Politics Thread

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Sounds like the porn star’s testimony and the judge’s allowing it gave Trump’s team a great basis for appeal. Testimony about the alleged affair is certainly reasonable. It seems the prosecution took it even further, allowing her to get into graphic details of the alleged encounter.

I think the only reason for that testimony was to embarrass Trump and prejudice the jury even more towards him. Then again, the prosecution couldn’t care less about losing anything on appeal. By then, the election will be over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the intercourse between Daniels and Trump would have had to have occurred in order for the payment to have become a necessity. I know a few defense attorneys who routinely work on capital cases and they all say the same thing, "trials are stories". I believe to tell that story, you would need to begin with the event that triggered the payment in the first place.

[noteggs]

It's convoluted though, I'll grant, as this article tries to explain.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article...eople-v.-trump

Convoluted for sure. However, Bragg has still not defined the second crime. This was a theory (from your post) the prosecutors threw out on April 23 (two weeks ago). From the same publication you provided.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article...ump-s-ny-trial

Merchan has permitted the prosecution to pursue three theories related to that underlying crime, known as the object offense,

Again and again, we will find out the other crime on the jury instructions. Great way to try a case!

[bjf123]

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the intercourse between Daniels and Trump would have had to have occurred in order for the payment to have become a necessity. I know a few defense attorneys who routinely work on capital cases and they all say the same thing, "trials are stories". I believe to tell that story, you would need to begin with the event that triggered the payment in the first place.

I’m not saying she couldn’t testify as to the sexual encounter happening. Was it necessary to get into the lurid details? I contend it was not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Sounds like the porn star’s testimony and the judge’s allowing it gave Trump’s team a great basis for appeal. Testimony about the alleged affair is certainly reasonable. It seems the prosecution took it even further, allowing her to get into graphic details of the alleged encounter.

I think the only reason for that testimony was to embarrass Trump and prejudice the jury even more towards him. Then again, the prosecution couldn’t care less about losing anything on appeal. By then, the election will be over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She still owes Trump a couple hundred Gs, correct?

http://https://www.nbcnews.com/polit...ppea-rcna21002

[Strange Brew]

I’m not saying she couldn’t testify as to the sexual encounter happening. Was it necessary to get into the lurid details? I contend it was not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It didn’t happen. As she has stated in writing.

Hope you boys are enjoying the Soap Opera.

[paulxu]

Convoluted for sure. However, Bragg has still not defined the second crime. This was a theory (from your post) the prosecutors threw out on April 23 (two weeks ago). From the same publication you provided.

This seems to be rather straightforward. The prosecution isn't offering a theory, they actually said this is the underlying crime.
They told that to the judge, in court.

“The primary crime that we have alleged is New York state election law section 17-152,” Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass told New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan during Trump’s trial on April 23

[bjf123]

It didn’t happen. As she has stated in writing.

Hope you boys are enjoying the Soap Opera.

I would certainly hope that Trump’s attorneys ask that during cross examination. It certainly casts doubt as to her veracity.

She still owes Trump a couple hundred Gs, correct?

http://https://www.nbcnews.com/polit...ppea-rcna21002

I heard it reported today that she is now saying she has no intention of paying that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

I would certainly hope that Trump’s attorneys ask that during cross examination. It certainly casts doubt as to her veracity.



I heard it reported today that she is now saying she has no intention of paying that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s a distraction as the case is flawed. However, I could be wrong but it seems the plan is backfiring horribly.

Jack is having a really bad week in FL as well.

[Strange Brew]

I would certainly hope that Trump’s attorneys ask that during cross examination. It certainly casts doubt as to her veracity.



I heard it reported today that she is now saying she has no intention of paying that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I’m shocked she was allowed to testify considering the judgement against her. Oh well, not a lawyer.

[noteggs]

This seems to be rather straightforward. The prosecution isn't offering a theory, they actually said this is the underlying crime.
They told that to the judge, in court.

Sources I’ve seen this incorrect including the source we both cited. Not straight forward at all. Where are you getting these sources?

Edit: looked up, your theory still talks about April 23. Again this was from the prosecutor in trial as one they may consider. Still nothing from Bragg. To my other point, you are being rather obtuse.

Again from your original source two weeks later on the charges.

Merchan has permitted the prosecution to pursue three theories related to that underlying crime, known as the object offense,