Stormy kills Bragg case

[masonbengals fan]

(05-12-2024, 08:14 AM)pally Wrote: Women do not like other women being “slut shamed” even if in the eyes of some they deserve it.  Men’s sexual history is almost never brought up in court as a sign of their morality. The Trump’s lawyer’ cross examination sought to do exactly that which was risky because of 5 women on the jury.  It didn’t matter how many people she slept with or what she did for a living, she doesn’t relinquish body autonomy because of it.  

For all of Fox’s reporting, Stormy, especially after the 2nd day of cross, came off quite credible.  I think the jury does believe the sex between her and Trump took place. She said she hated Trump…if she hadn’t said that, she would’ve been lying.  She was honest.

And regardless of her goals, it is Trump’s actions that are on trial not hers.  If she was blackmailing him, he should have reported it to the police, he didn’t.  He paid her off, to save his campaign.  He used corporate, not personal, funds to do so and claimed it was legal expenses.  That is a violation of New York State law.

The women I know don't have a problem calling a spade a spade. The woman gets paid for sex acts. What would you call her? I'm not saying she deserves anything one way or the other but that has been her occupation. So why not just own it. I believe she does own it.

Her saying she hated him was probably the only truth in her. WAY too many inconsistencies in her testimony. She's made a literal fortune over the years from their association in one form or another time after time. How can you not take that into account?

Quite credible tells me you have far from an open mind.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-12-2024, 09:41 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Ok. Well if it’s not the government involved in the orchestrating of stacked charges against Trump and it’s too much to just be a coincidence. Then who?

You are claiming he is a victim? Who do you think is the victimizer?

No idea, just putting my opinion out there about how it looks.

I never said he was a victim, your words, not mine. Please do not try and put words in my mouth, that is not a good faith argument.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2024, 08:38 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: To the firs, I get, even if I do not agree. A lot of unknowns. Hence y issue and likely yours. 

Yeah well, regarding my issue I might add that my sensitivities certainly are dampened when it comes to Donald Trump. While I understand scepticism about all taking place now, I for one just feel that in the end he had it coming and deserves what he gets. He slandered, lied, betrayed and decieved people all his life and just bought himself out of trouble, like when he ran a scam university or misused charity money to buy a huge painting of himself, and so on and so forth, the exaples would run rampant. Him not getting away with stuff to me is some kind of justice that makes me overlook certain aspects. Doesn't mean I want him convicted while innocent, but he just probaly is not, not even in the Stormy case that is the most unnecessary of all of them. Let the common man fail to properly declare an expense and see how the system reacts to that kind of fraud. Trump deserves no better treatment. But sure, I can understand different perspectives.

(05-12-2024, 08:38 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: How is adding a third or fourth party working for you?

Well, I won't say that it's all sunshine, we have populists, corruption, incompetence, dirty deals and all that too in politics. What we do not have is guys like Trump and Biden getting elected no matter what, not even for mayor in a small rural village, and we do not have political parties that are guaranteed at least 45% of votes no matter what. Unlike your parties, ours can actually crater if going too far, like running candidates that claim their uncle got eaten by cannibals or argue for total immunity including killing political opponents. In the same sense, we only have a few really die-hard party fans that would storm parliaments for their guy. From a voter's perspective, it is just satisfying to know that your vote counts for the party you vote for, and even if only five percent of people vote the same way your party gets a little say in parliament, a little attention to build up on. It is, in my view, the superior system and looking at the US strengthens this view time and again. It is outright bizarre how a great country with so much excellence has now Biden vs. Trump part 2 in their presidential race. That alone indicates there's something very off.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2024, 10:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Oh good lord.  Trump and Barr have been out of office for 3+ years.  This is irrational dribble - surely if there was even a modicum of merit, Biden's DOJ would have charged Trump.  Also, how many times was Trump impeached for Russian Collusion and Obstruction?  Oh, that's right, Pelosi's House shit out the Jan.6 impeachment in literally days, but they never impeached him over Collusion or Obstruction.

So when you lay awake at night wondering why Trump isn't in jail, does it ever occur to that you were deceived and gas lit?  No charges, not even an impeachment.  It's almost as if Bill Barr, despite protests from CNN, actually told you the truth - it was a nothingburger.

No charges against Trump does not amount to a nothingburger. His campaign manager was convicted to jailtime until pardoned, as was his adviser Roger Stone, and several other people. I wonder how having a campaign manager being an unregistered foreign agent in cohouts and deep debt to Russian oligarchs and a close adviser coordinating a dump of Russian-hacked emails with declared enemy of the state Julian Assange is not a political scandal, but a "nothingburger" instead.

[Dill]

(05-13-2024, 08:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: No charges against Trump does not amount to a nothingburger. His campaign manager was convicted to jailtime until pardoned, as was his adviser Roger Stone, and several other people. I wonder how having a campaign manager being an unregistered foreign agent in cohouts and deep debt to Russian oligarchs and a close adviser coordinating a dump of Russian-hacked emails with declared enemy of the state Julian Assange is not a political scandal, but a "nothingburger" instead.

I believe this has been explained to him before. Plus Mueller's framing of the obstruction charges. 

[Luvnit2]

(05-12-2024, 08:14 AM)pally Wrote: And regardless of her goals, it is Trump’s actions that are on trial not hers.  If she was blackmailing him, he should have reported it to the police, he didn’t.  He paid her off, to save his campaign.  He used corporate, not personal, funds to do so and claimed it was legal expenses.  That is a violation of New York State law.

You are accurate, it is if jury says he is guilty a violation OF STATE LAW, NOT A FEDERAL CRIME AND A STATE MISDEMEANOR.

Trump is not on trial for cheating on his wife (Stormy's story changes with her mood and signed a statement saying IT NEVER HAPPENED with Daniels.

Again, Bragg is charging a federal crime, not. state crime that is not a felony.

[hollodero]

(05-13-2024, 11:02 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Trump is not on trial for cheating on his wife (Stormy's story changes with her mood and signed a statement saying IT NEVER HAPPENED with Daniels.

Do you honestly believe IT NEVER HAPPENED?

[Luvnit2]

Weissenberg's separation agreement is not admissible in the trail.

They have Cohen on the stand now, the only witness who is testifying on the actual hush money. I have a hard time believing a partisan jury can come up with a guilty verdict based on a known Trump hater and liar. I see the defense ripping Cohen apart on cross examination.

Trump does not do email so sound as though jury will have to agree with 100% certainty Cohen's attempt to jail Trump for not giving him a position in the White House.

[*pally*]

(05-13-2024, 11:02 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You are accurate, it is if jury says he is guilty a violation OF STATE LAW, NOT A FEDERAL CRIME AND A STATE MISDEMEANOR.

Trump is not on trial for cheating on his wife (Stormy's story changes with her mood and signed a statement saying IT NEVER HAPPENED with Daniels.

Again, Bragg is charging a federal crime, not. state crime that is not a felony.

Bragg has charged Trump for violations of NEW YORK business and election laws

We have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn if you honestly believe Trump didn’t have sex with Stormy.

She was under a non disclosure agreement
So couldn’t speak out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arturo Bandini]

(05-13-2024, 11:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: Do you honestly believe IT NEVER HAPPENED?

When you are a winner, you pay 130 000$ to NOT have sex ! 

[HarleyDog]

(05-13-2024, 11:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: Do you honestly believe IT NEVER HAPPENED?

I believe it did, but it's irrelevant. Whether he did or not is not why he's on trial. This is why her testimony going into detail should have been stricken and halted immediately. The judge only let her continue so she could help form opinions in the juror's minds. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-13-2024, 11:54 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I believe it did, but it's irrelevant. Whether he did or not is not why he's on trial. This is why her testimony going into detail should have been stricken and halted immediately. The judge only let her continue so she could help form opinions in the juror's minds. 

The judge didn't let it go unchecked. He sustained every objection the defense rose to her testimony and it was stricken. The reason it wasn't declared a mistrial is because that testimony was irrelevant.

[GMDino]

(05-13-2024, 11:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The judge didn't let it go unchecked. He sustained every objection the defense rose to her testimony and it was stricken. The reason it wasn't declared a mistrial is because that testimony was irrelevant.

I was wondering if her testimony was also used to go into how Trump lies.  He denied knowing her, that it ever happened, etc.  Her giving super specific details is unnecessary to the case but can be used to show that he lied about it even happening so he'd lie about the payment and the coverup of the payment.

Probably not but it was a thought I had.

Hell, could be just to try and bait Trump into taking the stand to defend himself.  I don't believe that will happen either.

[Dill]

(05-12-2024, 10:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Oh good lord.  Trump and Barr have been out of office for 3+ years.  This is irrational dribble - surely if there was even a modicum of merit, Biden's DOJ would have charged Trump.  Also, how many times was Trump impeached for Russian Collusion and Obstruction?  Oh, that's right, Pelosi's House shit out the Jan.6 impeachment in literally days, but they never impeached him over Collusion or Obstruction.

Appears you've neither followed this case very closely nor digested the links I posted. Trump and Barr were not "out of office for 3+ years" when Bragg inherited and began reviewing this case, back in 2021. 

The bolded suggests some limitation of your knowledge of how government and the legal system actually work. That's generally the case when people start with an outcome to "reverse engineer" a desired conclusion. (Not the first time you've been flagged for this limitation either, so the resurgent hubris is puzzling.) 

The red herring deserves a comment as well. It would have been a waste of time and "political" to impeach Trump for collusion that did not reach the level of criminal prosecution. Bringing the obstruction charge would also have been difficult, given a Republican controlled Senate and the public's lack of knowledge about the issue. Plenty of Dems in the House pushed Pelosi for impeachment, as did segments of the public, but Pelosi judged the requisite support was lacking, and the costs would outweigh the benefits at that conjuncture--not that there was "nothing there." Can you see some differences in urgency between this and the 1/6 impeachments, right after a majority of the nation watched a Trump mob break into the Capitol and chase Congress out of session? 

(05-12-2024, 10:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So when you lay awake at night wondering why Trump isn't in jail, does it ever occur to that you were deceived and gas lit?  No charges, not even an impeachment.  It's almost as if Bill Barr, despite protests from CNN, actually told you the truth - it was a nothingburger.

I actually read the Mueller Report and Barr's memo, and spent a deal of time in this forum explaining Mueller's findings and legal argument to people who did not read it.

So no, it does not occur to me that I have been deceived or "gas lit."   

But it does occur to me that many Americans don't spend much time with primary texts in these cases or follow evidence and legal arguments very closely, relying on their selective news sources to explain it all for them, making it easy for them to conclude no prosecution must mean there was never actually a case for such, and to be easily swayed by mutually supporting, attention-diverting media narratives--the election was rigged, Biden weaponized the DOJ to get Trump, Russia Russia Russia! 

[hollodero]

(05-13-2024, 11:54 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I believe it did, but it's irrelevant. Whether he did or not is not why he's on trial. This is why her testimony going into detail should have been stricken and halted immediately. The judge only let her continue so she could help form opinions in the juror's minds. 

I never claimed it was relevant. I just find it the height of naivity to actually believe Trump when he says it never happened.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-13-2024, 11:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: Do you honestly believe IT NEVER HAPPENED?

I like to think everyone believes it more than likely happened. Another marker of questionable character to be sure.


The part I am curious about is DJT saying it never happened, because it does not matter if it happened or not , as you acknowledge. My best guess there would be maybe it is part of the non disclosure agreement, which does not allow DJT to admit to the infidelity as well?

[hollodero]

(05-13-2024, 01:10 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I like to think everyone believes it more than likely happened. Another marker of questionable character to be sure.

Honestly, I never really cared much about it. When it comes to these markers, I find plenty of examples that rattle me more than the infidelity issue.

(05-13-2024, 01:10 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: The part I am curious about is DJT saying it never happened, because it does not matter if it happened or not , as you acknowledge. My best guess there would be maybe it is part of the non disclosure agreement, which does not allow DJT to admit to the infidelity as well?

Well, Trump might think it matters since a not so irrelevant portion of his supporters are die hard christians who allegedly deeply believe in the sanctity of marriage. As for your guess, I can not quite believe that Trump paid hush money to huzzle himself. Even more so since the non disclosure agreement seems to be out of the picture anyway, given the stuff Stormy discloses.

[Dill]

(05-13-2024, 11:02 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You are accurate, it is if jury says he is guilty a violation OF STATE LAW, NOT A FEDERAL CRIME AND A STATE MISDEMEANOR.

Trump is not on trial for cheating on his wife (Stormy's story changes with her mood and signed a statement saying IT NEVER HAPPENED with Daniels.

Again, Bragg is charging a federal crime, not. state crime that is not a felony.

In post #79 above I gave you links to the actual indictment and "statement of facts." 

You have not looked at those documents yet? 

[Luvnit2]

(05-13-2024, 11:05 AM)hollodero Wrote: Do you honestly believe IT NEVER HAPPENED?

If you believe Daniels, he did not do it. She extorted him so he paid her, so his young son and wife were not embarrassed according to Hope Hicks.

You tell me, do you believe Daniels version it happened or her other version it never happened after she got the money?

But if it did happen, just like Bill Clinton was a horn dog, who cares as it is not a crime, it is a sin if he did it and he will answer to God in the end of any sins he committed.

[Luvnit2]

(05-13-2024, 01:10 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I like to think everyone believes it more than likely happened. Another marker of questionable character to be sure.


The part I am curious about is DJT saying it never happened, because it does not matter if it happened or not , as you acknowledge. My best guess there would be maybe it is part of the non disclosure agreement, which does not allow DJT to admit to the infidelity as well?

What NDA, it was ripped up a long time ago by Cohen and Daniels. Cohen is the guy who negotiated the NDA and then attempts to rat out a client. 

I am still baffled how a disbarred attorney is permitted to testify against his former client. What happened to Attorney-Client Privileges?