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]

 

[Cmaier]

May 10 transcript:

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/5-10-2024/

Some fun stuff in this one.

 

[GermanSuplex]

The defense mentioned - either in cross examination of a witness or during their opening statements, I can't remember - that Trump put up a firewall between himself and his business while he was president.

So why was he doing business in the Oval Office and signing hush money repayment checks from the White House? That's... the opposite of separating yourself from your business.

Which means Trump was also lying when he said "I would have a right to run my business, but I won't."

The only reason he would couch it with "but I could if I wanted to" is because he was going to. It's the same thing he does with the classified docs. I didn't do anything wrong, but I would have an absolute right to do what they accused me of.

It's a very transparent yet dishonest way of saying "Well, I'm denying it, but if you have proof, then I had the right to."

 

[Yoused]

The defense mentioned - either in cross examination of a witness or during their opening statements, I can't remember - that Trump put up a firewall between himself and his business while he was president.

So why was he doing business in the Oval Office and signing hush money repayment checks from the White House? That's... the opposite of separating yourself from your business.

Witnesses raise their hand and swear to be truthful. Lawyers are not so constrained.

 

[Cmaier]

Witnesses raise their hand and swear to be truthful. Lawyers are not so constrained.

Um, that’s not true. We are officers of the court who swear an oath too.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Speaker Johnson will be joining Trump in court today. Because Trump's porn star sex trial needs a little more Johnson.

US House Speaker Johnson to join Republican parade at Trump hush money trial

Republican U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson will join former President Donald Trump at his hush money trial in Manhattan on Tuesday, a person familiar with the matter said. Johnson, the top Republican in Congress, is the latest and most senior party member to attend the...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Roller]

Um, that’s not true. We are officers of the court who swear an oath too.

That's what I've always heard. But where is the line when a lawyer repeats a lie from their client in court? Also, how does the oath apply in situations like the one where Trump falsely claimed he couldn't testify because of Judge Merchan's gag order? As Trump was speaking, Blanche was nodding in the background, which any observer would interpret as agreeing with something he knew to be false.

 

[Eric]

Speaker Johnson will be joining Trump in court today. Because Trump's porn star sex trial needs a little more Johnson.

US House Speaker Johnson to join Republican parade at Trump hush money trial

Republican U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson will join former President Donald Trump at his hush money trial in Manhattan on Tuesday, a person familiar with the matter said. Johnson, the top Republican in Congress, is the latest and most senior party member to attend the...

www.yahoo.com

You have to question whether this helps or hurts in the eyes of the jury, no matter who you support it gives the impression of partisanship. In the end I guess all you have to do is turn one juror so if you have one wingnut who likes it he gets off.

 

[Cmaier]

That's what I've always heard. But where is the line when a lawyer repeats a lie from their client in court? Also, how does the oath apply in situations like the one where Trump falsely claimed he couldn't testify because of Judge Merchan's gag order? As Trump was speaking, Blanche was nodding in the background, which any observer would interpret as agreeing with something he knew to be false.

Out of court statements are a different thing than in court statements,but there are still rules. Look how many of trump’s lawyers have been disbarred or are in the process of being disbarred.

In court, there is certain leeway in making arguments, but you can’t outright lie. But many times you don’t really *know* whether your client is is telling the truth or not - you have suspicions, you’ve tried to get to the bottom of it, and you can’t find evidence that proves anything either way. But if you know your client is going to lie, for example, you can’t put him on the stand and ask him questions. There’s a procedure that is sometimes used in that situation; it’s delicate, because you also have duties of loyalty and confidentiality to your client. That’s why smart lawyers don‘t take clients like Trump - they end up in no-win situations, where they can’t fulfill all their duties to the court and to their client.

 

[Cmaier]

You have to question whether this helps or hurts in the eyes of the jury, no matter who you support it gives the impression of partisanship. In the end I guess all you have to do is turn one juror so if you have one wingnut who likes it he gets off.

NY jury: “look at this clown car full of rednecks who keeps showing up for the defendant.”

 

[GermanSuplex]

You know how republicans always say they aren't racist, and many of us say "Well, you can say that about this statement, or this action... but taken as a whole, it looks racist".

Same thing here. There's nothing inherently racist about these republicans showing up to support Donald Trump. Other than the former most powerful man on earth - a white man - what other defendants have they shown up to support? Any innocent black person gunned down they've ever shown up to show support for? Have they ever shown up to a trial where a minority was being railroaded, or to protest a white kid getting no prison time for committing rape or sexual assault? No.

So while there's nothing racist about these clowns showing up to support Trump - a real Nelson Mandela - it fits the narrative.

Tuberville literally tried to press the point Trump shouldn't be in trial because New York is just too great a city to sit in the courthouse. It's too "depressing" as he put it.

 

[Citysnaps]

Speaker Johnson will be joining Trump in court today.

He's gunning to be trump's VP. No doubt discussed during his visit to Mar-a-Lago a couple weeks ago, and to kiss trump's ring and butt.