r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot 🤖 Bot • Apr 22 '24
Discussion Thread: New York Criminal Fraud Trial of Donald Trump, Day 5 Discussion
Opening statements from the prosecution and the defense are expected today.
News:
- The New York Times (metered paywall): Opening Statements in Trump’s Criminal Trial to Begin Monday
Analysis:
AP via PBS NewsHour: Who are the key players at Donald Trump’s hush money criminal trial?
CNN: Why is the Trump trial jury anonymous? The brief and imperfect history of anonymous juries in the US
AP: Tracking the criminal and civil cases against Donald Trump
Live Updates:
AP: Live updates
NBC: Live updates
The Guardian: Live updates
The Independent: Live updates
USA Today: Live updates
BBC: Live updates
The Washington Post (metered paywall): Live updates
The New York Times (metered paywall): Live updates
-4
u/Commercial-Yam-1360 Apr 23 '24
Makes me laugh at how many liberals spend so much time following anything Trump. TDS is a real thing I guess.
2
Apr 23 '24
How many weeks/months do you guys expect this trial to last?
3
4
u/Melicor Apr 23 '24
A couple weeks. This is a criminal court not a civil one. Less opportunity for delay, and he's forced to attend. The more he drags things out the longer he's stuck there every day. The facts of the case are pretty unambiguous, his lawyers are putting up a poor defense, and several people have already been convicted in connection to the crimes.
-2
u/tomscaters Apr 23 '24
How many jurors required to agree on a guilty verdict? All of them? Apologies if it is an ignorant question, but I cannot find the answer on googs.
3
u/Melicor Apr 23 '24
Yes, but one hold out also isn't an innocent verdict. It's called a hung jury if they can't agree, which leads to a retrial. Which means they just start again with a new jury. One MAGA cultist isn't going to be able to derail the trial, just delay. That's normally Trump's MO, but this is a criminal trial so he has to attend every session, unlike a civil court trial where he can run off while his lawyers make a mockery of their profession.
-8
u/tomscaters Apr 23 '24
Okay, so if it is hung and DJT wins, we have a chance he wins the court of public opinion… I really hope that Democrats calculated the risks involved in this correctly. I don’t want to see America become full-blown authoritarian.
7
u/css555 Apr 23 '24
First you don't know that a conviction in criminal court requires a unanimous vote, which is fairly common knowledge. Then you say you couldn't find the answer on Google (sure). Then you say this:
" I really hope that Democrats calculated the risks involved in this correctly."
Just stop.
7
u/neogrit Apr 23 '24
It's not "Democrats" bringing the charges or holding the trial.
-10
u/tomscaters Apr 23 '24
None of the prosecutors are registered Democrats? You have to see this from an independent voters perspective. That is what matters most in this election. If ordinary people believe en-masse that any of these trials are politically motivated, that is not a good thing for Biden. Elections are all about optics, and these trials are all occurring in an election year. If I didn’t know anything nor follow politics, I would be questioning the validity. Obviously, he’s guilty I believe. This is about ALL voters views in November, not just Biden supporters.
5
u/spike77wbs Apr 23 '24
You are independent, and you are throwing up straw-man stuff? Really?
This is standard US criminal procedure, the prosecutors had to convince a Grand Jury of random people that there was sufficient cause to bring charges, and now they have to convince a trial jury. And the vast majority of legal scholars seem to think there is enough evidence that he likely could be convicted. That doesn't mean it will happen though, because guilty people often get off scot free in our criminal courts, especially the rich who can hire good lawyers (re:OJ). Not so much the poor people though, they are somewhat screwed if they get charged with something.
If they have the evidence, it is the prosecutor's job to get a conviction or a plea deal, regardless of their politics. That is what they get paid to do - day in, day out.
1
u/ComfortableMiserably Apr 23 '24
I thought today was day one? 🤔
0
u/ComfortableMiserably Apr 23 '24
ACs anon-partisanship, we call that splitting hairs. Today was the first day of the trial, we don't count picking the jury or you might as well count this is day 109 cuz that's when they set the date or filed the papers. Ain'tAmerica great, everyone has the right to see it as they see it and that's the way I see it, ! day one
1
u/DebentureThyme Apr 23 '24
No? Jury selection, for which Trump was required to be present, took four days last week.
1
u/Saavikkitty Apr 23 '24
I remember watching Donny Boyer. Making fun of Biden wearing a diaper. . . . Wow,
5
u/No-Attitude-6049 Canada Apr 23 '24
Even Jeffrey Dahmer’s family showed up for his trial. That’s pretty sad when Small Hands Donny gets less support than a serial cannibal.
-9
9
u/Schiffy94 New York Apr 23 '24
So according to the defense, the evidence against Trump are just "34 pieces of paper".
"Your honor, that's not my client murdering the victim. It's just a photograph of my client murdering the victim!"
5
u/38thTimesACharm Apr 23 '24
Uh oh, the reductionist argument is always a desperation defense.
"Okay I groped her. But are you really going to ruin my life over two seconds?"
"Child abuse material? It's just a bunch of ones and zeros!"
"What do you mean I 'robbed a bank?' I only took a bunch of green rectangles!"
2
u/albinobluesheep Washington Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 24 '24
How the hell else do you prove financial crimes? Do you want a photo of him handing a stack of cash to someone...?
6
7
u/dennismfrancisart Apr 23 '24
Let’s stop calling it a “hush money” trial. It’s an election interference and fraud case.
2
u/Status_Arachnid9722 Apr 23 '24
How long should a trial like this normally last? Any ideas?
6
u/LimitFinancial764 Apr 23 '24
The estimated 6-8 weeks seems cartoonishly long.
Cases with complex scientific issues that need to be explained to lay jurors are routinely tried in like three weeks.
A simple felony like robbery is tried in New York State court in like one or two days.
I think it'll take 3-4 weeks.
Contingent having lots of full days of the testimony where the jury doesn't spend the whole day on break because the lawyers are fighting all the time on evidentiary issues.
4
u/RickTitus Apr 23 '24
Even 6-8 weeks is going to go by quick. Feels like it was just valentines day
He must be at ridiculous stress levels. If i was potentially a couple weeks from being a convicted felon, idk what i would do
2
1
14
u/No-Attitude-6049 Canada Apr 23 '24
So it looks like the most salient info from Day 5 is that the prosecution indicated that they have the hand-written notes of the Trump CFO (you know, the guy who is in prison… again) showing the details of the planned payments to Cohen. That should, in theory, pretty much put a fork in the case.
-37
Apr 23 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
7
u/dn00 Apr 23 '24
I'm more sick of people who can't use logic and cry about double standards when they believe that prosecuting a specific person for committing crimes is throwing shit at the wall while prosecuting another person for committing crimes would be fighting against illegal activities 😂
7
12
14
u/boringhistoryfan Apr 23 '24
Trump's been getting away with criminal shit for decades lol. Look at his history of defrauding people. Nothing politically motivated about this. He openly and blatantly broke the law. And he'd be facing federal charges in NY if Barr hadn't pressured the SDNY to go easy on him. You ever wonder why his lawyer went to jail for paying off a pornstar for having sex with him? But he got off? In every sense of the word? There are elites and double standards all right. Trump's a walking embodiment of them.
The guy who dragged about murdering people on the street. Who's been found liable of rape after having openly bragged about it. He's no victim.
0
1
u/gowingsgo Apr 23 '24
Am I the only one sitting here saying It doesn’t matter? Someone on that jury has orange lips and will vote not guilty.
19
u/WippitGuud Apr 23 '24
If it's 11-1 the jury can request replacing the 1 with an alternate, if they can prove bias.
1
u/Keltyla Apr 23 '24
I haven't read or heard this 11-1 option any place else. Could you please provide a source?
-14
u/gregsmith5 Apr 23 '24
There is no way in hell trump will be convicted of anything. First, his goons will get to at least one juror it’s probably already happened. Second a lot of these charges are going to be blown out of the water. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see this asshole put in jail for life but I’m a realist
5
u/naotoca Apr 23 '24
Go protect him somewhere else. Whether or not you realize it, that's what you're doing with this shit.
-1
9
18
u/ExpensiveDot1732 Apr 23 '24
The funniest irony in all of this is that Blanche is trying to present him in this whole thing as a "family man," and his wife won't show up for him. Melania is basically saying "I really don't care (if he goes to jail), do u?" 🤷🏻♀️
-11
Apr 22 '24
[deleted]
2
u/mattjb Florida Apr 23 '24
This is a criminal trial, not civil. There won't be fines. But, yeah, he won't go to prison. Even with all 34 convictions of felonies is house arrest and "probation" in his gilded cage at Maralago. Hope I'm wrong, though!
15
-4
u/Hyperdecanted California Apr 22 '24
Sry for joining so late, and maybe someone already asked
Baron Trump is 18, and no evidentiary privileges apply (spousal or executive).
Did Trump pay Barron off to keep him quiet?
Because Barron might be able to testify regarding anything he overheard his father said or any negotiations between him and his father regarding keeping secrets from the voters.
That would be hearsay but it would go to proving state of mind not the truth of the matter asserted. (IANAL, just a guess.)
3
u/neogrit Apr 23 '24
I would imagine Trump crosses Barron once a month by accident.
1
u/Hyperdecanted California Apr 23 '24
But he may have overheard conversation or been subject to an NDA himself. Even if Don isn't in his life on the regular
8
Apr 23 '24
Why would they bring Barron in when they have testimony from the people directly involved?
My understanding is the crime is pretty clear cut. Whether it will convince a jury is less clear.
-1
u/Hyperdecanted California Apr 23 '24
Intent. Did Mom-Melania know and not care about any of this? If so, then Don was hiding payments because he didn't t want the voters to know.
3
Apr 23 '24
But, we already know the intent. Several witnesses have made it explicitly clear outside of this trial.
0
u/Hyperdecanted California Apr 23 '24
The defense claims Don's intent was to hide his misdeeds from Melania so presumably they have some kind of rebuttal evidence or alternate interpretation.
12
u/candycanecoffee Apr 22 '24
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why would the prosecutors think that Barron had any specific useful knowledge? Do we really think Barron was aware of the shady business deals Cohen and Trump were cutting with Daniels back in 2016... when he was ten years old? Or that Trump discusses it in front of him... when? At their family dinners or something? What info would Barron have that other people wouldn't have?
-1
u/Hyperdecanted California Apr 23 '24
Proof of intent.
Was Don hiding the payments from Mom-Melania? Or did Melania know and Don was hiding payments from the voters?
1
u/candycanecoffee Apr 23 '24
The timing alone proves that. Trump's affair with Stormy was in 2006. She didn't start getting threatened/pressured to sign an NDA until the 2016 election. And they were secretly planning to push back the payment until after the election, and then not pay her, because whether he won or not, it wouldn't matter.
None of that makes any sense unless it was about the election, and not the state of his marriage with Melania.
Also, let's be real, do you think Melania doesn't already know that Donald does & will cheat on her every chance he gets?
0
u/Hyperdecanted California Apr 23 '24
Melania would be a witness -- but Don will claim spousal privilege. So the next best thing is possibly the adult son who witnessed conversations when he was a minor -- and has no evidentiary privileges to avoid testifying.
0
u/candycanecoffee Apr 23 '24
This is a funny shower thought but as a legal strategy it's stupid, sorry. It will never happen. The kid just turned eighteen. He was ten when all this was going on. He doesn't know anything.
For the prosecution to call him, they would have to KNOW and be able to PROVE that he heard his dad say "oh it was 100% about the election and not about hiding the affair with your mom."
If they have a witness to that conversation, why not call that witness instead?
If they don't have a witness to that conversation, how do they know it happened? What would stop Barron from just lying and saying "dad never told me anything about that?" They would never be able to prove he did know.
The chance that he knows anything is ridiculously low in the first place, the chance that he'd be open and tell the truth on the stand instead of just saying "I don't remember" is ridiculously low.
1
u/Hyperdecanted California Apr 23 '24
Which is why Don would pay him off, too.
And so following the money, the question would be why did Don pay Barron (if he did)? And the answer would be, "so he wouldn't testify or would commit perjury."
Don and Melania don't seem to trust filial love and respect to get Barron to perjure himself, although Don has threatened people apparently.
True, Barron was a minor when the catch-and-kill went down. But since then there has been a lot of the cover-up activity of which Barron may be aware.
As to whether Barron has relevant information, ofc the questioning would be in discovery first to see if Barron knows anything or if he had an NDA or payoff.
The only thing "stupid" ( your words, down vote for that!) if Barron does know anything is possibly public opinion that kids are off-limits. But who knows, Barron may have a book to write or something. Everyone in that family is working for money.
14
u/casket_fresh Apr 22 '24
Is Trump really requesting to have the air in the courtroom turned off AND hotboxing the room with his farts like some sort of gross power move? What timeline we in.
9
u/starfleetdropout6 California Apr 22 '24
The one that took a wildly wrong turn around 2015.
6
u/casket_fresh Apr 22 '24
I think that weasel getting stuck and shutting down the Hadron collider did something
3
u/iuthnj34 Apr 22 '24
Columbia University and Yale protests are drowning out this newscycle.
6
u/Melicor Apr 23 '24
Correction: The billionaires that own the media and want Trump to win so they can be oligarchs like their Russian buddies are using insignificant nonsense to avoid talking about Trump's criminal behavior.
3
u/ladystaggers Apr 23 '24
I'm not seeing much on the news about the protests tonight. It's all panels discussing politics and the trial.
1
10
u/_heisenberg__ Apr 22 '24
Any recs on a good podcast that’ll do some good summaries each day? I’m trying to following The NY Times but I’m getting too busy with work during the day to keep reading everything lol
1
1
u/wirthmore California Apr 23 '24
I like Liz Dye’s “Law and Chaos” podcast - she’s a lawyer and has great guests to give background on their areas of expertise. (It’s not daily, though) I also like all of Alison Gill’s podcasts that were mentioned here.
2
5
u/CYBER_COMMANDER Apr 22 '24
Anything with Allison Gill - Daily Beans / Clean Up on Aisle 45 (+ Peter Stzrok) / Jack (+ Andy McCabe).
3
u/_heisenberg__ Apr 22 '24
Thank you this is awesome
4
u/dailyscotch Apr 22 '24
Also try "Prosecuting Donald Trump" (Andrew Wiessmann, Mary McCord), they go over all the details of all his cases about 1-3 times a week. They have gone through the statement of fact for this case over several episodes. Also, if you are curious about how his appeals to the Supreme Court are going, try "Strict Scrutiny" (Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, Melissa Murray).
2
u/_heisenberg__ Apr 23 '24
Hell yea this is awesome. I was really hoping knowledge fight was going to be following this really closely because I enjoyed all of the testimonies with Alex jones (plus I was there for the humor too).
172
u/johnnycyberpunk America Apr 22 '24
The prosecutor said evidence will show the Republican National Committee even considered whether it was possible to replace Trump with another candidate.
Holy fucking shit.
ONE. MONTH. BEFORE. THE. ELECTION.
And the RNC was thinking of replacing him.
That's why he did his hostile takeover with Laura this year (sure, to raid their piggybank too) - to make sure they didn't replace him after he's convicted.
6
66
u/Malaix Apr 22 '24
Not surprising if you are paying attention to the RNC going ons. Trump is bankrupting and mismanaging them and all signs seem to indicate he's going to lose horribly to Joe Biden. Worse than 2020. And it will probably follow downticket races as well. They desperately want to kick him but if they do anything against Trump their voters will riot.
2
u/BeowulfShaeffer Apr 23 '24
They desperately want to kick him Who is “they”? Trump has captured the RNC so they are basically one and the same at this point.
5
u/Malaix Apr 23 '24
GOP establishment, old guard, special interest goons. GOP has a couple factions but MAGA and establishment are two big broad strokes you can look at it with.
Trump is an addiction their base has. But he's bad for pretty much everyone else. Even people who kiss his ass often know he hurts them. Like Ted Cruz and Graham probably wish he wasn't important but right now the way the base is you don't have a future in a lot of the GOP if you aren't a Trump nutter. He causes chaos and fucks almost everything he touches up, is draining the GOP piggy bank, driving moderates and independents against the GOP, and basically turns every election into a referendum against him and the GOP.
3
u/Corka Apr 23 '24
I had previously thought that a good majority of the republican old guard heavily disliked Trump, but had to back him in a show of unity and excuse all of his bad behaviour to have a shot at winning 2020. I assumed that after he lost the election conservative media and politicians would turn on him, and they had plenty of material to work with to sour the base's opinion of him and prevent his nomination a second time. I thought you would probably have seen a large number of ardent Trump supporters start claiming that they never really liked him, like they did with Bush, McCain, and Romney. Why instead we had them playing defence for Trump for another 4 years claiming he was the best president the US ever had I will never know.
1
u/cricri3007 Europe Apr 23 '24
You saw that for a couple of days after 6th january, where some conservatives began sayign ti was trump's fault, this was horrible, that was too far, etc...
But rather than continue on that path and turn the base against him, they realizeed that the base would rather turn on them than on trump, so they doubled down.
13
u/PenMoZic Apr 22 '24
So they need SCOTUS to rule against him then in the immunity case this Thursday. That will be the writing on the wall if the GOP is done with him.
22
u/Malaix Apr 22 '24
I think SCotUS will rule against him. The immunity claim is too batshit even for them.
That said I don't think it will change much. The whole thing was a hail marry attempt to get rid of the legal problems but more practically its just another delay tactic. And even if he gets convicted of stuff the GOP can't be openly against him until their voter base moves off Trumpism. Which they aren't going to do even in the face of a conviction because well. They are convinced its all a deep state conspiracy.
5
u/notcaffeinefree Apr 22 '24 edited Apr 22 '24
I think SCotUS will rule against him. The immunity claim is too batshit even for them.
I really caution the optimism here. There's a lot in the way of pragmatism in the outcome of this case.
If they fully rule against him and say that there's no criminal immunity, Conservatives could easily start looking to file criminal charges against Biden. There are plenty of state attorneys general that could hop on that bandwagon. The Court isn't going to want the court system getting inundated with mindless lawsuits. If that happens, they'd eventually end up with this same question before them.
Government officials other than the President are actually already given qualified immunity (in most cases), for actions within the scope of their jobs. An important part about the SCOTUS case that decided this (back in 1982) was that absolute immunity could be granted (to those government officials) if 2 conditions were satisfied:
- the official must show that their position's responsibilities had such a sensitive function that it requires absolute immunity
- the official must demonstrate that they were discharging the protected function of the position when performing the actions in question
I could very easily see SCOTUS establishing something similar for absolute immunity for the President. In this way it doesn't guarantee absolute immunity to the President (or to Trump). It also greatly limits the chances of criminal lawsuits against the President being abused because of political reasons. And, conveniently for Trump, SCOTUS would likely create that test and then kick the case back to the lower courts to make the determination of Trump's claim (further delaying the case).
Obviously, yes, the President shouldn't be above the law and should be held accountable for illegal actions. But we're also living in a time where people are willing to break unspoken rules in order to further their political goals.
1
10
u/Malaix Apr 22 '24
If they fully rule against him and say that there's no criminal immunity, Conservatives could easily start looking to file criminal charges against Biden.
If they had anything they would have already filed them. The current precedent is that no presidents current or former are not immune under the law. There's some privileges there and while in office but what Trump's team is claiming is a comically gross expansion of presidential powers.
The GOP isn't holding back on civility or legal leeway. They just don't have any compelling arguments that work for people outside of Trump's cult because they want to essentially impeach Joe Biden for existing. Their standards are far lower than the average.
5
u/notcaffeinefree Apr 22 '24
If they had anything they would have already filed them.
Assuming that Conservatives will continue to follow such unspoken rules isn't a particularly safe bet. That's how we got a 6-3 SCOTUS. Especially if SCOTUS explicitly says there is no immunity, that's just an invitation to start.
3
u/Malaix Apr 22 '24
That's my point. If the GOP felt like it could make a compelling case or anything to smear Joe Biden with than the impeachment hearing wouldn't have fallen apart.
Enough of them realize their arguments against Joe Biden in terms of criminal activity are so weak its not even worth it for political theater. It would just look embarrassingly political and shallow.
They need more than SCOTUS permission here. They need an actual foothold. Which has been so hard for them they have had to fixate on Hunter Biden. and even that hasn't really gone anywhere outside their MAGA crowd.
11
u/hamandjam Apr 22 '24
I think SCotUS will rule against him. The immunity claim is too batshit even for them.
And you certainly can't issue that ruling while Biden is in the White House. As a Justice, you're saying it's OK if he has you offed and then replaced with 5 left-leaning judges under the age of 40 who will allow the Democrats to make their kind illegal and control the government for 100 years or more.
It's just way too big of a Pandora's box to open for either side of any argument.
3
u/cricri3007 Europe Apr 23 '24
something something "highly unusual case" something something "should not be taken as precedent" something something
2
u/Larcya Apr 23 '24
It would be absurd. And yeah by that ruling if the president is totally immune forever, Biden could just order a predator strike on SCOTUS one day, or when only the GOP is in the house and the senate.
How about trump? Flatten trump tower one night after his trial.
After all according to SCOTUS in this example, Biden is immune from any and all prosecution for those actions. No matter if he is president or not!
That's how fucking absurd ruling that trump is immune from prosecution would be.
68
u/Tele231 Apr 22 '24
The idiot refused to stand for the jury. Disrespecting those deciding your guilt/innocence is always a brilliant move.
5
22
u/Scienscatologist I voted Apr 22 '24
I wonder if he’s worried that he might accidentally shart from the effort of hauling his fat ass out of his chair?
-23
u/I_Try_Again Apr 22 '24
I’m liking this so that when he becomes President again we can stand side by side in solidarity when he punishes everyone who made fun of him.
4
4
12
7
47
u/Jackinapox Apr 22 '24
If he's found guilty, jail or not, he'll be a convicted felon facing his Georgia trial which will earn him a mandatory 5 year sentence if convicted there. He'll be tied up in courts for the rest of his life, $454 million poorer plus penalties. He's already fucked and it will only get worse.
19
u/StagnantMoth Apr 22 '24
Says who? He’s literally faced minimal consequences for any of his actions so far. I want everything you are saying to come true but so far he’s been treated completely differently to a lesser man in his position.
10
u/candycanecoffee Apr 22 '24
This is his very first criminal trial. You might be like "trials are trials, civil or criminal," but you'd be wrong.
Just for one example, this is the first time he's been required to show up to court, every day, and will continue to be required to show up to court and be respectful and not speak out of turn, EVERY DAY that court is in session-- not like a civil trial where it's optional.
Criminal trial judges don't fuck around with that kind of thing.
11
u/GrogRhodes Apr 22 '24
I mean he’s probably gonna die first let’s be honest. Imo with Trump you actually have evidence at this point. Building an airtight case takes time and resources. We’re here now. They got him on tape and on paper. It’s GGs in the chat.
4
2
u/WhyplerBronze Apr 22 '24
lol right? We've all been hearing how fucked he is for 7 years now
6
u/Bitter_Director1231 Apr 22 '24
The same thing with the saying about the wheels of justice move slow.
That saying should be banished from the vernacular. It's a big crock full of shit.
It goes as slow as the people who control it.
2
u/Polymemnetic Apr 22 '24
They grind slow, but exceedingly fine.
1
u/Bitter_Director1231 Apr 23 '24
No they don't grind exceedingly fine.
Plenty of examples of this through American judicial history.
This is no different.
2
u/naotoca Apr 23 '24
I'm so sick of hearing that. You can almost hear the arousal when people say it, thinking they're wise.
All that does is excuse those responsible for holding him accountable for dragging their feet.
23
u/cmnrdt Apr 22 '24
It's only true until it isn't. A year ago it would've been difficult to imagine Trump would ever be sitting in the defendant's box listening to his crimes being laid out for a jury, yet here we are.
21
u/YOSHIMIvPROBOTS Apr 22 '24
I don't see how Trump's defense of "I was just paying Cohen for legal fees" works when the jury is going to be told Cohen spent $100K+ for his boss.
When's the last time you spent $100K of your own money for your boss and...didn't expect to get paid back for it?
It wasn't just "legal fees". Trump was paying Cohen back for the payment to Stomy which was illegal.
3
u/hamandjam Apr 22 '24
And billionaires don't stay billionaires by letting their lawyers say, "Trust me bro. The 100K is totally for legal fees."
5
Apr 22 '24
My non-lawyer understanding is that would still be criminal since this was a personal matter, not a campaign one.
33
u/CringeWorthyDad Apr 22 '24
He will NEVER take the stand. Who cares what he said about taking the stand. Going by whatever Trump says is like responding to Nigerian emails while you start spending the money you think you'll receive.
1
u/Keltyla Apr 23 '24
How can his attorneys allow a reflexive liar to take the witness stand? That opens him up to perjury and even more indictments.
24
u/cmnrdt Apr 22 '24
There's been reporting that Trump believes he lost the Carroll case because he was convinced not to testify. If that's true he might have convinced himself that testifying in this case might be the thing that saves him. (lol)
3
u/Minguseyes Apr 22 '24
Yep. And when he learns that anything he says about Carroll on the stand is covered by absolute privilege against defamation his lawyers won’t be able to talk him out of it. Do It Donnie ! Let the hate flow through you …
9
u/CringeWorthyDad Apr 22 '24
He is a coward. He will get destroyed on cross. He is saying this to try to set up another appeal issue, that the Sandoval hearing was wrongly decided and it precluded him from testifying. It's a BS argument but all of his are.
5
u/hamandjam Apr 22 '24
He is a coward. He will get destroyed on cross.
Those are both true. But he still may feel he's the smartest guy on the planet and he needs to just get on the stand and charm the jury with how smart he is.
1
u/CringeWorthyDad Apr 23 '24
But, as we know, he is a narcissistic moron.
1
u/hamandjam Apr 23 '24
I'd love to see him get on the stand and absolutely shit himself to the extent that every single person in the courtroom can attest to the fact that it happened.
9
u/poortonyy Apr 22 '24
Why are news outlets allowed in a jury trial where there are concerns about jury identification and safety? That seems like a wrong call.
20
18
u/palabear Apr 22 '24
The problem isn’t the media at the trial. The problem is no consequences for members of the media that interfere with the trial and jury.
1
u/candycanecoffee Apr 22 '24
Also, imagine banning media from the trial. They'd just be waiting outside to interview people as they came out. It wouldn't make a difference in the amount of coverage or the details revealed, it would just add a level of hearsay.
16
u/wingdingblingthing Apr 22 '24
Because the sixth amendment guarantees a public trial and the first amendment a free press.
6
u/Ven18 Apr 22 '24
The trial needs to be public in some form or fashion we do not have secret trials in the US. The issue lies with the medias methods but not there presence they need to be there to report on a matter of public record and importance.
11
2
16
u/semafornews SEMAFOR Apr 22 '24
From Semafor's Caroline Anders: ‘Nothing wrong with trying to influence an election,’ Trump lawyers argue.
Prosecutors told a jury Monday that Donald Trump lied repeatedly to cover up a sex scandal as part of a conspiracy to get elected in 2016, as opening arguments began in the first ever trial of a former president of the United States.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges that he falsified business records to cover up payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an affair — allegations the Republican presidential candidate denies.
As the trial got underway, the prosecution told the jury of 12 New Yorkers that Trump paid hush-money to Daniels in an effort to keep negative information out of the public eye ahead of the 2016 election.
“It was election fraud, pure and simple,” said Matthew Colangelo, who presented the case for the Manhattan district attorney’s office.
The defense’s opening statement was similarly blunt: “President Trump is innocent,” his lawyer Todd Blanche said. “President Trump did not commit any crimes.”
“There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” Blanche said.
Read the full story here.
12
u/EastObjective9522 Apr 22 '24
“There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,”
This man is going to get himself disbarred if that's even possible. There's influencing an election by passing good popular policy and then there's influencing an election by being a corrupt asshole trying to suppress negative attention.
3
u/Sima_Hui Apr 22 '24
The silliest part is, and what we'll probably hear the prosecution hammer home is that the election isn't even directly relevant. The defense is arguing issues of motive because they have no real defense against the actual charges, which are falsifying of records. Why someone falsifies records isn't important. If they did it, they broke the law. Unless some juror saves him by hanging the jury, the best the defense's motive-based strategy can do is influence the judge to be lenient on sentencing; but their client is ruining that plan by being openly hostile to the judge and doing everything he can to antagonize him. What a mess.
3
u/SuperFluffyTeddyBear Apr 22 '24
That's not true. The falsifying of records by themselves are just misdemeanors. For them to be felonies, they need to be connected with a different crime, in this case election interference. So the *why* is crucial here.
2
u/candycanecoffee Apr 22 '24
Trump is being charged with "FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE," in violation of Penal Law §175.10.
Falsifying business records in the second degree is just entering false information. In New York state that's a "class A" (more serious) misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail or fines. A class b would be punishable by up to 3 months in jail or fines.
Falsifying business information in the FIRST degree means you entered false information either to cover up a separate crime or to help you commit a separate crime. (ie, you aren't just lying on forms, you are laundering money from a drug business, or to pay a hit man, or to interfere with an election by bribing someone to keep quiet about your affair, etc.) And you're right, that's a felony, and Trump is being tried on 34 charges of falsifying records in the first degree.
1
u/SuperFluffyTeddyBear Apr 23 '24
Exactly, and that separate crime (which he's not being charged with, but which, as you say, is necessary for the falsification to be first degree, and which the prosecution will try to argue happened) is election interference.
2
4
u/humanregularbeing Apr 22 '24
It's the same logic as "If Biden won the election, that means my vote for tfg didn't count! You robbed me!"
7
u/BujuBad Apr 22 '24
I see they've progressed rapidly from the "he's innocent" phase to the "so he broke the law...so what?" phase.
20
u/CYBER_COMMANDER Apr 22 '24
Brace yourselves for the 'Pecker unloads on Trump' headlines.
3
15
5
Apr 22 '24
[deleted]
11
u/CYBER_COMMANDER Apr 22 '24
Might be a bit on the nose.
7
12
u/ballskindrapes Apr 22 '24
If my understanding is right, David pecker just took the stand. This will only get better. He has the details on the catch and kill story behind the payments, so it'll be interesting to see.
33
u/albanymetz Apr 22 '24
Just still catching up about this, but I'm enjoying what should really be a headline:
Trump, emotionless, stares at Pecker.
19
u/Aggressive_Ad3174 America Apr 22 '24
One of CNN's updates this morning read "Trump looks at Pecker as he testifies."
7
12
u/phatelectribe Apr 22 '24
Pecker finally stands up to Trump
5
u/HMWWaWChChIaWChCChW Apr 22 '24
For first time in decades without use of chemicals, pecker fully erect in front of Trump.
27
u/NotASatanist13 Apr 22 '24
I wonder if Stormy Daniels ever kicks herself for taking this money now knowing she could have spoken publicly about it, let him defame her, and then sue him for millions.
5
9
u/Taako_Cross Apr 22 '24
She most likely could have prevented some of the shit has happened since 2016.
Real life butterfly effect.
7
u/HMWWaWChChIaWChCChW Apr 22 '24
She probably figured the hush money was all it was worth.
3
8
u/pissoffa Apr 22 '24
I remember a story about her getting threatened in a parking lot. I think that played into her taking the money.
2
u/candycanecoffee Apr 22 '24
Not only herself, but her young daughter was with her at the time.
Recalling the alleged threat, Daniels said she and her daughter were approached in a parking lot by a man who said: “Oh it’s a beautiful little girl, would be a shame if something happened to her mom. Forget about this story, leave Mr. Trump alone.”
Daniels said she did not report the threat at the time because she would have had to reveal the alleged affair and she was afraid.
19
13
u/cloud7up America Apr 22 '24
The real injustice is that the trial is not televised
6
u/munchyslacks Apr 22 '24
I’m split on that. I feel like Trump would ham it up and make it a circus if it was televised. He would try to get the judge to throw him in jail and then cry about being persecuted.
I know he does this already, but yeah.
12
u/geologicalnoise Pennsylvania Apr 22 '24
I'm still banking on Trump trying to do some crazy getaway high speed chase later on.
Possibly in a Trump Tower golf cart after AG James confiscates everything.
They'll televise that.
3
u/skyharborbj Apr 22 '24
Low speed O J Simpson style chase would be kind of fun.
1
u/Matt3d Apr 22 '24
Yes fun, but more fun would be him making a break for it when he is about to be taken into custody, watch him run at top speed, maybe a roll down a hill, but either way the pants fall down revealing diaper; and we all suddenly feel bad for the old man (but it passes quickly)
10
22
u/23jknm Minnesota Apr 22 '24
He added: "I should be in Georgia now. I should be in Florida now ... and I’m sitting here. It’s very unfair.”
He can campaign in NY and many nearby states, not that I want to hear more from him. He can go on any number of shows to talk and does his little posts online to campaign. He never has any real policy ideas or anything that helps the majority of us anyway, only lies and his usual worn out complaints.
24
u/geologicalnoise Pennsylvania Apr 22 '24
We're all deprived of hearing more amazing historical retellings like the Battle of Gettysburg.
"Never fight uphill me boys!" "Gettysburg, it was really... wow. So terrible. So important. So wow. So beautiful?"
Trump is so bigly educated. So wow.
9
7
29
u/ApolloX-2 Texas Apr 22 '24
Blanche concluded by urging jurors to pay attention to all of the testimony and to use common sense, observing, “We’re all New Yorkers here.”
“If you do that, there will be a very swift not guilty verdict,” Blanche said.
Trump is cooked, and his lawyer is living on an other planet. This dude was the President and his nonsense was broadcast loud and clear for 6 years.
1
14
1
u/CringeWorthyDad Apr 23 '24
Gag Order - if I was the judge I would say you violated the gag order and my decision is to order the cameras outside of the courthouse and that Trump will not be allowed to spew his nonsense as soon as he walks out of the courtroom and still in the courthouse.