The Trump Indictment Thread

[Roller]

Part of my closing argument will be:

”ladies and gentlemen, we know there are three situations where the Defendant paid out in order to hide stories that he felt would hurt his candidacy. We have the doorman story, the McDougall story, and the Stormy Daniels story. Everyone agrees the doorman story was false. But, afraid it would hurt his candidacy, the Defendant paid $30,000 to keep it quiet.

How much did McDougall get? $150,000. And Ms. Daniels? $130,000. So there’s at least $100,000 difference between the false doorman story and the other two. Why? You can infer, from the evidence, that the price to quash a false story was $30,000, and the price to quash a true story was a lot more.

And, if the evidence tells you that Mr. Trump’s lawyers aren’t telling the truth when they tell you that nothing happened in that hotel room, can you believe anything else they tell you?”

From what I've read, Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles are well thought-of attorneys. Yet, both have come in for considerable criticism in how they've handled the case. I'm not a lawyer, but I thought Necheles did a poor job cross examining Stormy Daniels yesterday. And, IIRC, in the defense's opening statement, it was claimed that Daniels lied about having sex with Trump. Why do that?

I think it's because Trump tells his attorneys what to say, and they comply within the limits of acceptable procedure. Heck, it even happens outside the courtroom. The other day, when Trump claimed the gag order prevented him from testifying, Blanche stood in the background nodding. I wouldn't have expected him to correct his client in the moment, but by suggesting he agreed with Trump's assertion, I believe he was just doing what Trump would have wanted.

I suppose Trump's attorneys will be vindicated to an extent if he's found not guilty or if there's a mistrial or something like that, but I have to think their reputations will have suffered nonetheless.

 

[Huntn]

I’ll never understand why this obvious fact doesn’t bother the Trump voters more. I hear the typical false equivalencies like “all politicians lie” or whatever but Trump is on an unprecedented level, like 1000 lies to 1 from an off the rack politician. Which means almost everything he tells his supporters is a lie, yet vote for him they must, because “Biden is bad”. The day I die I’ll still be confused about it.

Just a few Presidential election cycles ago, a man of Trump’s qualities would have stood ZERO chance of being elected, especially after the Access Hollywood tape. That a corrupt, poisonous, sociopath like this could be elected, not once, but possibly twice indicates a tragic turn in our politics that indicates that this Nation is on shaky grounds, that approximately half of participating voting age citizens have knowingly vested themselves in wholesale corruption, and the threat of fascism, primarily because of all the worst characteristics of human beings, selfishness, prejudice, racist, the temptation of getting ahead via corruption, and blatant disregard for democratic ideals. They have abandoned the idea that we live in a society made up of hundreds of millions of people and it’s not just about me. But there is way too much ME>WE. Trump and his co-conspirators, with arguably the help of both a Russia and China are trying to take this Democratic Republic down, and replace it with a corrupt, pseudo-theocratic, authoritarian regime.

 

[Renzatic]

The whole looking at the world through the myopic lens of oppressor/oppressed and colonization.

Now, can you show me where these concepts have entered mainstream political thought. Even The Squad, progressive as they are, don't quite dip into the "I just took Psychology, Economics, and Politics 101 in college, AND NOW I HAVE OPINIONS" levels of inanity.

 

[Yoused]

I thought Necheles did a poor job cross examining Stormy Daniels yesterday. And, IIRC, in the defense's opening statement, it was claimed that Daniels lied about having sex with Trump. Why do that?

The defense is attempting to impugn the credibility and motives of various witnesses called by the prosecution. The reality is that it does not even really matter whether the encounter happened at all: the question is about whether election fraud was committed.

It is kind of funny how the defense tried to get the judge to ease the gag order, to allow the Idiot to respond in public to Stephanie's testimony. Apparently, it is understood that he is totally incapable of civil public discourse. He cannot even respond in a way that does not involve calling her a [redacted], I guess because he himself is a [redacted][redacted][redacted].

 

[Roller]

The defense is attempting to impugn the credibility and motives of various witnesses called by the prosecution. The reality is that it does not even really matter whether the encounter happened at all: the question is about whether election fraud was committed.

It is kind of funny how the defense tried to get the judge to ease the gag order, to allow the Idiot to respond in public to Stephanie's testimony. Apparently, it is understood that he is totally incapable of civil public discourse. He cannot even respond in a way that does not involve calling her a [redacted], I guess because he himself is a [redacted][redacted][redacted].

I know that what they were trying to do, but they failed, especially in Stormy Daniels' case. And, while it's true that it doesn't matter whether the encounter took place (Trump tried to hide the story to keep his campaign from going further off the rails regardless), I think it colored the way the jury will view Trump and his attorneys' arguments.

 

[Eric]

I think the defense is going to have a field day discrediting Cohen, he won't shut his trap and I have a feeling even the latest warnings won't stop him. He and Trump are like peas in a pod. If anything gets Trump off, it will be this.

 

[GermanSuplex]

I think the defense is going to have a field day discrediting Cohen, he won't shut his trap and I have a feeling even the latest warnings won't stop him. He and Trump are like peas in a pod. If anything gets Trump off, it will be this.

But… they have receipts. The defense has done plenty of trash talk too. For instance, the defense will likely use the salacious testimony of Stormy Daniels to portray it as if the prosecution was out to portray Trump as a predator, or rule that the sex angle was unnecessary.

Problem is, it was the defense who brought it up, in their opening statement.

I expect that you will learn that when Ms. Daniels threatened to go public with her false claim of a sexual encounter with President Trump back in 2008 (sic], that it was, as the People just said, very close to the election. And it was almost an attempt by Ms. Clifford/Ms. Daniels to extort President Trump. Link

They will also probably try to say sexual assault was implied - which she didn’t - but they also made statements about her being a porn star and used to seeing men in boxers. They are trying to appease Trump and throw up dust, but they’re really just killing any chance they have for appeal, which was slim to none to begin with.

I expect the defense to do the same thing here - Cohen may go off, but it will likely be after the defense stupidly opens the door.

 

[Cmaier]

May 9 transcript.

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/5-09-2024/

 

[Citysnaps]