NY - Ex-President Donald Trump, charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #3

[RANCH]

The black out part is just weird to me. Maybe that’s what people in the sex industry do. idk Supposedly no drugs or alcohol involved. I’m keeping faith that one juror sees through this ..

One thing for sure is Stormy Daniels knows nothing about whether President Trump falsified any business records. Hopefully a least one juror we see that her testimony is worthless. JMO.

 

[tlcya]

She doesn’t have much credibility. imo I was wondering how someone blacks out, yet remembers details. I doubt she was looking lovingly into his eyes because she was blacked out.

I respect that it makes no difference to a lot of people but it does to me. (hugs)

I can appreciate your POV and the fact we can discuss how ours differ (hugs)

BTW the facepalm in mine wasn't directed at you, it was commentary on the putting things in writing that the crew surrounding defendant did

 

[tlcya]

One thing for sure is Stormy Daniels knows nothing about whether President Trump falsified any business records. Hopefully a least one juror we see that her testimony is worthless. JMO.

I will agree that having her testify was not particularly helpful IMO to the prosecution's case. This is a case about records and whether they prove that defendant falsified business records to quietly pay hush money under the proverbial table through a third party. The proof is in the documents, not some former adult film star's testimony about a dalliance with him.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

One thing for sure is Stormy Daniels knows nothing about whether President Trump falsified any business records. Hopefully a least one juror we see that her testimony is worthless. JMO.

I agree and I still think her testimony was weird and unnecessary. Yet they wanted all the salacious details out even if they may not be true. It further muddies the water. imo

 

[kaen]

I will agree that having her testify was not particularly helpful IMO to the prosecution's case. This is a case about records and whether they prove that defendant falsified business records to quietly pay hush money under the proverbial table through a third party. The proof is in the documents, not some former adult film star's testimony about a dalliance with him.

Your POV is interesting to me. I thought her testimony as to the relationship is part of the case. It doesn't make sense that there would hush money without an action that one wants to hide. If she was asking for money in order to keep this quiet, she would be blackmailing him. His machine offering her hush money requires that there is something to be hushed. Mr. Trump has always said there was no interaction and turned this into a he said/she said scenario. If he had admitted to himself and his team that there had been a relationship and he wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement then that is not illegal.

He created the storm here by refusing to admit what he had done intitially AND, then, he doubled down with the money offer, AND, then, he called everyone who helped him liars and her one as well. So,this is the reason that her testimony has importance from my perspective..........JMHO

 

[tlcya]

Your POV is interesting to me. I thought her testimony as to the relationship is part of the case. It doesn't make sense that there would hush money without an action that one wants to hide. If she was asking for money in order to keep this quiet, she would be blackmailing him. His machine offering her hush money requires that there is something to be hushed. Mr. Trump has always said there was no interaction and turned this into a he said/she said scenario. If he had admitted to himself and his team that there had been a relationship and he wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement then that is not illegal.

He created the storm here by refusing to admit what he had done intitially AND, then, he doubled down with the money offer, AND, then, he called everyone who helped him liars and her one as well. So,this is the reason that her testimony has importance from my perspective..........JMHO

I follow you, but for me, this case is about the whether business records were falsified. regardless of the cause.

Whether sex occurred or not is not the saliant point. It's whether the payoff did and business records were falsified in the furtherance of that payoff.

example: I could have met defendant in passing some years ago. I could be attempting to sell a story about a fictional intimate encounter I claim to have had with defendant. Defendant could decide he didn't want that story out there and think that to deny said story publicly would only serve to fan the flames rather than quash it. Instead the defendant decides to buy my silence rather than risk the ridicule of my false story being published. So whether or not the act took place is of no consequence IMO to this trial.

What is of consequence is did defendant falsify business records in the furtherance of hush money.

 

[MyBelle]

I will agree that having her testify was not particularly helpful IMO to the prosecution's case. This is a case about records and whether they prove that defendant falsified business records to quietly pay hush money under the proverbial table through a third party. The proof is in the documents, not some former adult film star's testimony about a dalliance with him.

I think the jury will have empathy for Stormy. The Prosecution needed her to testify because she was the recipient of the hush money. If Trump didn't have sex with her, there would be no need to pay her hush money and then lie about it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Your POV is interesting to me. I thought her testimony as to the relationship is part of the case. It doesn't make sense that there would hush money without an action that one wants to hide. If she was asking for money in order to keep this quiet, she would be blackmailing him. His machine offering her hush money requires that there is something to be hushed. Mr. Trump has always said there was no interaction and turned this into a he said/she said scenario. If he had admitted to himself and his team that there had been a relationship and he wanted her to sign a non-disclosure agreement then that is not illegal.

He created the storm here by refusing to admit what he had done intitially AND, then, he doubled down with the money offer, AND, then, he called everyone who helped him liars and her one as well. So,this is the reason that her testimony has importance from my perspective..........JMHO

BBM. Exactly! I think her testimony is as essential to the Prosecution case as was the testimony from the former publisher of the National Enquirer.

JMO

 

[SouthAussie]

Stormy's testimony provides motive for the crime.
While motive isn't required in a criminal trial, it is sure helpful to show a jury why a person allegedly committed the crime.

imo

 

[MyBelle]

Stormy's testimony provides motive for the crime.
While motive isn't required in a criminal trial, it is sure helpful to show a jury why a person allegedly committed the crime.

imo

That's a very good point! When John Edwards' affair and love child was exposed, he dropped out of the Presidential race.
He went on trial for campaign finance violations and the jury couldn't agree. The DOJ decided not to retry the case.

JMO

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/justice-dept-wont-retry-john-edwards-077398

 

[RANCH]

I agree and I still think her testimony was weird and unnecessary. Yet they wanted all the salacious details out even if they may not be true. It further muddies the water. imo

Yes. The prosecution wanted all of the extraneous details of the single encounter between Stormy and President Trump to be heard by the jury.

They probably could have done a stipulation that the event had happened and never even called her as a witness. JMO.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Yes. The prosecution wanted all of the extraneous details of the single encounter between Stormy and President Trump to be heard by the jury.

They probably could have done a stipulation that the event had happened and never even called her as a witness. JMO.

I don't think Trump's team would have agreed to the stipulation. His lawyer claimed in opening statements that the event never happened.

 

[RANCH]

I don't think Trump's team would have agreed to the stipulation. His lawyer claimed in opening statements that the event never happened.

They also would have done the prosecution a favor by doing a stipulation. Stormy hasn't helped in proving their case in my opinion.

Daniels Humiliated Trump, But Might Have Helped His Case

 

[MyBelle]

Yes. The prosecution wanted all of the extraneous details of the single encounter between Stormy and President Trump to be heard by the jury.

They probably could have done a stipulation that the event had happened and never even called her as a witness. JMO.

It wasn't just a single encounter. Trump wanted to repeat it and she testified she avoided him. Apparently, sleeping with a married man wasn't what she wanted to do.

JMO

Stormy Daniels describes meeting Trump during occasionally graphic testimony in hush money trial

*advertiser censored* actor Stormy Daniels has testified at Donald Trump’s hush money trial about a sexual encounter she says they had in 2006 that resulted in her being paid off to keep silent during the presidential election a decade later.

apnews.com

The two saw each other periodically in the ensuing years, when she said she spurned Trump’s advances.

In 2011, several years after she and Trump were last in touch, she said she learned from her agent that the story of her encounter with Trump had made its way to a magazine.

She said she agreed to an interview for $15,000 because “I’d rather make the money than somebody make money off of me, and at least I could control the narrative.” The story never ran, but later that year, she was alarmed when an item turned up on a website.

Perhaps seeking to preempt defense claims that she was in urgent need of a massive payout, Daniels testified that she was in the best financial shape of her life when she authorized her manager to shop her story during the 2016 presidential campaign.

She said she had no intent of approaching Cohen or Trump to have them pay her.

 

[RANCH]

It wasn't just a single encounter. Trump wanted to repeat it and she testified she avoided him. Apparently, sleeping with a married man wasn't what she wanted to do.

JMO

Stormy Daniels describes meeting Trump during occasionally graphic testimony in hush money trial

*advertiser censored* actor Stormy Daniels has testified at Donald Trump’s hush money trial about a sexual encounter she says they had in 2006 that resulted in her being paid off to keep silent during the presidential election a decade later.

apnews.com

The two saw each other periodically in the ensuing years, when she said she spurned Trump’s advances.

In 2011, several years after she and Trump were last in touch, she said she learned from her agent that the story of her encounter with Trump had made its way to a magazine.

She said she agreed to an interview for $15,000 because “I’d rather make the money than somebody make money off of me, and at least I could control the narrative.” The story never ran, but later that year, she was alarmed when an item turned up on a website.

Perhaps seeking to preempt defense claims that she was in urgent need of a massive payout, Daniels testified that she was in the best financial shape of her life when she authorized her manager to shop her story during the 2016 presidential campaign.

She said she had no intent of approaching Cohen or Trump to have them pay her.

Your link say's it was a single encounter. She "spurned" him. As in rejected him afterwards.

Unless you're saying they met in person later on. That's not the point of my comment. JMO.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't think Trump's team would have agreed to the stipulation. His lawyer claimed in opening statements that the event never happened.

Very true!

Trump's degree of financial and moral corruption is being fully exposed to the world. I think that is why Hope Hicks burst into tears.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Your link say's it was a single encounter. She "spurned" him. As in rejected him afterwards.

Unless you're saying they met in person later on. That's not the point of my comment. JMO.

That's correct, Stormy repeatedly spurned a man she knew was married. She apparently respected his wife more than he did. I find her testimony very credible.

JMO

 

[alliecat44]

The prosecution needed to have her testify in order to show that there was a reason she was paid (as others have said). It’s an element of the crime. I think Stormy’s detailed recall, down to the level of the name of the shampoo bottle and the gold fingernail clippers, increases the credibility of her story—and undermines the credibility of defense counsel who say that the encounter(s) never happened.

As to stipulations, Trump’s legal team wouldn’t even stipulate to the authenticity of CSPAN footage. All a tactic to delay, delay, delay and drag this out. Plus spending more taxpayer money to pay for travel etc of extraneous authenticating witnesses, trying to lull the jury into a bored stupor so they don’t pay close attention, etc. IMO.

 

[ilovewings]

I agree and I still think her testimony was weird and unnecessary. Yet they wanted all the salacious details out even if they may not be true. It further muddies the water. imo

I am thinking her testimony may do more harm than good: not sure the jurors are going to like her very much.

 

[RANCH]

The prosecution needed to have her testify in order to show that there was a reason she was paid (as others have said). It’s an element of the crime. I think Stormy’s detailed recall, down to the level of the name of the shampoo bottle and the gold fingernail clippers, increases the credibility of her story—and undermines the credibility of defense counsel who say that the encounter(s) never happened.

As to stipulations, Trump’s legal team wouldn’t even stipulate to the authenticity of CSPAN footage. All a tactic to delay, delay, delay and drag this out. Plus spending more taxpayer money to pay for travel etc of extraneous authenticating witnesses, trying to lull the jury into a bored stupor so they don’t pay close attention, etc. IMO.

What CSPAN footage? Do you have a link?