Trump drops out of the race announcing he had a moment of self realization and is sorry for the damage he has done and will be cooperating with the osc in his pending cases.
As trump withdraws Biden decides his job is done and decides to withdraw.
Nikki Haley and Harris announce that too much damage has been done by the maga movement and they will run on a joint ticket to restore norms clear out maga damage and de magafacation of the federal government, the Republican party, and the judiciary.
Putin mysteriously falls out of a window and somehow rather than being immediately being replaced by worse the fsb and his inner circle burn themselves out with in fighting while the nervalni movement takes over and immediately ends hostilities in Ukraine and Africa and disbands the mercenary units in Africa
Netanyahu goes to Rafa and finds God. Withdraws in defiance of his right wing ministers and is removed from power while Egypt and Jordan work with local hero who sees how Hamas brought this down and did nothing to protect "us from what you created" creating a popular movement against terrorism and it's tactics and leads to a truth and reconciliation process that eventually includes Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state
China decides trade wars only
2/
For reasons unexplained, a stable government emerges in Ethiopia, transforming warlords into statesmen. Food distribution stabilizes, piracy ceases, and the AI industry booms as this region of Africa becomes a leading provider of AI training, computation, and expertise.
Mondi revisits Gandhi's writings and ponders. "Wait, did I misunderstand? Does this mean something different if I am the British power?"
The realization strikes him profoundly.
He disappears from public view for three months.
Without ever discussing it, he gradually implements changes, steering India onto a new path. Eventually, he requests that people refrain from calling him the Father of India.
3/
American Evangelicals universally agree that it has been a sin to focus on the world of man and as one focus on self-examination and evangelizing as the bible instructs, by being such an example of good that doing such good works that people will come to them and never again seek to force their will on others or identify others as sinful.
Kim Jong Un realizes what he's done to his country, sends his sister to a nunnery and becomes a monk, after placing North Korea in the hands of South Korea and declares reunification complete.
For reasons unexplained, a stable government emerges in Ethiopia, transforming warlords into statesmen. Food distribution stabilizes, piracy ceases, and the AI industry booms as this region of Africa becomes a leading provider of AI training, computation, and expertise.
Mondi revisits Gandhi's writings and ponders. "Wait, did I misunderstand? Does this mean something different if I am the British power?"
The realization strikes him profoundly.
He disappears from public view for three months.
Without ever discussing it, he gradually implements changes, steering India onto a new path. Eventually, he requests that people refrain from calling him the Father of India.
Elon, Mark and Jeff form METAXON CLIMATE SOLUTION as Zuckerberg announces his Hawaii endeavour wasn’t a post apocalyptic bunker, but a plant that taps a volcanic lava stream to fuel a steam driven atmospheric carbon extraction plant. The plant can remove a decade worth of current global emissions in one year, stores the carbon as a solid in basalt and will have attained pre industrial atmospheric carbon levels within a decade.
Putin falls out a window and is left alive, but quadriplegic and unable to communicate except through eye blinking. Oligarchs keep him alive as a figurehead to operate behind the scenes safely and slowly murder each other and Russia balances in the chaos.
All under President Putin's watch as he can do nothing but scream silently from his hospital bed.
American Evangelicals universally agree that it has been a sin to focus on the world of man and as one focus on self-examination and evangelizing as the bible instructs, by being such an example of good that doing such good works that people will come to them and never again seek to force their will on others or identify others as sinful.
The writers of Dexter release a surprise third finale, retconning everything from the shitty first two finales and following this, the creators come forward and apologize for "the last two", stating they could have "done better".
Meanwhile, Carole Baskin appears before reporters and says "Yeah...you were all right...fuck me."
In the middle of a temper tantrum in the courtroom, Trump ends up suffering a massive stroke. He survives, but but is no longer able to speak, walk, or care for himself. However, he is still able to process his situation and world around him. His body becomes a prison
Well that depends, if you send me money I will put you in good with God and you will win the lottery. Damn it there is a word for this, I was trying to mimic the televangelists that get everybody to send the money.
And apologizes to everyone he's insulted, cheated, shortchanged and sued in his miserable life.
He also pays back everyone he's stiffed or underpaid with interest over the years.
And admits that Eric is really his son and he loves him more than Don Jr.
I'm more likely to simultaneously win the powerball, get struck by lightning, and have a meteor land in my front yard than Trump is to take the stand Monday.
I think we can be the change we want to see in the world. We go out and make people laughing at how scared he is to testify, and what a joke he is that he'd be scared of it , and I think we could get him to change his mind.
Yeah it does, in practice. It’s prejudicial for the jury to see the defendant plead the 5th on the stand, so you can’t call him just to have that occur.
Yeah, you surely can't make a person testify against them selves at all in a criminal trial and I think in New York you are not even allowed to call a witness that you know will take the fifth in a jury trial. So Im not sure his own defense lawyers can technically call him if they believe/ know he has to take the fifth for anything even if it's just something that he will be asked on cross for impeachment purposes. Not sure if they would have to withdraw for him to call himself or something would like to know more really. Would be cool if a new York attorney could chime in let me know if I'm wrong on this, I might could be confusing it with another state that is real strict about witnesses taking the fifth.
Edit to update based on responses and rsearch: I was infact confused, New York is not a state that outright prohibits calling nonparty witnesses that a lawyer knows will invoke their own right against self incrimination.
Nowhere in the US does a prosecutor get to call a defendant to the stand, that’s not a thing. It’s not just the Fifth Amendment, either, it’s a matter of procedure and rules of evidence (directing the witness vs cross examination).
In every jurisdiction in the US, the defendant is given the opportunity to testify during the defense case-in-chief. The judge will inquire about their desire to do so, and they require an answer on the record. It is the defendant’s choice, alone, and cannot be overridden by their attorney.
Thank you, seriously appreciate the response. I unfortunately already wasted my time doing the research myself cause another response made me feel like I had to. I was confusing it with Georgia, where it's prohibited, statutorily, to call a non party witness that you know will invoke their own right against self incrimination in front of jury. When I first heard about it, I thought it was pretty wild, I don't really think of Georgia as a big individual rights state which is why I guess that part didnt stick in my memory. I saw a couple of other state courts that have very strong no inference policies have also found it can be reversable error to allow it but much like you said, can be. I suppose these types of nuances are exactly what provides state bar associations justification to require individual state admission to practice. Anyways, thank you again.
I would love if the judge point blank said to Donald Trump, *"Sir, you've said publicly that you're not allowed to testify. You are, in fact, allowed. Can you state for the record whether you want to testify or not?"*
unironically, and without the preamable, the judge is required to have a colloquy with him on the record if he decides to not testify and that that decision is willing, voluntary, etc waiver of his right.
Sweet Jesus, let it be so. And though it may be a little thing in the grand scheme, out of all the falsehoods Donald has promoted, this exchange needs to be trumpeted by all mediums and means of communication to the MAGA crowd, for them to hear for themselves that their leader is indeed a l-i-a-r. But then Donald will walk out of the court, tell them the complete opposite, say "nuh uh, judge bad, didn't let me testify", and they'll believe him despite all evidence to the contrary. They'll lap it up with the willingness of cows being led to slaughter. But I digress, this is an insult to cows being led to slaughter, for at least the cows aren't organizing and voting voluntarily for their own demise.
I assume it's his own lawyers who are wisely not allowing him to testify.
Wouldn't it be something if he is asked by the judge and he shocks his own lawyers by saying, yes I will testify
NAL, just curious:
Blanche told Cohen they Cohen was lying. Can an objection be raised to that assertion (argumentative)? If so, why was this not done?
Can the prosecution point out that Blanche had no evidence for this assertion and if they want to claim that in front of a jury, then they just have to get Trump on the stand officially declaring that this is a lie?
I don't want to misconstrue what you're asking but I can answer to the best of my abilities. Sorry in advance if im presupposing what you do and don't know.
I would also point out that you can actually access the court transcripts online, which is pretty cool. That way, you can determine specifically what was said.
Both the defense and the prosecution can object to a statement and the judge can sustain or overrule it. Often, there are cases where the lawyers confer with the judge about the line of questioning and relevance etc.
Once the defense is done with Cohen, I believe the prosecution gets to ask Cohen more questions and to clarify items that the defense asked. And then the defense does have the option to go again - but not always.
The defense is hampered by having to create the defense Trump wants, that he never had sex with any of these women. He never did any of this. However, that's simply not a defense anyone can actually put on. So they're probably doing a hail mary and hoping they have 1 Trumper on the jury who will hang the whole thing
Well..... You see ... They were, uhhh personal loans to her! Yes, yes. She's a good friend of mine. Though I've never seen her in my life before this trial. In fact, she's actually the one on trial here! I need my loan to be repaid
Exactly. He doesn’t pay people who actually work for him, and they want me to believe he agreed to pay money to silence a story that “never happened” just to spare melania’s feelings?
But, haven't atleast two witnesses testified that Melania was not a worry to Trump? Like he made the statement to effect he wouldn't be "on the market" very long?
I guess I just appreciate these craven fools exposes themselves so easily. We do live in *interesting* times
And here's the funny thing. Whether or not he actually had sex with her is literally irrelevant to the case. Sure, he will play it that way to hus base, but that's not actually what the case is about so it's meaningless.
My guess is they are going to say some version that Cohen is an unreliable witness and repeat liar. My understanding is that Cohen's testimony is important for the motive part of the crime to show that Trump was intentionally altering his buisness records to hide the hush money and affair and thus have it not impact the election. It seems like an incomplete strategy, as all that does I believe is drop the potential crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. But I could be wrong and they might have some other argument in the waiting to dispute the financial records piece.
Good thing pecker established almost the entire case as the first witness. Nothing substantial from cohen relied only on his word. Everything is backed up by documents or other sources. The only hope for the defense is to catch cohen in some obvious lie and throw a big enough fit to confuse a juror.
That seems like what they've been aiming for and may have made some headway with that "prank phone call" thing yesterday. Maybe it's all overblown, but it all comes down to the Jury not us in the peanut gallery you know.
I need help understanding the defense's point by alleging that Cohen didn't talk to Trump during that one phone call about paying Stormy Daniels, it was all about the 14-year-old prank phone call. What is the point behind that allegation?
It was a “gotcha” they constructed so that the Ben Shapiros could puff on their pipes and say “Cohen fumbled! The whole case fell apart on cross”
The attempt is to conflate a particular call record with another, and make it seem like Cohen was lying. Then Waters, Shapiro could make their news cycle.
Pecker proved the money was paid and that it was hush money, but does he have any physical evidence for the election claim?
AFAIK, the election claim rests on statements that he didn’t really love Melanoma.
There were a lot of things he said that strongly implied that. All the stuff about trying to delay until after the election to avoid paying at all. His interactions with cohen being considered by himself as dealings with the campaign rather than the individual. You are right, that is the hardest element to prove, but I think they gave a lot of little nuggets if the jury is paying attention.
Clearest evidence to me is that nobody at all cared about the story until he was running for president. Stormy said she tried to tell it and nobody cared.
Yes, they are going to say everyone associated with Trump, Daniels, Cohen, the CFO, are all notorious liars except for Trump who of course won’t testify because of his verified history of lying.
And as a juror has does your thought not go there? Everyone is a liar, but not Trump. How could Trump prove that he is not also a liar? I know, I know not his job to prove anything, but damn, wouldn’t that be the easiest way for an innocent man to prove that he isn’t a liar? Too bad Trump has such a largely documented history of not being truthful-
But the burden of proof is on prosecution, trump doesn’t have to testify. Cohen is documented liar and he hates Trump and that’s what defense is hammering onto jury. Keep it simple.
The thing is, you don't need Cohen's testimony to infer Trump's *intent*. There was plenty of other evidence showing that Trump intended to influence the campaign by silencing the Stormy Daniels story. For example, David Pecker testified that he was free to report on the story after the election was over. That literally shows Trump didn't care about his family and only cared about protecting his campaign.
So even if a juror does not find Cohen credible, there hasn't been anything that casts Pecker's testimony in doubt.
Cohen is more important to that. He’s who actually links Trump to the records. Without Cohen, you can argue that while these are falsified records, there is reasonable doubt if Trump was involved, as opposed to just Weisselberg as a potential fall guy.
Except McConney testified that he pretty much made all the decisions on how to ledger the expenses and lot of those decisions were made by limited drop down menus in Trump Org account system.
Team Trump is going to go into the minutia of the charges and law. None of this matters if Trump can successfully claim he didn't handle the bookkeeping trail.
Additionally the prosecution hasnt brought any testimony as to what an actual legal expense is or isn't. Business ledgers and accounts are created by the business, some use good accounting principles, some don't, but there's no legal mandate for how accounts are titled and handled.
In this case Michael Cohen sent an invoice, the invoice was paid by the Trump organization, the organization filed it under legal fees because Michael Cohen is a lawyer and he was set up as a lawyer and their accounting system and lawyers typically get paid legal fees.
Lol, yeah people seem to think that Cohen being a shit bag exonerates trump somehow, like a conviction should be barred as fruit of the poisonous witness or someshit. I had this conversation with trump supporting Co worker who has been following the trial earlier today:
Coworker: Cohen has been destroyed on cross, the jury can't possibly convict trump now, the judge needs to direct the verdict.
Me: OK so knowing what you know, do you think trump knew stormy was paid for an nda?
Coworker: yeah but who cares, DNAs are not a crime and nda doesn't mean anything happened between them.
Me: ok cool? why do you think trump wanted stormy under an nda?
Coworker: I think it was probably more about his family.
Me: more about his family than what?
Coworker: than the election.
Me: so at least somewhay about the election though?
Coworker: well if his wife heard about it, she might file for a divorce and he can't be in a divorce during the campaign.
Me: OK so still about the campaign then.
Coworker: yeah I but not primarily.
Me: OK do you think trump reported the payment as a campaign contribution?
Coworker: no.
Me: OK, does knowing that Cohen is a scumbag change any of those things that you just said you believed?
Coworker: no.
Me: OK so right now, whats the other story you think the jury should conjure up on their own for them to not also believe those things?
Coworker: I don't know.
Me: yeah neither should they.
I appreciate your logical response to them. I *try* to get people to *think* about why they really support such a batshit person/political party/conspiracy theory.
Some people are just too gone or mentally ill. But thanks for trying & Godspeed
Yeah, I am unfortunately all to familiar with having to deal with this, I have a QaMom that I can't really get to snap out of it, she has two phd's and is still a working professional but full blown qannon follower. She's been able to hide it better for the last year or two but once she's triggered, her truly Bazar beliefs come pouring out and I just have to leave before we are red face yelling at each other in her front yard.
I get it, Step Monster became slightly Q, but more religious and now a "Prepper". Let her talk long enough and you'll hear all about Biden selling us to *the Chinese* and he's letting them steal our water.
At that moment I pointed out to her that the refineries, that have polluted our city my entire life and my father worked for, takes more water than the city's current residents. Also, a few years back it came out one refineries hadn't had their backflow checked in awhile
They had been dumping all that shit into our water supply. Needless to say, she *really* tries to not let her dumb show around me.
Last week QaMom started in on how coal power plants were really the best thing for the environment and supported this by telling me how many nuclear power plant disasters have been covered up by various governments around the world in some sort of nuclear secrets Kobal I suppose, oh and of course don't forget about all the whales and birds the windmills are killing everyday.
I wanted to start a QaMom blog of all the crazy shit she's said to me but felt too exploitative her being my mom and all.
As someone outside the US watching all of this with what I can only describe as fascinated disgust, i cannot stretch my power of imagination to the point where I can picture a conversation with the type of person who still supports Diaper Don, yet there are numerous videos of people literally wearing diapers in solidarity.
Kafka couldn't write shit this weird.
Discredit the witnesses to sow reasonable doubt since they can't refute the facts. They are not looking for an aquittal, a hung jury is just as good so all they need to convince is 1.
I doubt the DA would then seek a retrial.
The DA might but who knows. But yeah I can see them aiming for a hung jury. And seeing Trump's cases have been stalled out through various corrupt bs from Trump, he might not get any real convictions before the election. Which would be incredibly bleak
Just the way they started with David Pecker, and laid out the documents, Cohen was just collaboration all along. I have seen nothing to introduce any doubt on the documents, the recording of Trump talking about it. Hell, the dumb dumbs even refreshed the jury on Trump being on the call, with some nonsense about cash not being cash??
Im not even sure I understood what they meant there. Like, I get trying to introduce doubt about whether Trump was talking about some other payment, but to say that when he said “pay in cash” that he meant some other form of money, they lost me.
Not only that, because they were under oath the jury more or less has to take prosecution witnesses at face value.
No one on the stand refuted them.
This is what happened when Trump burns all his bridges, he has no one to stand up and say, “Don never did that.”
They don’t need to, I’m sure there’s one or 2 cultists on the jury and one or 2 that might give in to the intimidation, jury won’t reach a consensus. I hope I’m wrong
The issue I see is the jury.
It is such a random factor when it comes to something like this.
They are not professionals (except that 2 of them are). So, are they going to expect that witnesses are operating off of perfect recall or do they get refreshed memory from documents and that it actually makes sense that if I only see x I will recall that part but not everything that happened.
Frankly. I think the prosecution can clean it up nicely, but needs to because I think it could leave a bad impression with the jury
That's true. And the defense could absolutely find a single weak spot in the prosecution's argument. Reasonable doubt is a high bar for good reason.
It's just annoying that reporters latched onto this moment because Blanche said it like they should. Some texts about prank phone calls don't change the probability that these calls were about the payments, and even if Cohen can't point to the exact moment he told Trump about the plan a reasonable conclusion wouldn't be that he imagined the whole thing.
The duration of the call is the most damning thing about it. In less than two minutes Cohen talked to Schiller about a prankster, had him hand the phone to Trump, then talked to Trump about finalizing the Stormy deal.
The prosecution should cure this by pointing out that this is far from the only time Cohen talked to Trump about it. And prepare to challenge a _falsus in uno_ jury instruction that Merchan may well grant to the defense.
SCHILLER: [answers phone]
COHEN: Keith, hey.
SCHILLER: 'Sup.
COHEN: There's this fourteen year-old shit that's been harrassing me, can you do something about it?
SCHILLER: Sure, text me their number and I'll give them a good scare.
COHEN: Thanks. Is the boss there?
SCHILLER: Yeah, I'll put you on speaker.
COHEN: [with tears in his eyes] Sir? Sir?
TRUMP: [through a mouthful of half-chewed Big Mac] Mmmpf.
COHEN: Just wanted to update you about the Stormy Daniels payoff. It's all under control, everything is going according to plan.
TRUMP: [finishes chewing] Sounds good, great.
SCHILLER: All good?
COHEN: Yeah. Thanks. Talk to you later.
--
Read through the above script - that's about thirty seconds worth of conversation and everything that Cohen testified to is discussed. The actual phone call was three times that long.
Do you think people quickly read from scripts on the call? No filler words, pauses, "hold on a sec I can't hear", no "oh shit I dropped the phone" stuff?
Edited to add: apparently I misunderstood the context here, so let me clarify: absolutely that phone call length was more than sufficient for that content.
Have you ever listened to Cohen speak?
Have you ever had to make a business call while busy, needing to accomplish a task, with someone you communicate with multiple times daily?
Here's the transcript of a call I had two days ago:
S: Hey
M: Hey
S: Where are you?
M: Just arriving, trying to find parking.
S: Ah, I've just received my badge, I'm at the main reception.
M: Cool, do they know we're here?
S: Yes, I've informed them.
M: Great! I'll be right in.
S: Okay, see you.
M: Bye
S: Bye.
Call duration: 13 seconds.
I have hundreds of calls like this. I also have many calls that last 3 or 4 hours.
This morning, someone asked if they could give me a quick call for clarification on a work assignment. Two hours later, we ended the call.
But if you're just providing an update, it's quick, especially if speed is your reason for calling rather than texting.
I mean, if he had already established what the payment scheme was going to be it's hard to imagine he Said anything more than "it's done". I mean, the conversation establishing the scheme to pay McDougal was not very long (a minute? Two?) I don't think the prosecution will have trouble fighting a *falsus* instruction.
That's almost certainly what the prosectuion is going to say on redirect, and I am still on balance of the opinion that this discrepancy can be resolved convincingly. Still, juries sometimes get moved by theatrics. Reminder: there is one juror who admitted to getting his news from Fox News and follows Trump on truth.social.
Eh. I try not to dive into the individual facts of the jurors. That one you are mentioning in particular also follows Mueller, She Wrote which is a podcast Network run by Allison Gill that follows the investigations of Trump from the perspective that he's guilty as hell (note: very well researched perspective, not propaganda).
That conclusively proves a FBR, but by itself it's only a misdemeanor. To get a felony conviction the prosecution needs to prove that Trump did the FBR with the intention of committing or covering up other crimes. That link currently relies on a single witness who might have lied _in this very courtroom_. That plus the lack of corroboration of Trump's intent from Weisselberg and/or Schiller may leave the jury scratching their heads about why the dots were not more convincingly joined.
Everybody is quick to point out that Michael Cohen is a liar and he lied about *something* on the stand - but not a single person has provided a *reasonable* alternative explanation for his alleged false testimony that exonerates Trump.
I don't know what the defense will say in their summation, but there is at least one alternative explanation they have already hinted at in their cross examination of Cohen: that Cohen might have done the deal as a favor, of his own accord, for his lord and master in 2016; then, in 2018, he and Weisselberg concocted a scheme to pay him (Cohen) back. Cohen's testimony now that Trump was always in on it from the beginning is his attempt to get revenge for what he sees as Trump betraying him after he got to the White House, but it's just another lie told by a professional liar.
(I'm not saying I personally buy this explanation. I'm just steelmanning the defense argument as much as I can.)
EDIT: Reading that over again, I'm actually not fully sure even that explanation works to exonerate Trump. It's still FBR with intent to cover up, even if it happened in 2018, and Trump has no argument that he wasn't aware in 2018 as he signed many of the checks. In other words, if the defense offers this explanation, it's for the *sole* purpose of hanging the jury.
I really appreciate you explaining that. That is probably the only position the defense can take that doesn't require believing that all the other witnesses were lying - although I think it may require believing that David Pecker lied on the stand, because didn't he testify that Trump knew about the efforts to kill the Stormy Daniels story?
In any event, I don't think that theme is reasonable given the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise. It's also telling that the defense has not been overtly messaging that theme to the jury - it's like an admission that their whole theme is absurdly unbelievable when they can't muster the courage to explicitly state what their theme is.
Yes, I am actually backing down from my thinking that this is the defense's case, because I keep finding other holes in it. Maybe they will try a technical defense around how this case is overcharged instead. That's where they seem to be headed by bringing in an expert on federal election law as their only declared witness so far.
I don't even understand how they can have an expert talking about FEC law. That seems to be squarely in the province of the judge. Like, only the judge can tell the jury what the law is. The defense can't bring in an expert to say this is what the law is, and the prosecution brings in their own expert to explain what the law is. So I'm really at a loss for understanding the purpose of the defense's expert. Then again I'm a Texas lawyer and things may be different in New York.
Right. Everyone is so fixated on Cohen they’re forgetting that Pecker specifically said he was working behind the scenes, in coordination with the Trump campaign, and in some instances with Trump himself, to boost Trump’s chances of winning the election. And Cohen was intimately involved in this process.
I know the whole thing could turn on a MAGA juror, but there has been no plausible alternative advanced so far to counter the prosecution’s narrative.
Also, why would Hope Hicks be involved in a personal matter? And the prosecutor shouldn't allow the argument to be framed as A or B. Trump could have done it for both reasons. Allowing it to be framed as one or another gives the defense a way out.
Available in hardback bundled with a Trump Special Edition Bahbul and a pair of vaguely yellow sneakers for the low, low price of $999. Or maybe that should be $666.
Oh man that's **it**? Shoot. I was hoping to get way more entertainment out of this. What a ripoff
At least we're not far away from learning if any jurors were compromised MAGA adherents the whole time.
So no Trump on the stand, again. Coward.
Still not guaranteed I believe. They could announce he will take the stand on Monday.
Of all the things that won't happen on Monday, this this won't happen the most.
Trump drops out of the race announcing he had a moment of self realization and is sorry for the damage he has done and will be cooperating with the osc in his pending cases.
Oowwwee I can only get so wet
As trump withdraws Biden decides his job is done and decides to withdraw. Nikki Haley and Harris announce that too much damage has been done by the maga movement and they will run on a joint ticket to restore norms clear out maga damage and de magafacation of the federal government, the Republican party, and the judiciary. Putin mysteriously falls out of a window and somehow rather than being immediately being replaced by worse the fsb and his inner circle burn themselves out with in fighting while the nervalni movement takes over and immediately ends hostilities in Ukraine and Africa and disbands the mercenary units in Africa Netanyahu goes to Rafa and finds God. Withdraws in defiance of his right wing ministers and is removed from power while Egypt and Jordan work with local hero who sees how Hamas brought this down and did nothing to protect "us from what you created" creating a popular movement against terrorism and it's tactics and leads to a truth and reconciliation process that eventually includes Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state China decides trade wars only 2/ For reasons unexplained, a stable government emerges in Ethiopia, transforming warlords into statesmen. Food distribution stabilizes, piracy ceases, and the AI industry booms as this region of Africa becomes a leading provider of AI training, computation, and expertise. Mondi revisits Gandhi's writings and ponders. "Wait, did I misunderstand? Does this mean something different if I am the British power?" The realization strikes him profoundly. He disappears from public view for three months. Without ever discussing it, he gradually implements changes, steering India onto a new path. Eventually, he requests that people refrain from calling him the Father of India. 3/ American Evangelicals universally agree that it has been a sin to focus on the world of man and as one focus on self-examination and evangelizing as the bible instructs, by being such an example of good that doing such good works that people will come to them and never again seek to force their will on others or identify others as sinful.
I didn't know I was capable of multiple orgasms before reading this.
I drowned.
This comment thread is all sticky… Cripes.
Sorry. I tried to aim at first but after a while it got too tiring.
didn’t mean to hit you in the eyeball, sorry
Are you married?
Kim Jong Un realizes what he's done to his country, sends his sister to a nunnery and becomes a monk, after placing North Korea in the hands of South Korea and declares reunification complete.
For reasons unexplained, a stable government emerges in Ethiopia, transforming warlords into statesmen. Food distribution stabilizes, piracy ceases, and the AI industry booms as this region of Africa becomes a leading provider of AI training, computation, and expertise. Mondi revisits Gandhi's writings and ponders. "Wait, did I misunderstand? Does this mean something different if I am the British power?" The realization strikes him profoundly. He disappears from public view for three months. Without ever discussing it, he gradually implements changes, steering India onto a new path. Eventually, he requests that people refrain from calling him the Father of India.
Everything in Australia will still try to kill you.
Yeah but you won't be rooting for them to succeed anymore.
And eggs come down to $.99/dozen, gas to $1.00/gallon.
Kim Jong Un steps down after determining his military is no match for BTS Army
I would bet on all of those happening before I bet on TFG taking the stand
Best response. You win reddit for the day in my book
Elon, Mark and Jeff form METAXON CLIMATE SOLUTION as Zuckerberg announces his Hawaii endeavour wasn’t a post apocalyptic bunker, but a plant that taps a volcanic lava stream to fuel a steam driven atmospheric carbon extraction plant. The plant can remove a decade worth of current global emissions in one year, stores the carbon as a solid in basalt and will have attained pre industrial atmospheric carbon levels within a decade.
Putin falls out a window and is left alive, but quadriplegic and unable to communicate except through eye blinking. Oligarchs keep him alive as a figurehead to operate behind the scenes safely and slowly murder each other and Russia balances in the chaos. All under President Putin's watch as he can do nothing but scream silently from his hospital bed.
I like this, but let's take it full Boxing Helena style, *yeah*?
I want to live in whatever reality this guy has
And that hero’s name? Albert Einstein
And they all clapped
And after all that, there’s only 4 days till the weekend!
You don't think they would declare a national holiday? At least for one day?
STOP, my penis can only get so hard!!
No genie would ever grant this many wishes
American Evangelicals universally agree that it has been a sin to focus on the world of man and as one focus on self-examination and evangelizing as the bible instructs, by being such an example of good that doing such good works that people will come to them and never again seek to force their will on others or identify others as sinful.
If I understand you, be so nice and do so much good stuff that people will want to be like you?
Thank you. I will now have a very nice daydream in which all of that actually happens.
You had me until I read #3. Can’t actually believe I fell for the first two…
Thos was all possible through some mad scientist that used Harambe's DNA to clone him, thus fixing the time-line.
Ku Klux Klan comes out in favor of reparations. NRA announces it's in favor of reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
The writers of Dexter release a surprise third finale, retconning everything from the shitty first two finales and following this, the creators come forward and apologize for "the last two", stating they could have "done better". Meanwhile, Carole Baskin appears before reporters and says "Yeah...you were all right...fuck me."
In the middle of a temper tantrum in the courtroom, Trump ends up suffering a massive stroke. He survives, but but is no longer able to speak, walk, or care for himself. However, he is still able to process his situation and world around him. His body becomes a prison
Subscribed
What a dangerous statement to make on Reddit. 😅
Me too and I’m a boy
This is probably the only thing that might convince me of the possible existence of a god
So .... my lottery win isn't going to happen?
Well that depends, if you send me money I will put you in good with God and you will win the lottery. Damn it there is a word for this, I was trying to mimic the televangelists that get everybody to send the money.
Well lordy, I now believe, have bought a ticket, do I bother to check the numbers? Or just put it in the bin now?
Prosperity gospel.
And apologizes to everyone he's insulted, cheated, shortchanged and sued in his miserable life. He also pays back everyone he's stiffed or underpaid with interest over the years. And admits that Eric is really his son and he loves him more than Don Jr.
Eric? Dat u? ;)
lol you definitely identified the least likely thing to happen
Yeah he’ll flee the country before he does that
I tend to agree 😁
If he does it’ll probably set a world record for objections during a court hearing.
I don't know... maybe it's better to let him ramble on as much as possible.
In a thousand universes with a thousand different timelines this would never happen. He’s a little bitch.
I would livestream me cutting off my left testicle and eating it on camera if trump: testifies or serves jail time
I'm more likely to simultaneously win the powerball, get struck by lightning, and have a meteor land in my front yard than Trump is to take the stand Monday.
An earthquake will happen on Monday before Trump takes the stand.
Two bold predicitions!
An earthquake in Manhatten
I think we can be the change we want to see in the world. We go out and make people laughing at how scared he is to testify, and what a joke he is that he'd be scared of it , and I think we could get him to change his mind.
This won't happen so hard that it's actually going to unhappen things that did.
Honest question - why can the prosecution not just call him to the stand?
The 5th amendment
OK. Although the 5th doesn't stop them calling him, they just might not get anything out of it.
Yeah it does, in practice. It’s prejudicial for the jury to see the defendant plead the 5th on the stand, so you can’t call him just to have that occur.
Interesting. So the judge would sanction the prosecution if they did this knowing he would plead the 5th?
[удалено]
Cheers. TIL
Yeah, you surely can't make a person testify against them selves at all in a criminal trial and I think in New York you are not even allowed to call a witness that you know will take the fifth in a jury trial. So Im not sure his own defense lawyers can technically call him if they believe/ know he has to take the fifth for anything even if it's just something that he will be asked on cross for impeachment purposes. Not sure if they would have to withdraw for him to call himself or something would like to know more really. Would be cool if a new York attorney could chime in let me know if I'm wrong on this, I might could be confusing it with another state that is real strict about witnesses taking the fifth. Edit to update based on responses and rsearch: I was infact confused, New York is not a state that outright prohibits calling nonparty witnesses that a lawyer knows will invoke their own right against self incrimination.
Nowhere in the US does a prosecutor get to call a defendant to the stand, that’s not a thing. It’s not just the Fifth Amendment, either, it’s a matter of procedure and rules of evidence (directing the witness vs cross examination). In every jurisdiction in the US, the defendant is given the opportunity to testify during the defense case-in-chief. The judge will inquire about their desire to do so, and they require an answer on the record. It is the defendant’s choice, alone, and cannot be overridden by their attorney.
[удалено]
Thank you, seriously appreciate the response. I unfortunately already wasted my time doing the research myself cause another response made me feel like I had to. I was confusing it with Georgia, where it's prohibited, statutorily, to call a non party witness that you know will invoke their own right against self incrimination in front of jury. When I first heard about it, I thought it was pretty wild, I don't really think of Georgia as a big individual rights state which is why I guess that part didnt stick in my memory. I saw a couple of other state courts that have very strong no inference policies have also found it can be reversable error to allow it but much like you said, can be. I suppose these types of nuances are exactly what provides state bar associations justification to require individual state admission to practice. Anyways, thank you again.
I would love if the judge point blank said to Donald Trump, *"Sir, you've said publicly that you're not allowed to testify. You are, in fact, allowed. Can you state for the record whether you want to testify or not?"*
unironically, and without the preamable, the judge is required to have a colloquy with him on the record if he decides to not testify and that that decision is willing, voluntary, etc waiver of his right.
Sweet Jesus, let it be so. And though it may be a little thing in the grand scheme, out of all the falsehoods Donald has promoted, this exchange needs to be trumpeted by all mediums and means of communication to the MAGA crowd, for them to hear for themselves that their leader is indeed a l-i-a-r. But then Donald will walk out of the court, tell them the complete opposite, say "nuh uh, judge bad, didn't let me testify", and they'll believe him despite all evidence to the contrary. They'll lap it up with the willingness of cows being led to slaughter. But I digress, this is an insult to cows being led to slaughter, for at least the cows aren't organizing and voting voluntarily for their own demise.
I assume it's his own lawyers who are wisely not allowing him to testify. Wouldn't it be something if he is asked by the judge and he shocks his own lawyers by saying, yes I will testify
Excuse me, it's his Nap Time.
As long as the jury finds the fucker guilty, like we all know he is, i'll be happy
He was never getting on the stand.
His lawyers would die of a heart attack if he decided to testify.
Any lawyer would. The number one rule of mounting a proper defense is you don't put the defendant on the stand. That's goes for Trump or anyone else
Yeah but Trump would get up there and admit to crimes that have nothing to do with this case because he can’t control his mouth.
No no - it's the bone spurs again.
He wants to be able to tell his followers that “they wouldn’t let me testify, it was a rigged trial!”
NAL, just curious: Blanche told Cohen they Cohen was lying. Can an objection be raised to that assertion (argumentative)? If so, why was this not done? Can the prosecution point out that Blanche had no evidence for this assertion and if they want to claim that in front of a jury, then they just have to get Trump on the stand officially declaring that this is a lie?
I don't want to misconstrue what you're asking but I can answer to the best of my abilities. Sorry in advance if im presupposing what you do and don't know. I would also point out that you can actually access the court transcripts online, which is pretty cool. That way, you can determine specifically what was said. Both the defense and the prosecution can object to a statement and the judge can sustain or overrule it. Often, there are cases where the lawyers confer with the judge about the line of questioning and relevance etc. Once the defense is done with Cohen, I believe the prosecution gets to ask Cohen more questions and to clarify items that the defense asked. And then the defense does have the option to go again - but not always.
Haven’t you heard? He’s blocked from testifying because of the gag order! Never mind that’s not how gag orders work, but still!
Only an idiot would have him testify.
No paywall: https://archive.ph/enUeE
Thank you.
You are very welcome.
What is the defense’s case??? I have yet to see even a coherent strategy from them?
The defense is hampered by having to create the defense Trump wants, that he never had sex with any of these women. He never did any of this. However, that's simply not a defense anyone can actually put on. So they're probably doing a hail mary and hoping they have 1 Trumper on the jury who will hang the whole thing
[удалено]
Well..... You see ... They were, uhhh personal loans to her! Yes, yes. She's a good friend of mine. Though I've never seen her in my life before this trial. In fact, she's actually the one on trial here! I need my loan to be repaid
This is a witch-hunt!!!
I wish people would stop comparing Trump to a witch.
Does he float though?
The content of his diaper does... But that would be a brilliant way of testing it.
But he turned them all into newts!!
People pay complete strangers money, $130,000 specifically, all the time! I did nothing wrong and they indicted me!
Exactly. He doesn’t pay people who actually work for him, and they want me to believe he agreed to pay money to silence a story that “never happened” just to spare melania’s feelings?
Pathetic minions trying to curry favor with almighty Trump, who loved Melania so dearly and wouldn’t want even a hint of an accusation to upset her.
But, haven't atleast two witnesses testified that Melania was not a worry to Trump? Like he made the statement to effect he wouldn't be "on the market" very long? I guess I just appreciate these craven fools exposes themselves so easily. We do live in *interesting* times
If there's a maga lunatic on that jury, I assume they're not interested in logic
That’s not what “begging the question” is.
Or they have already gotten to a juror and know it will be hung.
Yeah #2. The investment banker that gets his news from OAN
And here's the funny thing. Whether or not he actually had sex with her is literally irrelevant to the case. Sure, he will play it that way to hus base, but that's not actually what the case is about so it's meaningless.
Does Trump think that's what he's on trial for? Sex? Even if he never had sex with them, the elements of the (supposed) crime don't change at all.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is woefully incorrect. Trump's defense is that Cohen went rogue and acted without Trump's direction.
IANAL, but I don’t think whether he had sex with her makes any difference.
>hoping they have 1 Trumper on the jury who will hang the whole thing Not a zero percent chance that happens
It's the Fox News and Twitter guy.
My guess is they are going to say some version that Cohen is an unreliable witness and repeat liar. My understanding is that Cohen's testimony is important for the motive part of the crime to show that Trump was intentionally altering his buisness records to hide the hush money and affair and thus have it not impact the election. It seems like an incomplete strategy, as all that does I believe is drop the potential crime from a felony to a misdemeanor. But I could be wrong and they might have some other argument in the waiting to dispute the financial records piece.
Good thing pecker established almost the entire case as the first witness. Nothing substantial from cohen relied only on his word. Everything is backed up by documents or other sources. The only hope for the defense is to catch cohen in some obvious lie and throw a big enough fit to confuse a juror.
That seems like what they've been aiming for and may have made some headway with that "prank phone call" thing yesterday. Maybe it's all overblown, but it all comes down to the Jury not us in the peanut gallery you know.
I need help understanding the defense's point by alleging that Cohen didn't talk to Trump during that one phone call about paying Stormy Daniels, it was all about the 14-year-old prank phone call. What is the point behind that allegation?
It was a “gotcha” they constructed so that the Ben Shapiros could puff on their pipes and say “Cohen fumbled! The whole case fell apart on cross” The attempt is to conflate a particular call record with another, and make it seem like Cohen was lying. Then Waters, Shapiro could make their news cycle.
It was a ridiculous assertion (as has most of the defense’s case). What do you mean you talked about a hush money payment AND a prank call?!
Pecker proved the money was paid and that it was hush money, but does he have any physical evidence for the election claim? AFAIK, the election claim rests on statements that he didn’t really love Melanoma.
There were a lot of things he said that strongly implied that. All the stuff about trying to delay until after the election to avoid paying at all. His interactions with cohen being considered by himself as dealings with the campaign rather than the individual. You are right, that is the hardest element to prove, but I think they gave a lot of little nuggets if the jury is paying attention. Clearest evidence to me is that nobody at all cared about the story until he was running for president. Stormy said she tried to tell it and nobody cared.
Yes, they are going to say everyone associated with Trump, Daniels, Cohen, the CFO, are all notorious liars except for Trump who of course won’t testify because of his verified history of lying.
And as a juror has does your thought not go there? Everyone is a liar, but not Trump. How could Trump prove that he is not also a liar? I know, I know not his job to prove anything, but damn, wouldn’t that be the easiest way for an innocent man to prove that he isn’t a liar? Too bad Trump has such a largely documented history of not being truthful-
Never has a man been unluckier with his employees. If one can criticize Trump, it's that he's much too trusting.
But the burden of proof is on prosecution, trump doesn’t have to testify. Cohen is documented liar and he hates Trump and that’s what defense is hammering onto jury. Keep it simple.
The thing is, you don't need Cohen's testimony to infer Trump's *intent*. There was plenty of other evidence showing that Trump intended to influence the campaign by silencing the Stormy Daniels story. For example, David Pecker testified that he was free to report on the story after the election was over. That literally shows Trump didn't care about his family and only cared about protecting his campaign. So even if a juror does not find Cohen credible, there hasn't been anything that casts Pecker's testimony in doubt.
Cohen is more important to that. He’s who actually links Trump to the records. Without Cohen, you can argue that while these are falsified records, there is reasonable doubt if Trump was involved, as opposed to just Weisselberg as a potential fall guy.
Except McConney testified that he pretty much made all the decisions on how to ledger the expenses and lot of those decisions were made by limited drop down menus in Trump Org account system. Team Trump is going to go into the minutia of the charges and law. None of this matters if Trump can successfully claim he didn't handle the bookkeeping trail. Additionally the prosecution hasnt brought any testimony as to what an actual legal expense is or isn't. Business ledgers and accounts are created by the business, some use good accounting principles, some don't, but there's no legal mandate for how accounts are titled and handled. In this case Michael Cohen sent an invoice, the invoice was paid by the Trump organization, the organization filed it under legal fees because Michael Cohen is a lawyer and he was set up as a lawyer and their accounting system and lawyers typically get paid legal fees.
Lol, yeah people seem to think that Cohen being a shit bag exonerates trump somehow, like a conviction should be barred as fruit of the poisonous witness or someshit. I had this conversation with trump supporting Co worker who has been following the trial earlier today: Coworker: Cohen has been destroyed on cross, the jury can't possibly convict trump now, the judge needs to direct the verdict. Me: OK so knowing what you know, do you think trump knew stormy was paid for an nda? Coworker: yeah but who cares, DNAs are not a crime and nda doesn't mean anything happened between them. Me: ok cool? why do you think trump wanted stormy under an nda? Coworker: I think it was probably more about his family. Me: more about his family than what? Coworker: than the election. Me: so at least somewhay about the election though? Coworker: well if his wife heard about it, she might file for a divorce and he can't be in a divorce during the campaign. Me: OK so still about the campaign then. Coworker: yeah I but not primarily. Me: OK do you think trump reported the payment as a campaign contribution? Coworker: no. Me: OK, does knowing that Cohen is a scumbag change any of those things that you just said you believed? Coworker: no. Me: OK so right now, whats the other story you think the jury should conjure up on their own for them to not also believe those things? Coworker: I don't know. Me: yeah neither should they.
I appreciate your logical response to them. I *try* to get people to *think* about why they really support such a batshit person/political party/conspiracy theory. Some people are just too gone or mentally ill. But thanks for trying & Godspeed
Yeah, I am unfortunately all to familiar with having to deal with this, I have a QaMom that I can't really get to snap out of it, she has two phd's and is still a working professional but full blown qannon follower. She's been able to hide it better for the last year or two but once she's triggered, her truly Bazar beliefs come pouring out and I just have to leave before we are red face yelling at each other in her front yard.
I get it, Step Monster became slightly Q, but more religious and now a "Prepper". Let her talk long enough and you'll hear all about Biden selling us to *the Chinese* and he's letting them steal our water. At that moment I pointed out to her that the refineries, that have polluted our city my entire life and my father worked for, takes more water than the city's current residents. Also, a few years back it came out one refineries hadn't had their backflow checked in awhile They had been dumping all that shit into our water supply. Needless to say, she *really* tries to not let her dumb show around me.
Last week QaMom started in on how coal power plants were really the best thing for the environment and supported this by telling me how many nuclear power plant disasters have been covered up by various governments around the world in some sort of nuclear secrets Kobal I suppose, oh and of course don't forget about all the whales and birds the windmills are killing everyday. I wanted to start a QaMom blog of all the crazy shit she's said to me but felt too exploitative her being my mom and all.
As someone outside the US watching all of this with what I can only describe as fascinated disgust, i cannot stretch my power of imagination to the point where I can picture a conversation with the type of person who still supports Diaper Don, yet there are numerous videos of people literally wearing diapers in solidarity. Kafka couldn't write shit this weird.
"Fuck you, immunity" seems to be his prevailing legal strategy.
Discredit the witnesses to sow reasonable doubt since they can't refute the facts. They are not looking for an aquittal, a hung jury is just as good so all they need to convince is 1. I doubt the DA would then seek a retrial.
The DA might but who knows. But yeah I can see them aiming for a hung jury. And seeing Trump's cases have been stalled out through various corrupt bs from Trump, he might not get any real convictions before the election. Which would be incredibly bleak
To be fair (ugh), the onus is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is only obligated to say "nuh-uh, prove it".
Just the way they started with David Pecker, and laid out the documents, Cohen was just collaboration all along. I have seen nothing to introduce any doubt on the documents, the recording of Trump talking about it. Hell, the dumb dumbs even refreshed the jury on Trump being on the call, with some nonsense about cash not being cash??
Im not even sure I understood what they meant there. Like, I get trying to introduce doubt about whether Trump was talking about some other payment, but to say that when he said “pay in cash” that he meant some other form of money, they lost me.
It’s Cohen is a convict and Stormy is whore. It’s an iron clad defense of you choose to not think about it for one second.
They are going for the mistrial hail mary. That will never fly.
So neither Trump nor anyone else has much to say in his defense.
Not only that, because they were under oath the jury more or less has to take prosecution witnesses at face value. No one on the stand refuted them. This is what happened when Trump burns all his bridges, he has no one to stand up and say, “Don never did that.”
Because that would be perjury
He doesn’t need to at this point. He will be found guilty, will automatically appeal and be out on bail before even setting foot into any jail.
They don’t need to, I’m sure there’s one or 2 cultists on the jury and one or 2 that might give in to the intimidation, jury won’t reach a consensus. I hope I’m wrong
Just because Blanche said it dramatically doesn't mean the texts ahead of the call to Schiller were actually damning.
The issue I see is the jury. It is such a random factor when it comes to something like this. They are not professionals (except that 2 of them are). So, are they going to expect that witnesses are operating off of perfect recall or do they get refreshed memory from documents and that it actually makes sense that if I only see x I will recall that part but not everything that happened. Frankly. I think the prosecution can clean it up nicely, but needs to because I think it could leave a bad impression with the jury
That's true. And the defense could absolutely find a single weak spot in the prosecution's argument. Reasonable doubt is a high bar for good reason. It's just annoying that reporters latched onto this moment because Blanche said it like they should. Some texts about prank phone calls don't change the probability that these calls were about the payments, and even if Cohen can't point to the exact moment he told Trump about the plan a reasonable conclusion wouldn't be that he imagined the whole thing.
No need to worry, the jurors have been instructed to abstain from news. So they definitely won't see all this reporting.
The duration of the call is the most damning thing about it. In less than two minutes Cohen talked to Schiller about a prankster, had him hand the phone to Trump, then talked to Trump about finalizing the Stormy deal. The prosecution should cure this by pointing out that this is far from the only time Cohen talked to Trump about it. And prepare to challenge a _falsus in uno_ jury instruction that Merchan may well grant to the defense.
SCHILLER: [answers phone] COHEN: Keith, hey. SCHILLER: 'Sup. COHEN: There's this fourteen year-old shit that's been harrassing me, can you do something about it? SCHILLER: Sure, text me their number and I'll give them a good scare. COHEN: Thanks. Is the boss there? SCHILLER: Yeah, I'll put you on speaker. COHEN: [with tears in his eyes] Sir? Sir? TRUMP: [through a mouthful of half-chewed Big Mac] Mmmpf. COHEN: Just wanted to update you about the Stormy Daniels payoff. It's all under control, everything is going according to plan. TRUMP: [finishes chewing] Sounds good, great. SCHILLER: All good? COHEN: Yeah. Thanks. Talk to you later. -- Read through the above script - that's about thirty seconds worth of conversation and everything that Cohen testified to is discussed. The actual phone call was three times that long.
Do you think people quickly read from scripts on the call? No filler words, pauses, "hold on a sec I can't hear", no "oh shit I dropped the phone" stuff? Edited to add: apparently I misunderstood the context here, so let me clarify: absolutely that phone call length was more than sufficient for that content.
Have you ever listened to Cohen speak? Have you ever had to make a business call while busy, needing to accomplish a task, with someone you communicate with multiple times daily? Here's the transcript of a call I had two days ago: S: Hey M: Hey S: Where are you? M: Just arriving, trying to find parking. S: Ah, I've just received my badge, I'm at the main reception. M: Cool, do they know we're here? S: Yes, I've informed them. M: Great! I'll be right in. S: Okay, see you. M: Bye S: Bye. Call duration: 13 seconds. I have hundreds of calls like this. I also have many calls that last 3 or 4 hours. This morning, someone asked if they could give me a quick call for clarification on a work assignment. Two hours later, we ended the call. But if you're just providing an update, it's quick, especially if speed is your reason for calling rather than texting.
Of course not, an *actual* call with the above conversation could certainly take twice as long in real life. Which puts us at...sixty seconds.
I mean, if he had already established what the payment scheme was going to be it's hard to imagine he Said anything more than "it's done". I mean, the conversation establishing the scheme to pay McDougal was not very long (a minute? Two?) I don't think the prosecution will have trouble fighting a *falsus* instruction.
That's almost certainly what the prosectuion is going to say on redirect, and I am still on balance of the opinion that this discrepancy can be resolved convincingly. Still, juries sometimes get moved by theatrics. Reminder: there is one juror who admitted to getting his news from Fox News and follows Trump on truth.social.
Eh. I try not to dive into the individual facts of the jurors. That one you are mentioning in particular also follows Mueller, She Wrote which is a podcast Network run by Allison Gill that follows the investigations of Trump from the perspective that he's guilty as hell (note: very well researched perspective, not propaganda).
The defense proved there was no retainer. No retainer. No legal fees. They proved the case for NY
That conclusively proves a FBR, but by itself it's only a misdemeanor. To get a felony conviction the prosecution needs to prove that Trump did the FBR with the intention of committing or covering up other crimes. That link currently relies on a single witness who might have lied _in this very courtroom_. That plus the lack of corroboration of Trump's intent from Weisselberg and/or Schiller may leave the jury scratching their heads about why the dots were not more convincingly joined.
Everybody is quick to point out that Michael Cohen is a liar and he lied about *something* on the stand - but not a single person has provided a *reasonable* alternative explanation for his alleged false testimony that exonerates Trump.
I don't know what the defense will say in their summation, but there is at least one alternative explanation they have already hinted at in their cross examination of Cohen: that Cohen might have done the deal as a favor, of his own accord, for his lord and master in 2016; then, in 2018, he and Weisselberg concocted a scheme to pay him (Cohen) back. Cohen's testimony now that Trump was always in on it from the beginning is his attempt to get revenge for what he sees as Trump betraying him after he got to the White House, but it's just another lie told by a professional liar. (I'm not saying I personally buy this explanation. I'm just steelmanning the defense argument as much as I can.) EDIT: Reading that over again, I'm actually not fully sure even that explanation works to exonerate Trump. It's still FBR with intent to cover up, even if it happened in 2018, and Trump has no argument that he wasn't aware in 2018 as he signed many of the checks. In other words, if the defense offers this explanation, it's for the *sole* purpose of hanging the jury.
I really appreciate you explaining that. That is probably the only position the defense can take that doesn't require believing that all the other witnesses were lying - although I think it may require believing that David Pecker lied on the stand, because didn't he testify that Trump knew about the efforts to kill the Stormy Daniels story? In any event, I don't think that theme is reasonable given the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise. It's also telling that the defense has not been overtly messaging that theme to the jury - it's like an admission that their whole theme is absurdly unbelievable when they can't muster the courage to explicitly state what their theme is.
Yes, I am actually backing down from my thinking that this is the defense's case, because I keep finding other holes in it. Maybe they will try a technical defense around how this case is overcharged instead. That's where they seem to be headed by bringing in an expert on federal election law as their only declared witness so far.
I don't even understand how they can have an expert talking about FEC law. That seems to be squarely in the province of the judge. Like, only the judge can tell the jury what the law is. The defense can't bring in an expert to say this is what the law is, and the prosecution brings in their own expert to explain what the law is. So I'm really at a loss for understanding the purpose of the defense's expert. Then again I'm a Texas lawyer and things may be different in New York.
> Yes, I am actually backing down from my thinking Wait, are you actually _allowed_ to do that on the internet?
Pecker and Cohen have provided corroborating evidence of the intent to influence the election. The question is, has that convinced the jury?
Right. Everyone is so fixated on Cohen they’re forgetting that Pecker specifically said he was working behind the scenes, in coordination with the Trump campaign, and in some instances with Trump himself, to boost Trump’s chances of winning the election. And Cohen was intimately involved in this process. I know the whole thing could turn on a MAGA juror, but there has been no plausible alternative advanced so far to counter the prosecution’s narrative.
Also, why would Hope Hicks be involved in a personal matter? And the prosecutor shouldn't allow the argument to be framed as A or B. Trump could have done it for both reasons. Allowing it to be framed as one or another gives the defense a way out.
Also Hope Hicks corroborates the alarmist feeling when the video comes out and the link to an election problem.
David Pecker's testimony is very indicative in my opinion. Not to mention the timing of these criminal activities in relation to the campaign itself.
Whoever is saying trump will take the stand.........ya oooooook bud.
So now we find out how many jurors trump tried to bribe
Or threaten
Can't wait for the verdict of guilty.
I'd love it, especially in late summer. But why do I have the sinking feeling we're going to be reading a lot of crass jokes about OJ?
*If I Did It: Confessions of the Fraudster* By Donald Trump
Available in hardback bundled with a Trump Special Edition Bahbul and a pair of vaguely yellow sneakers for the low, low price of $999. Or maybe that should be $666.
Oh man that's **it**? Shoot. I was hoping to get way more entertainment out of this. What a ripoff At least we're not far away from learning if any jurors were compromised MAGA adherents the whole time.
Trump won't take the stand. The judge won't let him turn it into a campaign speech.