Trump's NY Election Interference Trial (Defense rests. Trump did not take the stand)

[RLLD 3,538]

2 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

What was her lie?  You can't keep saying "she lied" without being able to say what the lie was.

On the stand, she lied and told a different version of what transpired.  There was no need to lie here, she did not need to make up something more seedy.....

[Ron_Artest 767]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

On the stand, she lied and told a different version of what transpired.  There was no need to lie here, she did not need to make up something more seedy.....

What was the lie? Specifically?  Can you say what the lie was?

[thegeneral 1,510]

12 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think she did have sex with him, I think that simply must be true.  What gives me pause is this <ahem> "revised depiction" (lie) she told on the stand.  Now I have to wonder what is true.....

Oh ok. 

[thegeneral 1,510]

17 minutes ago, supermike80 said:

All I wanna know is will this be over soon?   I have seen more than enough coverage on this stupid thing.  It ain't helping me pay my bills.

I think Cohen is it for Prosecution. Defense is up. Donald told us he would testify so who knows how long that goes for

[jonmx 1,674]

7 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think Cohen is it for Prosecution. Defense is up. Donald told us he would testify so who knows how long that goes for

He is not going to testify in this Kangaroo Court.  The judge has made it perfectly clear if Trump takes the stand the prosecution has a blank check to drag in any and all dirt on Trump they want.  The judge has been rigging this case in every possible way to somehow get a conviction.  Only sicko fascist bastard such as yourself would cheerlead this absolute crapping all over our justice system.  There is nothing about this that resembles America.  We are making the Russian court system look fair. 

[RLLD 3,538]

17 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

What was the lie? Specifically?  Can you say what the lie was?

I think it depends on your perspective.  So we could assert that she lied in 2018 when she said “They tried to shove me in the MeToo box to further their own agenda. And first of all, I didn’t want to be part of that because it’s not the truth and I’m not a victim in that regard.”   So at the time she was portraying things as consensual.....but then again her lawyer did also reveal that she had previsously attempted to extort Trump, but then again her lawyer is a focking liar so not sure we can trust anything that coward says....

And then recently on the stand she  stated ‘There was an imbalance of power for sure.’ ‘My hands were shaking so hard.’  and she said she blacked out.......well, one of those depictions is a lie.....I think it might be the more recent one.....but who knows... I mean a porn start blacking out from sex.....yeah, not sure that adds up....

So she either lied in 2018 or she lied recently on the stand. 

[RLLD 3,538]

9 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I think Cohen is it for Prosecution. Defense is up. Donald told us he would testify so who knows how long that goes for

Agree.  I think Cohen mostly just checks a box, he is the prosecutions hope to somehow avoid a directed verdict.

[jonmx 1,674]

Just now, RLLD said:

Agree.  I think Cohen mostly just checks a box, he is the prosecutions hope to somehow avoid a directed verdict.

There is zero chance this judge will make a directed verdict.  His decisions have favored the prosecution about 99 percent of the time.  He will not give Trump anything, although this should be a directed verdict. 

[RLLD 3,538]

3 minutes ago, jonmx said:

There is zero chance this judge will make a directed verdict.  His decisions have favored the prosecution about 99 percent of the time.  He will not give Trump anything, although this should be a directed verdict. 

I tend to agree.   This guy has tentacles into the Trump-cadre, I mean his daughter is tightly integrated into that klan of politicallu corrupt shock troops..... he cannot be the guy that dismisses the Trump case, legality and fairness be damnned.

 

Hell, even Fareed is calling this charade out now, and he focking detests Trump....but this lawfare is increasingly tough for people to pretend to justify...

 

 

[Tree of Knowledge 897]

14 minutes ago, jonmx said:

He is not going to testify in this Kangaroo Court.  The judge has made it perfectly clear if Trump takes the stand the prosecution has a blank check to drag in any and all dirt on Trump they want.  The judge has been rigging this case in every possible way to somehow get a conviction.  Only sicko fascist bastard such as yourself would cheerlead this absolute crapping all over our justice system.  There is nothing about this that resembles America.  We are making the Russian court system look fair. 

Well said. 

[Ron_Artest 767]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think it depends on your perspective.  So we could assert that she lied in 2018 when she said “They tried to shove me in the MeToo box to further their own agenda. And first of all, I didn’t want to be part of that because it’s not the truth and I’m not a victim in that regard.”   So at the time she was portraying things as consensual.....but then again her lawyer did also reveal that she had previsously attempted to extort Trump, but then again her lawyer is a focking liar so not sure we can trust anything that coward says....

And then recently on the stand she  stated ‘There was an imbalance of power for sure.’ ‘My hands were shaking so hard.’  and she said she blacked out.......well, one of those depictions is a lie.....I think it might be the more recent one.....but who knows... I mean a porn start blacking out from sex.....yeah, not sure that adds up....

So she either lied in 2018 or she lied recently on the stand. 

So in 2018 she claimed that was not a victim of sexual assault.  In 2024 she also claimed on the witness stand that she was not a victim of sexual assault.

You seem to be stuck on her testimony that there was an imbalance of power and the sex was not fun, her hands shaking, blacking out.  That can all happen at the same time that she never said no.  She let him fock her, never in dispute.  She never said no, again rock solid on that in 2018 and 2024.  Was it fun for her?  No, she never said it was.

So let me explain to you what a lie is.  A lie is when someone says something that is not true.  It's possible she's lying about the whole thing, we don't know, only 2 people know what happened.  But she never contradicted herself or caught herself in a lie.  I think you get confused rather easily so I'm not going to ask you again what the lie is.  It's clear you are just gonna keep dancing around the issue and annoying everyone here.

[Tree of Knowledge 897]

Cohen must be getting owned.  Squidward can’t even find one x post from the usual propagandists    

[RLLD 3,538]

1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said:

So in 2018 she claimed that was not a victim of sexual assault.  In 2024 she also claimed on the witness stand that she was not a victim of sexual assault.

You seem to be stuck on her testimony that there was an imbalance of power and the sex was not fun, her hands shaking, blacking out.  That can all happen at the same time that she never said no.  She let him fock her, never in dispute.  She never said no, again rock solid on that in 2018 and 2024.  Was it fun for her?  No, she never said it was.

So let me explain to you what a lie is.  A lie is when someone says something that is not true.  It's possible she's lying about the whole thing, we don't know, only 2 people know what happened.  But she never contradicted herself or caught herself in a lie.  I think you get confused rather easily so I'm not going to ask you again what the lie is.  It's clear you are just gonna keep dancing around the issue and annoying everyone here.

I am stuck on her conflicting depiction as to what transpired.  One is true, one is not.  Regardless, her lies have no bearing on the case......which makes her sacrificing her credibility interesting.....

[thegeneral 1,510]

19 minutes ago, jonmx said:

He is not going to testify in this Kangaroo Court.  The judge has made it perfectly clear if Trump takes the stand the prosecution has a blank check to drag in any and all dirt on Trump they want.  The judge has been rigging this case in every possible way to somehow get a conviction.  Only sicko fascist bastard such as yourself would cheerlead this absolute crapping all over our justice system.  There is nothing about this that resembles America.  We are making the Russian court system look fair. 

He was never going to testify. You know this right?

He said he can’t testify because of the gag order

[jonmx 1,674]

25 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

He was never going to testify. You know this right?

He said he can’t testify because of the gag order

I am sure he wanted to testify and probably still does.   His attorney's didn't want him to, so this gives them more leverage to convince Trump not to take the stand.  You are clueless if you really believe Trump is afraid or does not want to testify.  

[thegeneral 1,510]

4 minutes ago, jonmx said:

I am sure he wanted to testify and probably still does.   His attorney's didn't want him to, so this gives them more leverage to convince Trump not to take the stand.  You are clueless if you really believe Trump is afraid or does not want to testify.  

He said he couldn’t because of the gag order, even the rubes laughed at him for this excuse. 

Like he listens to any of his lawyers advice. He tosses those out like a used Kleenex then watches them get disbarred.

He wants no part of going under oath. 

[RLLD 3,538]

 

[thegeneral 1,510]

Cohen says it was floated to pay Stormy in credits to Trump’s golf courses

 

[Engorgeous George 1,253]

10 hours ago, thegeneral said:

Not asking if you care. Your opinion of that isn’t relevant.

He claims he didn’t bang her he didn’t work to hide it, cover up the payments etc with a media outlet before the election to help his chances. 

She says they knocked boots, Avenati and Pecker said they worked to suppress the story. It’s painfully obvious he is lying about this.

If that is a crime is the issue.

Historically it never has been.  With the advent of campaign finance laws passed a few decades ago it could be a crime if camapign donations from donors exceeded allowable limits and/or were used to pay to suppress the story and the accounting of the campaign finance funds was fraudulent.  Election interference laws were about access to the ballot, access to the vote, and accounting for the integrity of the count.  They never were meant to extend to reputational puffery and have previously never been applied that way.  The same with New York's business records act which have never had anything to do with campaigning but were and are in place to prevent deceptive business practices in New York and to assure that New York gets its tax and licensing fees monies.  That law was never meant to, and has never been used to enforce fair campaigns or campaign finance disclosures.

 

Did Trump wish to decieve the publc about his character, certainly.  Did that have campaign benefits, certainly.  Was that the primary or only motivation for a man whose business reputation and personal reputation are important,  who can say, certainly not the only motivation and maybe not even the primary motivation as his business efforts were always going to extend to a time beyond his term of Office, if he even got one.  His business reputation was extant, his political reputation only speculative, so who can really say the one outweighed the other? There is also the personal embarassment factor not only with his wife but his kids and his friends.  That cannot be wholly discounted out of hand.

 

I dispise Trump.  His reputation was always trash as far as I am concerned. I would never have done business with the man even if he paid in full, up front, as he does not hesitate after the fact to trash the reputation of anyone whose name comes into his mouth if it can even in the slightest degree enhance his warped view of his reputation.  Only an idiot would associate with the man.  Still, that does not mean he is guilty of these charges which have been misapplied.  He is guilty of many things, but not this.

 

I always feel dirty when I attack the process as folks can assume I am doing so in defense of Trump when I am doing so in defense of fair process. When I defended charged criminals I did not do so to defend them as people, to endorse their worth as people, but to defend and uphold our consitutional system.  I got some reprehensible and some simply dodgy folks off by defending the system and demanding the system work within its rules and precepts.  That it inured to falks who are and were questionable ws and is a fair price for the protections and the proper working of the system as someday you, or I, or others may be factually and morally innocent and we will want a fully function system of due process.  My difficulties resolving my championing the system inuring to the benefitof truly reprehesible mvermin is why i switched sides and prosecuted for a long time before ending up, at the tail end of a long and successful career switching back to defense work on behalf of the childre of some friends who needed representation very badly.

[Ron_Artest 767]

22 minutes ago, RLLD said:

 

Use Bill Maher was bad enough.  After I dismantled Bill Maher, now you're going with Tim Poole talking about Bill Maher? 

[jerryskids 5,335]

2 hours ago, Fumbleweed said:

OK. Then what did Stormy Daniels' testimony then have to do with anything? 

Nothing really, at least all of the details about the sex.  This judge doesn't seem to care if the verdict falls on appeal, instead he seems to be maximizing the chances for conviction.

[thegeneral 1,510]

1 minute ago, Engorgeous George said:

Historically it never has been.  With the advent of campaign finance laws passed a few decades ago it could be if camapign donations from donors exceeded allowable limits and were used to pay to suppress the story and the accounting of the campaign finance funds was fraudulent.  Election interference laws were about access to the ballot, access to the vote, and accounting for the integrity of the count.  They never were meant to extend to reoutational puffery adn have previously never been applied that way.  The same with New York's business records act which have never had anything to do with campaigning but were and are in placeto prevent deceptive business practices in new York and to assure that New York gets its tax and licensing fees monies.  That law was never meant to, and has never been used to enforce fair campaigns or campaign disclosures.

 

Did Trump wish to decieve the publc about his character, certainly.  Did that have campaign benefits, certainy.  Was that the primary or only motivation for a man whose business reputation and personal reputation are important,  who can say, certainly not the only motivation and maybe not even the primary motivation as his business efforts were always going to extend to a time beyond his term of Office, if he even got one.  His business reputation was extant, his political reputation only specualtive, so who can really say the one outweighted the other?

 

I dispise Trump.  His reputation was always trash as far as I am concerned. I would never have done business with the man even if he paid in full, up front, as he does not hesitate after the fact to trash the reputation of anyone whose name comes into his mouth if it can even in the slightest degree enhance his warped view of his reputation.  Only an idiot would associate with the man.  Still, taht does not mean he is guilty of these cahrges which have been misapplied.  He is guilty of many things, but not this.

 

I always feel dirty when I attach the process as folks can assume I am doing so in defense of Trump when I am doing so in defense of fair process. When I defended charged criminals i did not do so to defend them as people, to endorse their worth as people, but to defend and uphold our consitutional system.  I got some reprehensible and some simply dodgy folks off by defending the sysgtem and demanding the system work within its rules and precepts.  That it inured to falks who are and were questionable ws and is a fair price for teh protections and the proper working of the system as someday you, Or I, or others may be factually and morally innocent and we will want a fully function system of due process. 

To this Cohen is testifying that Trump told him to make the payments. Trump told him to not worry about Melania. That he wanted this pushed back as far as possible. That Donald knew that if this got out it would be a disaster for him in the election, if he lost then he didn’t care, if he won it wouldn’t matter. It is pretty compelling after watching the dude’s act for 4 years highlighted by his actions when he lost the election, the lengths he went through to subvert, that this is all he cares about. 

I don’t know how the charges are all laid out TBH but I think the jury will find him guilty of the falsifying records but not of the election tampering portion if this is possible. 

[RLLD 3,538]

28 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Use Bill Maher was bad enough.  After I dismantled Bill Maher, now you're going with Tim Poole talking about Bill Maher? 

Keeping in line with your clear lack of intellect, throwing in the argument from authority shows how incapable you are. Your lack of comprehension and unwillingness to forthrightly discuss the point shows your fear of that point. 

[Ron_Artest 767]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Keeping in line with your clear lack of intellect, throwing in the argument from authority shows how incapable you are. Your lack of comprehension and unwillingness to forthrightly discuss the point shows your fear of that point. 

I asked you 5 times what lie did Stormy tell and you couldn't answer it.  I'm not scared of 6, are you?

[RLLD 3,538]

2 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

I asked you 5 times what lie did Stormy tell and you couldn't answer it.  I'm not scared of 6, are you?

I answered, and rather clearly....and with linkage.....pretending that did not happen serves no purpose other than to misrepresent what transpired as if you cannot discuss the point forthrightly.

[Ron_Artest 767]

Just now, RLLD said:

I answered, and rather clearly....and with linkage.....pretending that did not happen serves no purpose other than to misrepresent what transpired as if you cannot discuss the point forthrightly.

You never answered.  You typed some words, you changed your story, but you were unable to show evidence of any lie.  FACT.

[RLLD 3,538]

Just now, Ron_Artest said:

You never answered.  You typed some words, you changed your story, but you were unable to show evidence of any lie.  FACT.

I absolutely answered, why pretend like this? What do you get out of it?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,895]

40 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

To this Cohen is testifying that Trump told him to make the payments. Trump told him to not worry about Melania. That he wanted this pushed back as far as possible. That Donald knew that if this got out it would be a disaster for him in the election, if he lost then he didn’t care, if he won it wouldn’t matter. It is pretty compelling after watching the dude’s act for 4 years highlighted by his actions when he lost the election, the lengths he went through to subvert, that this is all he cares about. 

I don’t know how the charges are all laid out TBH but I think the jury will find him guilty of the falsifying records but not of the election tampering portion if this is possible. 

He was charged with election tampering? 

[The Real timschochet 3,127]

Look it appears to me that originally when Stormy told the story she implied that she wasn’t pressured into having sex. Then when she told the story under oath she implied that she was pressured into having sex. But she didn’t change her story either time; she just interpreted how Trump behaved in a different manner. That’s not lying IMO. 

[The Real timschochet 3,127]

The key to Cohen’s testimony is twofold: 

1. Donald Trump directed the payment and was aware of it. 

2. Donald Trump had Stormy Daniels paid not for personal reasons, but because of the election. 

This eliminates Trump’s two stated defenses, that this payment was made without his knowledge and that it wasn’t done for electoral purposes. (In this thread @Jon_mx has offered a third defense: that  there is no underlying crime here worthy of a felony conviction, but to the best of my knowledge Trump’s attorneys have not made this argument in court). 

As I wrote earlier Michael Cohen doesn’t have great personal credibility but his testimony on these two points is backed up by the evidence, particularly the records, additional witness testimony and most of all the tape. 

[thegeneral 1,510]

13 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

He was charged with election tampering? 

The charges that relate to the unlawfully influencing the election is what I was referring to. I am not sure on how these charges are specifically laid out, how or if they can be separated, etc. 

I am guessing right now that a jury would find him guilty of charges specifically about falsifying payments, tax related issues but not the issues related to intent of that if that is possible. 

 

[BeachGuy23 578]

25 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I absolutely answered, why pretend like this? What do you get out of it?

A lie is a falsehood.

Interpreting the same event in two different ways while not deviating from the actual event itself isn't lying.

Let me help you out RLLD although I know you'll just deflect to more random bs.

If I said "I was feeling blue when I got held up one time"  and the next I say "I was having an average day when held up"

Neither of those makes me a liar if I did in fact get held up.

I can see your time away didn't make you any more of an honest debater.

Like the lie you keep repeating that people without jobs are better off than people with jobs but facing higher inflation.

Bad form boyo. 

 

[Voltaire 4,578]

Hookers don't need to be pressure to have sex with their clients, they do it willingly and are getting paid for services rendered.

[Voltaire 4,578]

Trump paid the hooker, then he paid her extra to not talk about it. Now that's supposed to be enflamed into being a criminal offense.  I didn't care when Clinton did it and I don't care now. I've been saying that about Clinton long before Trump showed a flicker of interest in running for president. 

The only crime here is Trump not getting a refund. 

Then we see this kangaroo court of a politically motivated prosecutor, a politically motivated judge, and the panel from The View and we're supposed to take it seriously. They put their political opponents on trial for no reason, tie him up in court, and try to keep him off of ballots.

 

[Ron_Artest 767]

17 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Hookers don't need to be pressure to have sex with their clients, they do it willingly and are getting paid for services rendered.

She was not a hooker.  Uniformed voter

[IGotWorms 3,405]

3 hours ago, RLLD said:

I think it depends on your perspective.  

You don’t even know what a “lie” is

[Maximum Overkill 775]

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 2,650]

35 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

You don’t even know what a “lie” is

Oh, jesus.  You actually posted this?   

Dude.  You're like one of the biggest liars and pushers of propaganda on this forum.  

[squistion 937]

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1790117454032540063

Court adjourns for the day. Jury returns at 930 a.m. ET tomorrow morning for more Cohen testimony.

[Maximum Overkill 775]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1790117454032540063

Court adjourns for the day. Jury returns at 930 a.m. ET tomorrow morning for more Cohen testimony.

How's your transitioning going?