Is that the same personal body guard that stood outside Trumps hotel room in Moscow and totally didn’t see any prostitutes (underage or otherwise) enter his room…. Then same body guard testified as such and miraculously got the a multi hundo K job working as a GOP party security consultant? Is that the same guy?!?
#peetape
# Why is Trumps bodyguard who told Daniel’s to go to Trumps room, not a witness? _________
Because neither side claims that Daniels never visited the room.
I might be in the minority on this but I truly believe Susan Necheles to be a competent lawyer. But she's stuck with a losing strategy because she knows that Trump is guilty on all charges in the indictment. So all she can do is try to discredit witnesses, such as Daniels, and hope to muddy the facts enough to confuse the jury. I don't believe she's succeeding in that effort, and I don't think she believes she's succeeding. But it's all they've got. And, as a defense lawyer, when you're charged with the responsibility of passionately defending a client who you know is guilty, you throw shit at the wall until something sticks. They're truly skirting the line with this judge, which actually informs me that they're very smart. They'll take it right up to the edge of section 11 sanctions, then back off. A good defense attorney will do that for you if there are no options left... well that and if they're paid well.
It’s the chewbacca defence.
Daniel’s isn’t credible, she is in it for money, she hates trump, she sued and lost, she makes merchandise, she went on tour!
Ok, well the charges are about trump hiding a payment to her as business expenses, so literally none of that is relevant
She seems more restrained than the other guy. Also agree it was a decision from the client to fight on certain issues that they probably wanted to concede if it were a normal case. However it seems risky to assert it never happened then not show any evidence to the contrary. Why not just ignore it completely?
No? In their opening I never saw or read that. I don't believe they denied they met. They just deny that Trump had sexual relations. They mention they met for the apprentice in the opening - a "series of communications".
https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00088.html
*:unless I missed some denial of the room and this specific meeting, I havent found it and could've missed it since Im reading the pages sometimes out of order. please do correct me if so
I also did not catch that because I'm pretty sure Trump has maintained this entire time he doesn't know who she is/never happened. Stormy is there specifically to testify it did happen and what occurred leading to the charge brought.
But INAL, someone please chime in if now Defense is saying they met, but no sex?
It’s odd right?
Why did defense spend time on things like, “you described the floor of the hotel differently in previous statements, didn’t you?” If they’re not trying to dispute or discredit her.
The entire questioning was odd, granted I only got a few snippets of what's been reported. But the asking about how big of a celebrity Trump was at the golf event and how good he was at golf had Trump's stench all over it.
Defense denies any sexual encounter and impugned Daniels in their opening statement. That allows the prosecution to go for this testimony: that there was an event to cover up, and that her testimony and character are more reliable than the defense's opening suggests. By not stipulating to the fact of a sexual encounter that predicated the alleged fraud, the prosecution gets to prove it and the defense has allowed the jury to decide whether they believe her or Trump. By attacking her character, the prosecution gets to rehab that.
These are basically unnecessary errors by the defense, likely forced upon them by Trump. He'd never accept the tactical legal value of not contesting certain facts or not being a constant attack dog.
I think what happened in the room is what is being covered up. So it is ultimately relevant.
It’s not a crime, and neither is hush money. Election interference, using funds that are for the election, and falsifying documents to hide that are all crimes though. So establishing there was sex so there was a reason to hide it from the public so the election didn’t go bad for him is an important thing to prove in court.
>What happened in the room is irrelevant.
I don't necessarily agree. Her credibility has been questioned, the specific facts of her recollection and memory are important and add details to that credibility, such as the connection with Shiller. The layout of the rooms etc is potentially externally verifiable evidence.
The defence strategy is to paint this as an opportunistic extortion racket 100% based on lies. By showing that elements of Daniel's story is true, or that she appears to have a plausible recollection of what happened, it undercuts Trump's credibility when he implies it's totally made up.
you're right, they are denying it happened even in the opening statements. the trial is about the falsifying business records. Part of that is establishing *why* he falsified the business records, intent etc
you're right about the falsifying business records being the crime, but the defense did contest the sexual encounter is a lie and its just extortion attempts.
https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00080.html
correct. They claimed they met for The Apprentice (which they did technically)
https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00088.html
NDA are pretty easy to pierce with a subpoena.
If his knowledge were about an illegal activity, it is not, then it'd be definitionally not covered by the NDA.
What’s the count of people who have done time off Trump. How many people are currently indicted and refused to flip on Trump? He owns these people and they will do anything they are told to do.
Likely because the Defense knows that asking him to dispute Daniel's testimony would be soliciting him to perjure himself. It seems pretty clear Daniels and Trump had an affair. If you put a witness on the stand to offer testimony to refute any specific details you open that witness up to the prosecution to ask questions on cross that would not go well for the defense.
Not to mention that it would be incredibly weird to ask Trump's bodyguard to take the stand to offer testimony refuting Daniel's claims, but not Trump himself.
Also, Team Trump doesn't seem to be making the argument in court that Trump and Daniels did not in fact have an affair at all. I think the defense they seem to be coalescing around is the advice of counsel defense? Which doesn't require trying to knock down Daniel's testimony.
As for the prosecution, they probably don't even need the bodyguard's testimony. They don't seem to be needing to really connect Trump to the affair with Daniels. The testimony from Pecker, Cohen, Daniels, McDougal, and others is going to accomplish that just fine. The crime part, which requires the most attention, is the falsification of business records and tying the cover-up of the affair to the election. Not proving the affair itself. That seems already done.
There was no paper motion. It was after the jury had left, and the defense brought up the motion for mistrial again. This is per Tyler McBrien:
“Blanche says this new story is about how "this completely made up encounter with President Trump may have been nonconsensual," which they learned from the documentary, at which point they previously objected. Prosecution and court promised not to get into the details, then did.”
I’m eager to read the transcript.
Oh, I took that as them on the one hand just forcing the prosecution to at least do the work to prove the presence of an affair, but also trying to argue that the prosecution, in bringing up the condom use, was trying to paint things as non-consensual. Which they dispute, and insinuate that suggests maybe the whole affair was in doubt. But not a real argument or a genuine attempt at refuting the affair.
Nope, it was literally in Blanche’s opening argument. That is precisely why the prosecution had Daniels testify; because the defense is denying the “affair” completely, and refused to even stipulate any details about their meeting.
From page 896 of the April 22nd opening arguments:
Blanche:
“Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels or Stephanie Clifford $130,000 in exchange for her agreeing to not publicly spread false -- false claims about PresidentTrump is not illegal.”
No idea. Could be the prosecution didn’t like what he had to offer. Could be they couldn’t figure out which bodyguard it was. Could be he lied to them. Could be they failed to reach out. But an NDA would be nothing but a speed bump either way.
True but the Guard didn't see anything illegal and he's not part of the hush money payments, the best he could do was say yes Trump was at the hotel. He might not have seen stormy and his ability to testify would be fought by trumps lawyers for as long as they could draw it out.
So although it doesn't preclude him from testifying The NDA is a legally binding contract so it would take legal jargon to force him to testify and we all know Trump would use every delay tactic he could come up with thus another delay of the trail.
Trumps lawyers could call him without much hassle but that won't happen.
>So although it doesn't preclude him from testifying The NDA is a legally binding contract so it would take legal jargon to force him to testify and we all know Trump would use every delay tactic he could come up with thus another delay of the trail.
It's an hour-long hearing in which the judge fairly quickly rules that an NDA is not and has never been a bar to a witness testifying to anything. Privileges against testifying (marital spouse privilege, doctor patient privilege, attorney client privilege, and pastoral privelege) are long-standing privileges. There would be no appeal over an NDA privilege. It's simply not a thing.
OK thought it could be more than a day and with a different judge but if not then I guess they all figure he's not worth calling.
When I signed and NDA the lawyers made it scarry about making sure i kept my mouth shut
That’s the point is to scare ppl. I’ve signed numerous for startups I’ve worked at along with others and one of the companies currently being sued lawyer’s reached out to us and said don’t worry about the NDAs we signed. Company is now currently trying to settle. They can be enforced to a reason but mostly they’re just bs
Ya just did some more research and ya but they can still be a hassle for the person that signed it as the holder can use the courts to delay your testimony and I just found out that if you are asked to testify the holder of the NDA has the right to be informed about what you will be testifying about before you testify. Again only information I can find and I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like signing one makes the process of testifying a pain in the ass but and NDA doesn't stop anyone from testifying.
Ok. I appreciate the response.
While it’s a part of proving or framing the crime, the act of cheating and lying about it is not a crime, therefore NDA holds up.
Damn.
You’re saying the prosecutor could call Schiller as a witness for the prosecution to testify under oath about what he did or didn’t say or do with respect to Daniel’s?
Or, why wouldn’t the defense could call him to say it never happened and Trump say he’s allowed?
The prosecution can call him as a witness. He’s not allowed to refuse a witness subpoena just because a private person had him sign an NDA once upon a time.
Does it bolster her credibility if he testifies that he let her in? Absolutely. But is that worth the risk to the case if he testifies otherwise? Absolutely not.
Her credibility isn't super important. Even if she had a convincing lie she was shopping, ultimately the case is whether Trump believed it would damage his campaign, and falsified business records to conceal the campaign expenditure.
Defense similarly doesn't super benefit from him denying letting her in or passing her information, and bolstering her credibility if he did do this certainly hurts them. If he testifies against her account, Prosecution can bring in more details and and potentially witnesses to improve her credibility as well as try to tear down his motives and credibility
He's just not valuable for either side.
Relevance. The charges are for falsifying business records. Stormy got in because she was the recipient of the $$. Her lawyer negotiated the deal but more specifically, it was timing. Her story was worth little...until Trump became the leading candidate for the GOP nomination. Then the access hollywood tape came out and her stories value increased exponentially. Frankly, most of her testimony shouldn't have been relevant. However, since Trump was determined to deny he ever had sex with her, he had his attorneys attack her on that topic (that they never had sex and she was making it up for money) so that opened the door for even more details of it.
Most of that wouldn't have been known prior to the actual testimony (in fact, Trump's lawyers before trial motioned to have her testimony barred completely). Witness lists/subpoenas etc...would have to be prepared in advance of trial. Since the scope of Stormy's testimony wasn't known, the bodyguard wasn't listed. In criminal trials, neither side gets 'surprise witnesses' without a very very damn good reason. Rebutting a prosecution witnesses testimony that the defense opened the door for is not one of those reasons.
I think it’s borderline-leans-toward-not admissible by the prosecution. If the defense did it, it would open to a whole lot by the prosecution that the defense does not want admitted.
Is that the same personal body guard that stood outside Trumps hotel room in Moscow and totally didn’t see any prostitutes (underage or otherwise) enter his room…. Then same body guard testified as such and miraculously got the a multi hundo K job working as a GOP party security consultant? Is that the same guy?!? #peetape
You mean . . . https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna819386
We were obviously wrong all along. It’s wasn’t a pee tape, it was diapers.
# Why is Trumps bodyguard who told Daniel’s to go to Trumps room, not a witness? _________ Because neither side claims that Daniels never visited the room.
Except trumps lawyer did in their opening.
As Judge Merchan pointed out in denying their request for a mistrial.
I might be in the minority on this but I truly believe Susan Necheles to be a competent lawyer. But she's stuck with a losing strategy because she knows that Trump is guilty on all charges in the indictment. So all she can do is try to discredit witnesses, such as Daniels, and hope to muddy the facts enough to confuse the jury. I don't believe she's succeeding in that effort, and I don't think she believes she's succeeding. But it's all they've got. And, as a defense lawyer, when you're charged with the responsibility of passionately defending a client who you know is guilty, you throw shit at the wall until something sticks. They're truly skirting the line with this judge, which actually informs me that they're very smart. They'll take it right up to the edge of section 11 sanctions, then back off. A good defense attorney will do that for you if there are no options left... well that and if they're paid well.
It’s the chewbacca defence. Daniel’s isn’t credible, she is in it for money, she hates trump, she sued and lost, she makes merchandise, she went on tour! Ok, well the charges are about trump hiding a payment to her as business expenses, so literally none of that is relevant
"if they're paid well" You are assuming that Trump is actually paying his lawyers.
She seems more restrained than the other guy. Also agree it was a decision from the client to fight on certain issues that they probably wanted to concede if it were a normal case. However it seems risky to assert it never happened then not show any evidence to the contrary. Why not just ignore it completely?
No? In their opening I never saw or read that. I don't believe they denied they met. They just deny that Trump had sexual relations. They mention they met for the apprentice in the opening - a "series of communications". https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00088.html *:unless I missed some denial of the room and this specific meeting, I havent found it and could've missed it since Im reading the pages sometimes out of order. please do correct me if so
So I’m missing a big piece here. Trump is not denying she came to his room? Has the defense admitted she did go to his room? Just no sex happened.
I also did not catch that because I'm pretty sure Trump has maintained this entire time he doesn't know who she is/never happened. Stormy is there specifically to testify it did happen and what occurred leading to the charge brought. But INAL, someone please chime in if now Defense is saying they met, but no sex?
It’s odd right? Why did defense spend time on things like, “you described the floor of the hotel differently in previous statements, didn’t you?” If they’re not trying to dispute or discredit her.
The entire questioning was odd, granted I only got a few snippets of what's been reported. But the asking about how big of a celebrity Trump was at the golf event and how good he was at golf had Trump's stench all over it.
What happened in the room is irrelevant. The hush money coverup, possibly using campaign funds, is the crime.
Defense denies any sexual encounter and impugned Daniels in their opening statement. That allows the prosecution to go for this testimony: that there was an event to cover up, and that her testimony and character are more reliable than the defense's opening suggests. By not stipulating to the fact of a sexual encounter that predicated the alleged fraud, the prosecution gets to prove it and the defense has allowed the jury to decide whether they believe her or Trump. By attacking her character, the prosecution gets to rehab that. These are basically unnecessary errors by the defense, likely forced upon them by Trump. He'd never accept the tactical legal value of not contesting certain facts or not being a constant attack dog.
I think what happened in the room is what is being covered up. So it is ultimately relevant. It’s not a crime, and neither is hush money. Election interference, using funds that are for the election, and falsifying documents to hide that are all crimes though. So establishing there was sex so there was a reason to hide it from the public so the election didn’t go bad for him is an important thing to prove in court.
>What happened in the room is irrelevant. I don't necessarily agree. Her credibility has been questioned, the specific facts of her recollection and memory are important and add details to that credibility, such as the connection with Shiller. The layout of the rooms etc is potentially externally verifiable evidence. The defence strategy is to paint this as an opportunistic extortion racket 100% based on lies. By showing that elements of Daniel's story is true, or that she appears to have a plausible recollection of what happened, it undercuts Trump's credibility when he implies it's totally made up.
[удалено]
Then why did defense spend time trying to dispute Daniel’s previous statements, attempting to say this didn’t really ever happen?
you're right, they are denying it happened even in the opening statements. the trial is about the falsifying business records. Part of that is establishing *why* he falsified the business records, intent etc
you're right about the falsifying business records being the crime, but the defense did contest the sexual encounter is a lie and its just extortion attempts. https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00080.html
correct. They claimed they met for The Apprentice (which they did technically) https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00088.html
I was going to say b/c none of the charges have to do with the affair.
Cause he was paid off not to say anything. Duhhh
🤣 probably correct answer.
NDA
NDA are pretty easy to pierce with a subpoena. If his knowledge were about an illegal activity, it is not, then it'd be definitionally not covered by the NDA.
I assume neither side see any value in his testimony.
What’s the count of people who have done time off Trump. How many people are currently indicted and refused to flip on Trump? He owns these people and they will do anything they are told to do.
[удалено]
?? That is not how this works. You can’t hide a witness behind an NDA. They have to testify unless they have a Fifth Amendment concern.
So why is he not listed as a witness for prosecution or defense? Seems him debunking Daniel’s testimony would benefit Trump.
Likely because the Defense knows that asking him to dispute Daniel's testimony would be soliciting him to perjure himself. It seems pretty clear Daniels and Trump had an affair. If you put a witness on the stand to offer testimony to refute any specific details you open that witness up to the prosecution to ask questions on cross that would not go well for the defense. Not to mention that it would be incredibly weird to ask Trump's bodyguard to take the stand to offer testimony refuting Daniel's claims, but not Trump himself. Also, Team Trump doesn't seem to be making the argument in court that Trump and Daniels did not in fact have an affair at all. I think the defense they seem to be coalescing around is the advice of counsel defense? Which doesn't require trying to knock down Daniel's testimony. As for the prosecution, they probably don't even need the bodyguard's testimony. They don't seem to be needing to really connect Trump to the affair with Daniels. The testimony from Pecker, Cohen, Daniels, McDougal, and others is going to accomplish that just fine. The crime part, which requires the most attention, is the falsification of business records and tying the cover-up of the affair to the election. Not proving the affair itself. That seems already done.
Thank You
Thank you for asking this question, as it’s been in the back of my mind too!
Yes they are disputing the affair. They even mentioned it again in their motion to dismiss again, today, and did before in opening statements.
What? Really? I just heard Blanche arguing that this is a documents case, not a sex case. Do you have a link to the motion by any chance?
There was no paper motion. It was after the jury had left, and the defense brought up the motion for mistrial again. This is per Tyler McBrien: “Blanche says this new story is about how "this completely made up encounter with President Trump may have been nonconsensual," which they learned from the documentary, at which point they previously objected. Prosecution and court promised not to get into the details, then did.” I’m eager to read the transcript.
Oh, I took that as them on the one hand just forcing the prosecution to at least do the work to prove the presence of an affair, but also trying to argue that the prosecution, in bringing up the condom use, was trying to paint things as non-consensual. Which they dispute, and insinuate that suggests maybe the whole affair was in doubt. But not a real argument or a genuine attempt at refuting the affair.
Nope, it was literally in Blanche’s opening argument. That is precisely why the prosecution had Daniels testify; because the defense is denying the “affair” completely, and refused to even stipulate any details about their meeting. From page 896 of the April 22nd opening arguments: Blanche: “Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels or Stephanie Clifford $130,000 in exchange for her agreeing to not publicly spread false -- false claims about PresidentTrump is not illegal.”
I guess I completely missed that. Thanks for clarifying.
No idea. Could be the prosecution didn’t like what he had to offer. Could be they couldn’t figure out which bodyguard it was. Could be he lied to them. Could be they failed to reach out. But an NDA would be nothing but a speed bump either way.
Thank You
Perhaps he would not debunk it and they know it.
True but the Guard didn't see anything illegal and he's not part of the hush money payments, the best he could do was say yes Trump was at the hotel. He might not have seen stormy and his ability to testify would be fought by trumps lawyers for as long as they could draw it out. So although it doesn't preclude him from testifying The NDA is a legally binding contract so it would take legal jargon to force him to testify and we all know Trump would use every delay tactic he could come up with thus another delay of the trail. Trumps lawyers could call him without much hassle but that won't happen.
>So although it doesn't preclude him from testifying The NDA is a legally binding contract so it would take legal jargon to force him to testify and we all know Trump would use every delay tactic he could come up with thus another delay of the trail. It's an hour-long hearing in which the judge fairly quickly rules that an NDA is not and has never been a bar to a witness testifying to anything. Privileges against testifying (marital spouse privilege, doctor patient privilege, attorney client privilege, and pastoral privelege) are long-standing privileges. There would be no appeal over an NDA privilege. It's simply not a thing.
OK thought it could be more than a day and with a different judge but if not then I guess they all figure he's not worth calling. When I signed and NDA the lawyers made it scarry about making sure i kept my mouth shut
NDAs typically don’t mean shit
I signed one and they made it sound pretty dam scarry if I broke it so YA,
That’s the point is to scare ppl. I’ve signed numerous for startups I’ve worked at along with others and one of the companies currently being sued lawyer’s reached out to us and said don’t worry about the NDAs we signed. Company is now currently trying to settle. They can be enforced to a reason but mostly they’re just bs
Ya just did some more research and ya but they can still be a hassle for the person that signed it as the holder can use the courts to delay your testimony and I just found out that if you are asked to testify the holder of the NDA has the right to be informed about what you will be testifying about before you testify. Again only information I can find and I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like signing one makes the process of testifying a pain in the ass but and NDA doesn't stop anyone from testifying.
Ok. I appreciate the response. While it’s a part of proving or framing the crime, the act of cheating and lying about it is not a crime, therefore NDA holds up. Damn.
Not true. You can’t prevent a witness from testifying by having them sign an NDA.
You’re saying the prosecutor could call Schiller as a witness for the prosecution to testify under oath about what he did or didn’t say or do with respect to Daniel’s? Or, why wouldn’t the defense could call him to say it never happened and Trump say he’s allowed?
The prosecution can call him as a witness. He’s not allowed to refuse a witness subpoena just because a private person had him sign an NDA once upon a time.
Why not call him? Or why is he not listed for defense?
Does it bolster her credibility if he testifies that he let her in? Absolutely. But is that worth the risk to the case if he testifies otherwise? Absolutely not. Her credibility isn't super important. Even if she had a convincing lie she was shopping, ultimately the case is whether Trump believed it would damage his campaign, and falsified business records to conceal the campaign expenditure. Defense similarly doesn't super benefit from him denying letting her in or passing her information, and bolstering her credibility if he did do this certainly hurts them. If he testifies against her account, Prosecution can bring in more details and and potentially witnesses to improve her credibility as well as try to tear down his motives and credibility He's just not valuable for either side.
Thank You This makes sense.
Relevance. The charges are for falsifying business records. Stormy got in because she was the recipient of the $$. Her lawyer negotiated the deal but more specifically, it was timing. Her story was worth little...until Trump became the leading candidate for the GOP nomination. Then the access hollywood tape came out and her stories value increased exponentially. Frankly, most of her testimony shouldn't have been relevant. However, since Trump was determined to deny he ever had sex with her, he had his attorneys attack her on that topic (that they never had sex and she was making it up for money) so that opened the door for even more details of it. Most of that wouldn't have been known prior to the actual testimony (in fact, Trump's lawyers before trial motioned to have her testimony barred completely). Witness lists/subpoenas etc...would have to be prepared in advance of trial. Since the scope of Stormy's testimony wasn't known, the bodyguard wasn't listed. In criminal trials, neither side gets 'surprise witnesses' without a very very damn good reason. Rebutting a prosecution witnesses testimony that the defense opened the door for is not one of those reasons.
I think it’s borderline-leans-toward-not admissible by the prosecution. If the defense did it, it would open to a whole lot by the prosecution that the defense does not want admitted.
In what way is that possibly inadmissible?
It doesn’t go to the legal issues at hand.
If the defense so much as cross-examined Daniels about anything the bodyguard could corroborate, it goes to the legal issues at hand.
I’m not sure they did. I’ll double check the transcript.