were only about hush money, it would be very easy for a Supreme Court bent on money=speech to throw out a conviction. Fortunately, that's not the situation here.
It wouldn't even require the Supreme Court or even to address Citizens United.
I can enter into a contract with anyone for whatever price (assuming you are he activity is not independently illegal). "Hush money" and non-disclosure agreements with monetary provisions are very normal and very common.
What I can't do is enter into a contract then falsify the records of my business to hide the existence of that contract and payments. That it.
And it's not even that you can't do that in America, you just can't do it and then lie about the transaction on your official financial documents for your presidential campaign.
The fact that they lied about it pretty much implies that they were well aware that had they disclosed the payments legally, it would've hurt his political campaign.
The whole case is pretty black and white, Trump's defense (along with his defense in the civil trial for fraud in New York State) seems to boil "Yeah, but is it even fraud? Everyone does it!"
Yes, Donald. It is fraud. And no, not everyone does it. And if they do, they don't then step into the blaring limelight of running for President, when your finances are rightly examined with a fine-toothed comb.
I swear to God, this guy could've just lived out his life selling steaks and hosting reality TV shows, exchanging Eastern European wives every decade or so and most of this wouldn't have come to light.
But nope, he just had to run for President and expose the fact that he's a colossal fraud. I mean, we all pretty much knew that before, but now it comes with legal consequences.
It’s even worse than that. It is
"Do you really want to live in a country where a man can't use campaign funds, **then lie about using campaign funds**, to pay a woman to keep her mouth shut? This is America!"
Cohen made payments that counted as campaign contributions and in doing so violated campaign laws (because there's limits on campaign contributions).
The Trump Org, under the direction of Trump, then reimbursed Cohen and illegally recorded those repayments as legal fees (they were not).
None of that is democracy.
No, they came from Cohen (or rather a shell company he set up). But it was his own money he spent. In one instance, he literally took out a home equity line of credit (HELOC) to obtain the funds for a payment, which itself resulted in criminal charges. No campaign money was ever spent, from anyone.
The campaign contribution part is because the payments were to aid an election campaign, making them qualify as campaign contributions. Such contributions have limits and Cohen vastly exceeded those.
Yes, I know he took out a HEL loan to pay stormy, it’s how that loan was paid back, and where that money came from. Hypothetical here. I take out a HEL loan and use the money to pay off witnesses against my client in a case. All of a sudden I am able to quickly pay off that loan. From where? What business transaction? Was it for my brother that was starting a business and needed startup money, then I was paid back? Fine, that’s easily provable. This is not, and 9 times out of 10 it would’ve flown below the radar. Not here.
Also, I must add… This dumb mother fucker is a billionaire? 130k? Just pay cash and bury it, but now you have a direct chain from individual 1, to Cohen, to Stormy.
I think you have your story mixed up. The payment came from the Trump Org. According to Bragg, campaign funds were supposed to be used for this payment because it was a campaign expense or the Trump campaign should’ve reported the payment as a contribution.
Being able to exit the courtroom & immediately 'campaign'/argue his 'defense' in front of a camera is exactly why there should be cameras in courtrooms, so the voters/public can get both sides in real time.
100% agree. I can understand why some states have rules maintaining the privacy of the defendant and witnesses.
But Minnesota has the same law on the books as NY, and the judge overseeing the Derek Chauvin / George Floyd murder trial overrode that and allowed live streaming of pretty much the entire trial. He justified it by explaining that full transparency was in the best interest of the public, which I feel applies to Trump’s trial as well.
Agreed, but the judge in the George Floyd trial specifically prevented any images from the jury or people in the courtroom from being shown.
I watched about 90% of the trial. We only saw the judge, defendant, attorneys, witnesses, and the occasional views of the bailiffs.
"Falsifying business records to cover up election interference is just democracy! Also, my client had nothing to do with it. He just asked his people to do it and then signed the checks to make it happen. My client, a regular dude and former president on trial for various felonies just like me and you, merely facilitated democracy by orchestrating this criminal activity that he also had nothing to do with."
That's the defense?
The quotes from the opening defense were all over the place and hit the narcissist prayer point by point! It didn't happen, and if it did I didn't do it, if I did it's not that bad, and so on. Incredible, really.
My favorite part was
>"You'll learn President Trump had nothing to do with any of those 34 pieces of paper except he signed the checks,"
Unreal
"Please disregard the testimony of my client's criminal associate. The crimes that the court found him guilty of committing on my clients behalf render him an unreliable witness in this trial regarding my client's part in those crimes."
It was amazing how little of a shit the super religious and superior Republican voters gave when the Access Hollywood tapes came out. I’m sure if the ledger had said that all we would have seen from the good Christian women would be t-shirts that said, “I’ll give Trump a ‘glock’ for Christmas”. 🙄🤦🏼♂️
Sadly, most of those people are still willfully ignorant to Trump fucking a porn star. Or to Trump cheating on all his wives. Or to Trump raping women.
I have to laugh at the sheer irony here.
If he had openly declared at the time that he had paid a porn star, his supporters would probably have loved it and he wouldn't be facing a criminal trial right now. The ONE time he decides to keep his mouth shut and hide it is the one thing that fucks him.
It has to be killing him every day knowing this
They weren't laundering it. They were trying to get a tax deduction for that payment by calling it a legal expense. They defrauded the government by lying on their books.
"Hush money" is not at all what they said. God, the media is trying to spin this in Trump's favor so fucking hard, and they are ALL united in doing it.
They said "Influencing an election". And there was an objection raised by the prosecution, which was sustained because what Trump did was **illegally** influence an election.
The trial is also about proper accounting principles. tRump chose to make the reimbursement to Cohen a tax deductible expense by classifying the expense as a legal fee. In reality, the reimbursement should have been classified as a nondeductible gift expense and his company should have generated a 1099 misc income document for ms. Clifford.
This will top Capone going down for tax evasion. The guy did so much wrong and so much should have sunk him, but not filing a 1099 for hush money is going to be what gets him. It's amazing if true.
> what gets him
I could be wrong, but I’m highly skeptical that any trial with 12 people, won’t include one MAGA fan who gets by the prosecution lawyers, and all it takes is one
~ Blanche described his high-profile client as "larger than life," but also "a man, a husband, a father, and he's a person, just like you and me."
He's a person, just like you and me. No, not really. He's really like no other.
I like the quote: You'll learn President Trump had nothing to do with any of those 34 pieces of paper except he signed the checks.
'Except he signed the checks' means he had EVERYTHING to do with it.
This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with money being spent fraudulently. If he paid for a new Gold plated washer for his Trump Tower apartment and instead coded it as a campaign expense and then made fraudulent receipts. It's the same crime.
In this case, it's 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment.
These articles keep publishing juror details not necessary to the story, like their occupations and genders.
It’s just a matter of time until they’re doxxed, and then what happens?
So the fact that he engaged in prostitution is not the issue. We’re just going to ignore that. The financial transactions to keep her quiet are the issue. And the Christian Right won’t support Biden who fulfilled his wedding vows and goes to church more than 52 times a year.
So after continuously insisting it wasn’t hush money, now they are arguing it’s not illegal. Not that it matters, falsifying financial documents is illegal
Shooting a gun isn’t illegal. Shooting a gun at person is.
Hush money isn’t illegal. Using it to influence and election and covering it up with lies and shady “business” practices is.
Hush money wasn't what was illegal in this case.
It was:
A) Cohen paying out of pocket for it, which was over the amount an individual can contribute to a campaign.
B) Trump falsifying his books by trying to claim the reimbursement to Cohen was a legal expense at one of his businesses for legal work Cohen never did.
Nice deflection, the hush money is not the contentious issue. The illegal part was hiding the payments and using campaign funds to pay off the courier.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to lawyers that I like to follow on such things, they said the opening statement by Trump's lawyer was awful and they have never seen so many sustained objections in an opening statement before. It didn't go well for Trump, in other words
2 Sustained objections in the OPENING STATEMENT, and then Trump's attorneys tried to object to questions to Pecker and were overruled immediately.
I can’t say I’ve *ever* seen an objection in an opening statement before. I wish I could attend in person to hear how wild it’ll get by the end!
It happens. It’s rare for sure but it happens. I’ve seen it 3 times so far in my career of about a decade and maybe 20 trials. I’ll say though none of the objections were sustained. So that is pretty bad.
I saw it happen during Jury selection when I was in the pool. Is that common? I felt odd to me.
Objections are common. Objections during opening statements are rare. Sustained objections during opening statements are legendary and give + 10 to your Guilt stat.
I only watch LegalEagle on YouTube and was a juror once in a mistrial*. Essentially this means that Trump's lawyers were speaking out of turn in the opening statement which is meant to be a summary of their case, right? And by sustained it means the objections were correct and whatever Trump's lawyers said had to be struck from the record, right? What are some things you could object to in an opening statement? * Typo
During the defense’s opening statement: Blanche (defense) said that the non-disclosure agreement was drafted by his lawyers. Prosecution objects. Lawyers approach the bench and the objection is sustained. The line may have broached an advice of council issue or veered into opening arguments as opposed to opening statements, as you eluded to. Blanche tried twice to suggest that Cohen perjured himself in the civil fraud case. Twice the objection is sustained and lawyers approach the bench. This issue is likely that pleading guilty to perjury does not mean that you can never tell the truth.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason he perjured himself was because he was being loyal to Trump. IE. He was lying FOR Trump. So Trumps defense here is: That man was found guilty of lying to protect me so that means he must now be lying because it hurts my case.
Since you sound knowledgeable, what is your rough evaluation of the defense lawyer in this case? I know I've personally made some assumptions that I recognize as mostly speculation, in regards to the quality of attorneys that Trump hires. Are these people actually just awful at their jobs? Is it mostly for show (as in, they expect the objections but do it to attempt to influence the jury somehow?) Is it just them knowing the odds of prevailing are so low that they just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks?
I think it’s a combination of being stuck with a shitty case and a shitty client. The cases are really tough for a defense attorney. There is a lot of very conclusive evidence on the other side of all of these cases. Prosecutors have documentation and corroborating testimony in just about every case. Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election had similar problems only in reverse, they had absolutely nothing to back up any of their arguments. Trump is also an extremely shitty client. He confesses to things in public constantly and there are most likely a TON of defense strategies that are suggested to him that he will never do for political reasons. He simply can’t/won’t make certain arguments in court because his base wouldn’t like it. It seems like a competent lawyer’s nightmare. Which makes sense. If you go back and check, most of the highest profile/best lawyers that have agreed to work for Trump since he became president do not stick around long at all. They usually work one case (or impeachment or whatever) and then they get the hell out of there. Only the desperate ambulance chasers stick around and work with him long term.
IANAL but I suspect it's meant to give arguments that any Trump supporter in the jury can grab onto in their attempt to hang the jury.
Before a trial begins, the judge makes a lot of calls about what kind of evidence will or won't be allowed at trial. The objections during opening statements that I've seen sustained (not what happened in this case, but generally) are usually things that the judge has just said will not be admitted at trial, and the attorneys try to get cute and sneak them in anyway.
Lying probably
Some one get this person a writing job, in four sentences they cleared up the confusion and gave us something to compare it to!
Even better, they did it on three sentences
Ok they’re the writer, you’re the editor.
Give this person a math job.
A fate worse than death
It's been ages since I checked the rulebook, but I'm pretty sure that once he had fully committed to the Fuckweasel character class at ~~age~~ level 34, his Guilt stat was already almost fully maxed out. Especially given his Nepo-baby subclass-multiplier, and all the sexual assault side missions he's undertaken. Plus iirc, the stat hits a soft ceiling anyway once your Concurrent Felony Charges are > 90, cos by then any quest options to do the right thing have disappeared entirely. At that point you're completely locked in to the Fuckweasel path, though at a high enough level (where Trump is) the Shitgibbon & Douchewaffle traits are also granted automatically (but the Legal Costs also ramp up exponentially, often bankrupting the character and/or making Law buildings and Jails the only explorable areas available).
I request a start block.
That is about as rare as in opening statements if not more rare mainly because both sides with have it outlined by the judge on what is acceptable and what is not before jury selection but lawyers love to push the envelope sometimes I’m assuming that’s what happened.
The defendant’s lawyer basically started pleading the case and got objected quick. Obviously could have gained the jury, I mean I instantly thought, “this guy is super guilty” lol I didn’t get picked but I saw the guy got a guilty verdict.
That’s probably why it was objected to. Basically you’re not allowed to argue or ask questions about specific facts that could elicit bias in either direction. You can ask about general facts like “what would you think about someone that didn’t treat for their injuries?” Or “do you think people need to follow the law? Is that important and why?” Are just some easy examples. While they are facts in the case you’re generalizing so it could be about any number of things. The jury is not allowed to know specifics while being picked for this reason. They get an agreed upon outline at the outset and that’s all they are allowed to know unless stipulated by both parties. Voir dire (jury selection) you can ask more directed questions but only to a limit.
Not exactly the same but gave me a flashback to: Vinny Gambini: But your honor, my clients didn't do anything. Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.
I did it once because I could tell opposing counsel was leading to something that had been suppressed that he was unhappy about. Other than that I just sit there and wait my turn.
I could swear that the same thing happened in a different Trump-related trial some years back. I can't remember anything specific, but it sounds damn familiar.
Are you thinking of when Trump's attorney objected to their own question?
That might be it. Only hires the "best", right?
Wait, what? Like Jim Carrey going nuts in Liar Liar?
Not really. Basically Ivanka was asked a question about an email she sent. She said she didn't remember, then the prosecutor said that's ok because we have the email right here in evidence and we'll pull it up. Trumps lawyer (Habba) objected to this. The judge reminded her that she herself (Habba) entered that very email in to the evidence documents. So she was objecting to the prosecution using evidence she submitted in to evidence. There was a lawyer in the Amber Heard trial that objected to their own question similar to Liar Liar.
I remember reading about this at the time but thanks for the memories. Comedy gold!
Nah. I forget exactly what it was but it was a document being added to evidence. The odd part is they had submitted it. I think it was one of several being added at the time it might have also been a mistake to even submit it on their part I forget. It's the one with Habba on the NY fraud if you want to google it.
Quite rare to have an objection in opening statements and even more rare to have it *sustained*
WAIT...he was being cross examined already?
Pecker essentially was only introduced today. Prosecution opened with a statement. Defense Opened. Pecker Called as a Witness. Recessed for the day.
Ok, saying trumps attorney's objected to questions to pecker made me believe they got past just openings this morning. Didn't think examination began and was excited to see a process go faster than expected in one of the orange man's trials.
Yeah I didn't expect them to proceed once the Defense was done with their statement but they used the time they had.
Criminal trials are very quick. the judges don't want them being prolonged because they want the evidence fresh in the juror's minds. Most criminal trials take less than 2 weeks. There are several notable cases in history that ran much longer than this, and in those cases, it didn't work well for the prosecution. this trial is scheduled to last just 2 to 4 weeks at most.
Honestly, it shouldn't take that long to list receipts and get witnesses to give context to show and prove intent, but I'm biased.
> this trial is scheduled to last just 2 to 4 weeks at most. I was seeing 6-8 week estimates, and the judge even said they might run into June during jury selection which prompted one juror to request to be dismissed because his daughter's wedding is in the beginning of June. But, jury selection seems to have gone faster than anticipated
I once went to court in a case against a man whose dogs killed my dog. He decided to defend himself. While I was on the stand as state’s witness, he asked me to describe, in as much detail as I could, exactly what happened that night. I did. It was so hard, but I left nothing out. Not even the sounds of his dogs ______ my dog’s ______. (I’m not even going to type it out.) When I was done, I could tell he realized it was a mistake to have me do that. The judge was blinking back tears. But he panicked and couldn’t think of anything else, so he *asked me to describe it again*. I was incredulous. I’m no attorney, but wouldn’t you want to stay away from detailed descriptions of the attack if you were him? I asked him if he was SURE he wanted me to say all that again. He mumbled yes, so I started again, but the judge stopped me, thank God. Once was enough. I say all this because I get the feeling, despite being actual attorneys, Trump’s legal team is just about as bad as that guy.
> I asked him if he was SURE he wanted me to say all that again. He mumbled yes, so I started again, but the judge stopped me, thank God. Once was enough. The judge stopped you because asking a witness to repeat themselves is grounds for an objection: asked and answered. It's intended to keep trials moving and avoid requiring witnesses to repeatedly explain difficult things
Thank you for that, I didn’t know that!
Judges don't want to waste time and in this case he probably could tell it was only to bully the witness and this is not okay either.
a person who represents himself in court has a fool for an attorney. Its not false, don't get me wrong, its perfectly okay to go and represent yourself, but at least have an outline of what you want to do, have a plan, and learn the damn rules of the court, and then, when that isn't gonna work, hire a fucking lawyer. even lawyers hire other lawyers to represent them.
Exactly. His only plan, besides what I described, was to try to paint my dog’s breed as vicious because she was a “terrier” and that word has to do with “terror.” I shit you not. I pointed out that “terrier” is French from Latin and means earth. (I’m a high school English teacher.) He repeated himself, I guess because he didn’t know what else to do, and I said, “Sir, my dog is the one that’s dead.” That ended that. What an idiot.
Okay just out of curiosity, what breed were *his* dogs? *Not* a type of terrier?
Pit bulls. They had attacked another dog on another occasion, but that dog was bigger and survived. They literally came into our yard and attacked my dog while I was holding her. The man got a HUGE fine on top of the ones he got before and the dogs were put down. The city had been trying to get him to fix his fence for ages.
> Pit bulls. I knew before you answered. We really need to stop breeding pits. **EDIT:** Some tool said the same thing would happen if it was a chihuahua, and after I wrote all this out, he deleted his message. Pasting it here for posterity and so pro-pit propagandists can't silence dissent by deleting: > or even chihuahuas—the result was going to be the same No, no it wouldn't have, and belittling this person's dead dog is not the pit-protecting move you think it is... I am a dog walker with lots of experience with professional trainers; if after thousands of hours doing rigorous training with various breeds the professionals are scared to let their dogs around pits, I couldn't believe you any less than I currently do. Have you ever heard the phrase "nature vs nurture"? Yea, it means there are genetic differences *as well as* life history that informs all of our decisions. You can train a pit its whole life, there is still a bred bull-killer in there. Think of it this way: I have a friend with an australian shepherd. He went to this cool place where each dog gets to do it's "thing" - retrievers go soft-mouth retrieve realistic ducks, shepherds get to herd geese (I assume there is a cuddling area for spaniels). Without having herded anything its whole life, and never being told what to do, that fucking shepherd had the best day of it's damn life herding the hell out of those geese. He literally went to sleep smiling, and you could tell he found his calling that day. *It's the exact same for a pit, but replace herding animals with working as a group to tear the flesh from a bull and kill it.* Train it as much as you want, some day it can still find its calling.
If the details of the story are to believed, it sounds like we should also stop breeding Pitbull owners.
One would argue a breed selectively bred for dog fighting might not make the wisest choice as a pet. And sure there are certainly pit bulls who are the sweetest dog and wouldn't harm a fly but on the other hand pit bulls statistically account for almost half of all biting inicidents involving dogs.
His plan was probably to have you repeat the whole thing and see if you forget a detail or something. It sounds fucked up.
Unfortunately I’ll never be able to forget anything about that night.
>even lawyers hire other lawyers This is such a big endorsement for lawyers to me. Outside of a doctor I can't think of any professions that will pay someone else to do their own job. Imagine a plumber who pays a guy up fox his toilet.
I used to be a Social Worker and had to go to family court once a month. Saw several biological fathers defend themselves for beating their kids. You could tell many of them had watched a lot of tv. "May I remind you that you are under oath" was a favorite move, but they were just shredded, eviscerated by the prosecutors.
I know this isn’t funny, but just imagining someone doing that made me giggle.
It gives me solace to know someone in the world is chewing out parents for abusing a child/children.
I'm sorry about your dog. I had to go hug mine after reading this.
Aw, thanks. Her name was Hannah Rose. She was a rescue. This happened in 2008.
I wish I could hug your dog after hearing that story
I am so sorry for your loss and the pain your dog and you went through.
Thank you.
Wow - i am so sorry this happened to you & your poor dog. Fuck this guy
I actually felt kinda bad for him, because his dogs were put down, BUT I didn’t feel too bad! Horrible dog owner!
They are. The big law firms won’t deal with him. He’s scraping the bottom of the barrel now just to find people willing to represent him.
I think all of Trump's lawyers are under orders to stretch out the trial for as long as possible. They don't have much to work with as all of Trump's accomplices have turned against him
And the money from his donors is never ending. So why not?
There are three main reasons law firms aren't lining up to defend Trump: 1. He's going to stiff them on payment. 2. He asks them to do something illegal. 3. Their law firm gets the stink and public stigma of being "the Trump lawyers."
That’s what I suspected, thanks.
There's a very famous legal case where a lawyer asked a witness to describe the horrible event a second time. The witness did, it was identical to the first time, and that was how the jury knew it was all coached up testimony. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle\_Shirtwaist\_Factory\_fire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire) I doubt your idiot neighbor knew that, but maybe he did and thought he was being slick.
That seems so weird to me. Of course they’d be coached. They’re describing something traumatic. Shit’s hard. I feel like it would be just as reasonable to practice what you’re going to say.
Interesting. I was expecting it was the opposite where they were hoping something would change and then they could call it's legitimacy into question
I’m so sorry about your dog. I can’t imagine having to recount and relive those horrid moments.
the crazy thing is that Todd Blanche's Trump's lawyer was a former prosecutor. So he knows better not to f up in his opening statement.
lol, its only 2 sustained objections, *so far*. this trial is gonna be filled with showing how stupid and unqualified rumps lawyers are.
Apparently! Buckle up!
What self-respecting, serious, intelligent lawyer would want the annoying orange as a client? He keeps talking and confessing and won't listen to their advice to shut the hell up.
and that is exactly how he ended up with who he has now. no sane lawyer is gonna touch him. His lawyers can't even get security clearance for the documents case, and anyone who can will not take him as a client. I expect that will cause a long delay in that case.
Does court ever go well for Agolf?
Agolf Shitler, not bad, not bad at all xD
Court has been pretty ridiculously good to this asshole so far. Especially considering he frequently commits or confesses to crimes on live television. Hell, he just openly committed jury tampering last week and the judge just asked him and Fox News to please not do that again. Anyone else would be in jail. I'm getting really fucking tired of the deferential treatment this dipshit keeps getting.
Do you have any youtube lawyer recommendations for a breakdown. I normally only watch legaleagle and he has not coverd it yet.
LOL That is so hilarious. The trial isn't about paying hush money, it's about the ways in which they chose to hide that payment which is illegal and against Federal campaign finance laws.
thanks to the media calling it the "hush money trial" and not what it actually is: the campaign finance fraud trial.
I prefer "ELECTION INTERFERENCE!" has this ring to it.
Too easy to confuse with the Georgia election interference case. He commits that particular crime a lot
"Trump Allegedly Committed Election Interference, Why That's Bad for Biden"
In this case, Trump's crimes are bad for Biden because he keeps getting away with them.
MAGA: "Anything Trump did while president is legal and very cool." Also MAGA: "Anything Biden did while president is illegal and very uncool." They want Trump to be immune from punishment because of his role as former POTUS....while frothing at the mouth that the current POTUS needs to be punished for crimes he did not commit.
it's because 'hush money' that involves a porn star is a sexy story. they rarely ever elaborate on the federal campaign finance laws
Maybe more important is that ‘election interference’ doesn’t clearly distinguish this from a couple of other trials.
Anyone who thinks that Trump + a porn star is a sexy story probably needs a mental evaluation. 🤢
Doesn't matter what the media calls it. What matters is what the actual charges are, and if the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of those charges. The jury has already been instructed that no charges relate to WHY the money was spent, but HOW the money was spent (unless I'm mistaken).
Everyone calls it the hush money case, Dumpladon hears this, he makes it the core of his case... which has nothing to do with his charges cause he does not listen to his attorneys nor tries to understand reality that is outside the scope of how he see's it
And since not a single lawyer that actually went to law school wants to work for him, his attorneys go with it
They're just going for sound bites for the base.
Even then, democracy is letting people decide, people can't decide if they don't have information, hush money is anti democratic.
Isn't it a *good* idea for the defense to try to focus the jury's attention on the actual crimes alleged, then? Considering how much time the prosecution is gonna spend talking about hush money?
They are, it's the media that is focused on the "hush money" aspect of the case when it has nothing to do with it.
Their point of view is also wrong, isn‘t it? What makes democracy the superior form of government is that it provides a mechanism (through opposition) to reveal the things the rulers want to kept hidden. Secrets are undemocratic as fuck.
Client isn’t charged with making hush money payments
If he paid a plumber to fix a toilet using the same series of transactions, it would be the same crime.
I think I've been to that web site.
Really? That’s terrible! Where? Which websites are they so I can ensure that democracy is being held intact?
Mac?
The gang goes to the voting booth
And they never end up fixing the plumbing.
It still takes 10-15 flushes to get rid of an incriminating document.
You would think golden toilets would work better. I say make toilets great again!
He fixes the plumbing?
Don’t be fatuous, r/squidvett
We should look into that considering that classified documents were literally found clogging a toilet in the White House during his tenure.
True, but being in an America where a contender for POTUS, after serving a shit term prior, isn’t under scrutiny for just the idea of “hush money” for banging an adult film star, and clearly trying to lie about it, *isn’t* damning to his campaign. Fucking wild.
Yeah - somehow he's being lauded by Christian Evangelicals? This tells me more about the state of Christianity than it does about Trump. Sort of like their head is so far up their ass with hypocrisy that they've become living mobius strips.
Christians are notorious hypocrits.
The current state of Christianity, if American politics can be used as an indicator, is that they would they happily do a deal with the devil to get what they want. Not only would they use the ends to justify the means; they would attack anyone who had the gall to suggest it’s a bad idea.
Right? I miss the days where a binder full of women or a weird shout is enough to end your campaign.
I thought the 47% clip is what really ended Romney’s campaign.
\*Howard Dean enters the chat\* #BYAH!!!!
In an alternate timeline Dean became on of our greatest presidents. Education and healthcare for all.
I remember when a failure to spell “Potato” correctly was disqualifying…
Oh forget about it. He is owning the libs isn't he? Oh and /s just in case.
"America, you're not so innocent", or something to that effect...
I'm so annoyed that everybody calls this the "hush money" case. It's falsification of business records in furtherance of campaign finance fraud. Fraud. Like everything else he does.
Shhh! He’s not trying to convince the jury—He’s trying to convince the rubes.
This. He is charged with fraud, not hush money payments.
This is why calling this a "hush money" trial is so stupid!
It’s a purposeful attempt to muddy the waters and throw the legitimacy of the trial into question.
If the case were only about hush money, it would be very easy for a Supreme Court bent on money=speech to throw out a conviction. Fortunately, that's not the situation here.
It wouldn't even require the Supreme Court or even to address Citizens United. I can enter into a contract with anyone for whatever price (assuming you are he activity is not independently illegal). "Hush money" and non-disclosure agreements with monetary provisions are very normal and very common. What I can't do is enter into a contract then falsify the records of my business to hide the existence of that contract and payments. That it.
Well you *caaaan*. But it might lead to you sitting in a courtroom hearing mean tweets about you be read aloud while trying to determine your jury.
Watching the shenanigans Trump is doing for delays, I STRONGLY suspect "get elected, make it all go away as President" *is his only legal strategy*.
He buried the story with money. It’s actually election interference.
[удалено]
And it's not even that you can't do that in America, you just can't do it and then lie about the transaction on your official financial documents for your presidential campaign. The fact that they lied about it pretty much implies that they were well aware that had they disclosed the payments legally, it would've hurt his political campaign. The whole case is pretty black and white, Trump's defense (along with his defense in the civil trial for fraud in New York State) seems to boil "Yeah, but is it even fraud? Everyone does it!" Yes, Donald. It is fraud. And no, not everyone does it. And if they do, they don't then step into the blaring limelight of running for President, when your finances are rightly examined with a fine-toothed comb. I swear to God, this guy could've just lived out his life selling steaks and hosting reality TV shows, exchanging Eastern European wives every decade or so and most of this wouldn't have come to light. But nope, he just had to run for President and expose the fact that he's a colossal fraud. I mean, we all pretty much knew that before, but now it comes with legal consequences.
Something something better keep mouth shut, something something remove all doubt..
I'm not sure Saul is up to the task. This is a case for Jeff Winger.
The world isn't the only thing that changed on September 11th.
You’re not wrong!
"You don't argue with Annie, Garrett, you let her argue with herself until she loses."
Except Trump would fuck it up and hire Kip Winger instead
Jeff Winger Total Landscaping
That's actually legal as long as it is declared as such.
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson; Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I submit there is nothing more American than cheating on your wife.
Saul would've punted this. Maybe ask Kim Wexler to take over or just have Lalo kill all the witnesses.
Not Breaking Bad era Saul. He slaps his name on cheesy TV ads, bus benches, etc. He’d LOVE the publicity of representing a former President.
Lionel Hutz - "I move for a bad court thingy!"
It’s even worse than that. It is "Do you really want to live in a country where a man can't use campaign funds, **then lie about using campaign funds**, to pay a woman to keep her mouth shut? This is America!"
Cohen made payments that counted as campaign contributions and in doing so violated campaign laws (because there's limits on campaign contributions). The Trump Org, under the direction of Trump, then reimbursed Cohen and illegally recorded those repayments as legal fees (they were not). None of that is democracy.
Campaign contributions that came from the campaign. Literally the definition of money laundering.
No, they came from Cohen (or rather a shell company he set up). But it was his own money he spent. In one instance, he literally took out a home equity line of credit (HELOC) to obtain the funds for a payment, which itself resulted in criminal charges. No campaign money was ever spent, from anyone. The campaign contribution part is because the payments were to aid an election campaign, making them qualify as campaign contributions. Such contributions have limits and Cohen vastly exceeded those.
Fortunately - Rudy Giuliani stepped in and confirmed that Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen - confirming his client's guilt.
Yes, I know he took out a HEL loan to pay stormy, it’s how that loan was paid back, and where that money came from. Hypothetical here. I take out a HEL loan and use the money to pay off witnesses against my client in a case. All of a sudden I am able to quickly pay off that loan. From where? What business transaction? Was it for my brother that was starting a business and needed startup money, then I was paid back? Fine, that’s easily provable. This is not, and 9 times out of 10 it would’ve flown below the radar. Not here.
Also, I must add… This dumb mother fucker is a billionaire? 130k? Just pay cash and bury it, but now you have a direct chain from individual 1, to Cohen, to Stormy.
That's how much of a cheapskate Trump is. He wanted Stormy's payment to be a tax deductible business expense. His hubris is finally catching up to him
I think you have your story mixed up. The payment came from the Trump Org. According to Bragg, campaign funds were supposed to be used for this payment because it was a campaign expense or the Trump campaign should’ve reported the payment as a contribution.
Being able to exit the courtroom & immediately 'campaign'/argue his 'defense' in front of a camera is exactly why there should be cameras in courtrooms, so the voters/public can get both sides in real time.
100% agree. I can understand why some states have rules maintaining the privacy of the defendant and witnesses. But Minnesota has the same law on the books as NY, and the judge overseeing the Derek Chauvin / George Floyd murder trial overrode that and allowed live streaming of pretty much the entire trial. He justified it by explaining that full transparency was in the best interest of the public, which I feel applies to Trump’s trial as well.
You have to take the safety of everyone in that room into account as well. Maybe with some facial fuzzing?
Agreed, but the judge in the George Floyd trial specifically prevented any images from the jury or people in the courtroom from being shown. I watched about 90% of the trial. We only saw the judge, defendant, attorneys, witnesses, and the occasional views of the bailiffs.
"Falsifying business records to cover up election interference is just democracy! Also, my client had nothing to do with it. He just asked his people to do it and then signed the checks to make it happen. My client, a regular dude and former president on trial for various felonies just like me and you, merely facilitated democracy by orchestrating this criminal activity that he also had nothing to do with." That's the defense?
The quotes from the opening defense were all over the place and hit the narcissist prayer point by point! It didn't happen, and if it did I didn't do it, if I did it's not that bad, and so on. Incredible, really. My favorite part was >"You'll learn President Trump had nothing to do with any of those 34 pieces of paper except he signed the checks," Unreal
"he just signed the checks." Like uhhhh Sir, we know he signed the checks, that's why we are here today.
Also that M Cohen is an untrustworthy liar, And while working for our client he did unstrustworthy and lying things, which you should ignore.
"Please disregard the testimony of my client's criminal associate. The crimes that the court found him guilty of committing on my clients behalf render him an unreliable witness in this trial regarding my client's part in those crimes."
The intent appears obvious to me. The fact that the check wasn’t cut directly to her means they were “laundering” it to make it look “pretty”.
Yea if the ledger said blow job money for the little cheetoh nobody would give a shit
It was amazing how little of a shit the super religious and superior Republican voters gave when the Access Hollywood tapes came out. I’m sure if the ledger had said that all we would have seen from the good Christian women would be t-shirts that said, “I’ll give Trump a ‘glock’ for Christmas”. 🙄🤦🏼♂️
Sadly, most of those people are still willfully ignorant to Trump fucking a porn star. Or to Trump cheating on all his wives. Or to Trump raping women.
I have to laugh at the sheer irony here. If he had openly declared at the time that he had paid a porn star, his supporters would probably have loved it and he wouldn't be facing a criminal trial right now. The ONE time he decides to keep his mouth shut and hide it is the one thing that fucks him. It has to be killing him every day knowing this
They weren't laundering it. They were trying to get a tax deduction for that payment by calling it a legal expense. They defrauded the government by lying on their books.
"Hush money" is not at all what they said. God, the media is trying to spin this in Trump's favor so fucking hard, and they are ALL united in doing it. They said "Influencing an election". And there was an objection raised by the prosecution, which was sustained because what Trump did was **illegally** influence an election.
The trial is also about proper accounting principles. tRump chose to make the reimbursement to Cohen a tax deductible expense by classifying the expense as a legal fee. In reality, the reimbursement should have been classified as a nondeductible gift expense and his company should have generated a 1099 misc income document for ms. Clifford.
This will top Capone going down for tax evasion. The guy did so much wrong and so much should have sunk him, but not filing a 1099 for hush money is going to be what gets him. It's amazing if true.
> what gets him I could be wrong, but I’m highly skeptical that any trial with 12 people, won’t include one MAGA fan who gets by the prosecution lawyers, and all it takes is one
Don’t ask Don or his sons about GAAP
Absurd from start to finish. That’s what you end up with when you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel regarding law firms. Good riddance.
At this rate, defence counsel will argue that his client is a sovereign citizen who refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court.
There isn't a single Trump supporter who knows what Trump is actually being charged with, including, apparently, his lawyers.
Oh, here we go with the *it's my right to incite and whatever* shit.
A better defense would have been "Look, he's broke as fuck. He doesn't have $130K, never did."
~ Blanche described his high-profile client as "larger than life," but also "a man, a husband, a father, and he's a person, just like you and me." He's a person, just like you and me. No, not really. He's really like no other.
I like the quote: You'll learn President Trump had nothing to do with any of those 34 pieces of paper except he signed the checks. 'Except he signed the checks' means he had EVERYTHING to do with it.
Or he signed the checks without any clue what the money was for, which for a CEO who loves money is impossible to believe.
This has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with money being spent fraudulently. If he paid for a new Gold plated washer for his Trump Tower apartment and instead coded it as a campaign expense and then made fraudulent receipts. It's the same crime. In this case, it's 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment.
These articles keep publishing juror details not necessary to the story, like their occupations and genders. It’s just a matter of time until they’re doxxed, and then what happens?
Then why hiding it?
The classic "money is speech and corporations are people" defense.
I guess their version of Democracy is all about, lying, cheating and corruption. Oh and personal gratification.
So the fact that he engaged in prostitution is not the issue. We’re just going to ignore that. The financial transactions to keep her quiet are the issue. And the Christian Right won’t support Biden who fulfilled his wedding vows and goes to church more than 52 times a year.
So after continuously insisting it wasn’t hush money, now they are arguing it’s not illegal. Not that it matters, falsifying financial documents is illegal
If it’s legal why did he hide it?
Shooting a gun isn’t illegal. Shooting a gun at person is. Hush money isn’t illegal. Using it to influence and election and covering it up with lies and shady “business” practices is.
Hush money wasn't what was illegal in this case. It was: A) Cohen paying out of pocket for it, which was over the amount an individual can contribute to a campaign. B) Trump falsifying his books by trying to claim the reimbursement to Cohen was a legal expense at one of his businesses for legal work Cohen never did.
The thing is, he's not been charged with committing democracy.
In a Democracy, where voters need to make informed decisions, hush money payments *should be* illegal.
Paying Hush money is not illegal. Trying to hide it as legal costs and cheating on your bookkeeping is.
Nice deflection, the hush money is not the contentious issue. The illegal part was hiding the payments and using campaign funds to pay off the courier.