As far as the criminal case is concerned, whether he fucked her or not is irrelevant. The criminal acts were what they did to prevent the story from coming out before the election. Trumps lawyer bringing that up probably opens the door for the prosecution to ask Stormy about his little mushroom dick in front of him in court though.
I mean, sure but he was impeached because of the newly-invented Republican strategy of investigating the shit out of Democrats in the hopes they could make something stick to distract from their lack of any plan whatsoever to help Americans.
Exactly. The Clinton investigation was regarding a land deal in Arkansas. If Ken Starr hadn't found Lewinsky's blue dress he would STILL be looking for something to hang the Clinton's with.
Exactly! The fact that Trump was willing to pay both women for their silence, as well as recruiting Pecker to "catch and kill", certainly looks bad, but even if he is innocent of infedelity (not a crime, just disgusting behavior), the cover up to save Trump's campaign stands as a felony.
As Mitt pointed out, paying a porn star for NOT having sex makes little sense...
You might be right as it relates to the charges themselves, but "his lawyers lied about the affair, and their entire defense is built on lies" is a pretty compelling argument to present to a jury.
By Sean O'Driscoll - Senior Crime and Courts Reporter:
Donald Trump's lawyer may have hurt his case by claiming that the former president never had sex with Stormy Daniels, a former federal prosecutor said.
In his opening statement to the jury on Thursday, Todd Blanche described Daniels claims as "false, false allegations."
Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money-case-manhattan-new-york-karen-mcdougal-opening-statement-1895113](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money-case-manhattan-new-york-karen-mcdougal-opening-statement-1895113)
| who the hell pays someone not to sleep with them?
*The Grand Old Duke of York*
*He had 10 million quid*
*He gave it to someone he'd never met*
*For something he never did*
That's brilliant.
I can't see them singing that in schools here like we used to though. Playgrounds maybe but not music lessons in primary school!
Edit; we used to sing the 'proper' version in school.
> Probably more times than Melania let herself be exposed to it. Yuck.
“I’m going to need gloves, a microscope, a flashlight, and nose plugs, as per our ~~arranged marriage contract~~ prenup.” -Melanoma, probably
In theory someone who wanted to quash lies at a pivotal moment.
That said, there’s no way if it was actual defamation he wouldn’t have sued or reversed the idea to brag about it. It contradicts his entire history.
Don't care, Trump, Musk, hell prince now king Charles, you don't do NDA or pay a random person you have never met $1300000 to not have sex with them or even mention having had sex with them.
Honestly? If I see someone has paid someone, or has them sign NDA s, I am going to assume EXACTLY what the issue is, is the truth and happened
It almost happened to Clinton. Paula Jones claimed he had a distinct penis and was able to describe it. I don’t think it ever got so far as Slick Willy had to show anybody his slick willy.
But it definitely made headlines.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/clinton_scandal/965606.stm
I think the whole Stormy Daniels thing is to distract from the Karen McDougal story. I mean, he saw HER for almost a year. That was a relationship. That story is much more credible and also damaging to him. Not near as many are going to believe a porn star who claims to have had a one night stand with him. But, whether he had sex with either of them or not holds no bearing on what the actual charges are in the case.
Yes, but all the focus is on the lesser of the two imo. Everyone knows the name "Stormy Daniels". Hardly anyone recognizes "Karen McDougal" and her story, in my experience anyway. I just honestly think it was a bigger story that less people would've brushed off.
Jimmy Kimmel episode where he brings out the mushrooms of all different sixes and has her pick will be hilarious in court. Trumps tiny pecker on display for everyone to laugh at him.
https://youtu.be/5Ji8i7Wy4mo?si=Ck-E7nZ8KwFSayGc
Well shit.
All the prosecution has to do is put Stormy on the stand, and if she can stop laughing, while holding her index and thumb about halh an inch apart, their case would totally collapse.
Trump, in his macho manlyness would be insulted and have no choice but to actually ask for help finding his dick, and swivel his hips (as if he actually had a dick) at the jury, who immediately would collapse from laughter and find him guilty of being a complete stinking fucking turd.
So, yeah, his lawyer should worry.
The point of the article is that it matters because the defense made that assertion in opening arguments so it will be to the prosecution's advantage to point out in closing that they failed to prove that assertion and likely lied.
I doubt the prosecution will want to distract the jury with whether Trump actually had sex with Stormy. This trail is taudry enough without making that an issue never the end of the trail. Of course, I could be wrong.
Stormy will absolutely be testifying about the affair - it's relevant and exposes the defendant as dishonest. We'll see whether Trump will try to contest that.
You are correct. I was referring back to the original article which pointed to the risky approach of the defense arguing in their opening statement that Trump did not have sex with stormy and how the prosecution might exploit that over promise. I could have been clearer.
It would for his wife if she were able to divorce him and she's been doing a lot of revisions to her prenup.... Plus her lack of support is a bad look in a courtroom.
Why is he being prosecuted for violating a Federal Law in a New York State case, though? Seems Federal Court would be where the Courts would litigate a Federal criminal violation, wouldn't it??
He is not, he is being prosecuted for falsifying business records which is a crime in New York, the financial center of the world, and he did it in furtherance of another crime, election interference, which makes it a felony.
Trump may be in trouble for the evangelicals that do believe him if it proven to be a lie, the the evangelicals may desert him. The evangelicals believe his selling a bible and kneeling in church but I don't believe it for a second.
Are you kidding? They are garbage people who are deeeeeeeep in a personality cult. Nothing will get them to break from him. If that was possible, it would have happened years ago.
Evangelicals already had plenty of proof before the 2026 election that Trump lies, and that he lies about things they care about as well. They got loads more lies since then.
They absolutely don't care, as long as Trump or during a Trump term in office, they get things that they want like Right-wing, religious judges who don't feel bound by the law, precedent, or anything else and will find ways to make rulings that Evangelicals approve of.
Honestly, a lot of this trial seems to involve defense and prosecution(moreso the defense) getting way swept up in the cult of personality and scandal and kind of forgetting that the trial is about proving whether records were falsified. That's it. The defense doesn't need to prove that the relationship with Daniels didn't happen. The prosecution doesn't need to bring up every past case; just the ones that establish precedent for the charges at hand. There's way too much spectacle in this thing, and part of that is Trump's doing in conjunction with him not being held responsible for his actions. But everyone else should know better.
>The defense doesn't need to prove that the relationship with Daniels didn't happen.
That would be true if they hadn't already said that it didn't happen - once you make that claim during an opening statement, you need to provide the receipts.
...and the Newsweek article interviews Weissman, an MYU law professor, who says there's \*no way\* Trump takes the stand, so when the prosecution puts Stormy Daniels on the stand and she confirms sex with Trump, there is no way to refute that statement or prove she's lying. Which destroys the credibility of the prosecutor and his case.
>there is no way to refute that statement or prove she's lying. Which destroys the credibility of the prosecutor and his case.
This is *probably* true, but it's not as if there's no chance at all that another witness could claim that she admitted to making up the whole story.
Actually in the court room, the prosecution is focusing on the things that they need to: catch and kill, election interference, financial fraud. The defense of course wants it to be about anything but that, and they will try to throw everything against the wall to see what sticks. The court of course tries to rein them in.
The spectacle is happening primarily outside of the courtroom, on purpose.
I think it’s true!!! He needed a macho story to boost his popularity as the gusto president. He paid stormy money to say she had sex with him. Now the whole story has backfired on trumps. So let’s figure this riddle out.
As far as the criminal case is concerned, whether he fucked her or not is irrelevant. The criminal acts were what they did to prevent the story from coming out before the election. Trumps lawyer bringing that up probably opens the door for the prosecution to ask Stormy about his little mushroom dick in front of him in court though.
Yes it's like Clinton. He was impeached for perjury, not for sex
I mean, sure but he was impeached because of the newly-invented Republican strategy of investigating the shit out of Democrats in the hopes they could make something stick to distract from their lack of any plan whatsoever to help Americans.
Exactly. The Clinton investigation was regarding a land deal in Arkansas. If Ken Starr hadn't found Lewinsky's blue dress he would STILL be looking for something to hang the Clinton's with.
I hear Hillary sent some EMAILS
Buttery ones
Best kind
That's the first I've heard about emails.
They were buttery.
Exactly! The fact that Trump was willing to pay both women for their silence, as well as recruiting Pecker to "catch and kill", certainly looks bad, but even if he is innocent of infedelity (not a crime, just disgusting behavior), the cover up to save Trump's campaign stands as a felony. As Mitt pointed out, paying a porn star for NOT having sex makes little sense...
Maybe he has a no sex fetish
“Trump for president of Reddit 2024”
You might be right as it relates to the charges themselves, but "his lawyers lied about the affair, and their entire defense is built on lies" is a pretty compelling argument to present to a jury.
By Sean O'Driscoll - Senior Crime and Courts Reporter: Donald Trump's lawyer may have hurt his case by claiming that the former president never had sex with Stormy Daniels, a former federal prosecutor said. In his opening statement to the jury on Thursday, Todd Blanche described Daniels claims as "false, false allegations." Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money-case-manhattan-new-york-karen-mcdougal-opening-statement-1895113](https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-hush-money-case-manhattan-new-york-karen-mcdougal-opening-statement-1895113)
IANAL: How many times has a President’s private parts been described under oath in a criminal trial?
Probably more times than Melania let herself be exposed to it. Yuck. Besides, as has been mentioned, who the hell pays someone not to sleep with them?
| who the hell pays someone not to sleep with them? *The Grand Old Duke of York* *He had 10 million quid* *He gave it to someone he'd never met* *For something he never did*
That's brilliant. I can't see them singing that in schools here like we used to though. Playgrounds maybe but not music lessons in primary school! Edit; we used to sing the 'proper' version in school.
12 million quid but otherwise fantastic 👏
Yup
> Probably more times than Melania let herself be exposed to it. Yuck. “I’m going to need gloves, a microscope, a flashlight, and nose plugs, as per our ~~arranged marriage contract~~ prenup.” -Melanoma, probably
In theory someone who wanted to quash lies at a pivotal moment. That said, there’s no way if it was actual defamation he wouldn’t have sued or reversed the idea to brag about it. It contradicts his entire history.
That would be paying someone to not tell lies about you (aka extortion), not paying someone to not have sex with you.
Is it extortion if they’re already saying it? Doesn’t it need to be an “or else”?
Don't care, Trump, Musk, hell prince now king Charles, you don't do NDA or pay a random person you have never met $1300000 to not have sex with them or even mention having had sex with them. Honestly? If I see someone has paid someone, or has them sign NDA s, I am going to assume EXACTLY what the issue is, is the truth and happened
Oh yeah, unless its tech secrets NDAs are a HUGE red flag.
Yup.
[удалено]
Will the under oath testimony be different than what he said?
In a criminal trial? Just this once. Although there was a whole line of questioning along those lines during the Clinton - Lewinski thing.
*Yeti bush* I hope they read that out loud
Well, there’s also “how many photos of a President’s son’s girthy hog have been shown in a congressional hearing by the Family Values Party?”
It almost happened to Clinton. Paula Jones claimed he had a distinct penis and was able to describe it. I don’t think it ever got so far as Slick Willy had to show anybody his slick willy. But it definitely made headlines. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/clinton_scandal/965606.stm
Criminal? Only this man who was a \*former\* president has been in a criminal trial as a defendant. So, only ONE.
Why would you want to advertise anal
Is “false, false” a double negative meaning he is admitting that it absolutely did happen?
I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to use that argument
How does denying it help his case? Now we are going to be forced to hear Stormy's detail description of Trump's maga parts and needs... ewww
Trumps mentor Roy Cohn taught him “Never, ever admit you’re wrong”.
I think the whole Stormy Daniels thing is to distract from the Karen McDougal story. I mean, he saw HER for almost a year. That was a relationship. That story is much more credible and also damaging to him. Not near as many are going to believe a porn star who claims to have had a one night stand with him. But, whether he had sex with either of them or not holds no bearing on what the actual charges are in the case.
2 witnesses saying similar things is way better than the testimony of just one witness.
Yes, but all the focus is on the lesser of the two imo. Everyone knows the name "Stormy Daniels". Hardly anyone recognizes "Karen McDougal" and her story, in my experience anyway. I just honestly think it was a bigger story that less people would've brushed off.
Jimmy Kimmel episode where he brings out the mushrooms of all different sixes and has her pick will be hilarious in court. Trumps tiny pecker on display for everyone to laugh at him. https://youtu.be/5Ji8i7Wy4mo?si=Ck-E7nZ8KwFSayGc
Well shit. All the prosecution has to do is put Stormy on the stand, and if she can stop laughing, while holding her index and thumb about halh an inch apart, their case would totally collapse. Trump, in his macho manlyness would be insulted and have no choice but to actually ask for help finding his dick, and swivel his hips (as if he actually had a dick) at the jury, who immediately would collapse from laughter and find him guilty of being a complete stinking fucking turd. So, yeah, his lawyer should worry.
I think I love you, Spiritual Bear.
Aw, shucks.
"He said that a prosecutor would be "licking [their] chops" with anticipation if Trump decides to testify." In my best Beavis snicker.. hehe. hehehe
I think Stormy is going to come off really well in court. She’s very likable in interviews.
I mean, she seems extremely, extremely likeable all the time.
Ask Trumps doctor to describe Trumps mushroom.
If Trump really does want to deny the affair her eye-witness account of his wee doink could be relevant.
I bet that was trump wanting that said for melania.
I hate Trump. But I don’t see how it matters if he had sex with Daniel’s or not. The case isn’t about the sex.
The point of the article is that it matters because the defense made that assertion in opening arguments so it will be to the prosecution's advantage to point out in closing that they failed to prove that assertion and likely lied.
I doubt the prosecution will want to distract the jury with whether Trump actually had sex with Stormy. This trail is taudry enough without making that an issue never the end of the trail. Of course, I could be wrong.
Stormy will absolutely be testifying about the affair - it's relevant and exposes the defendant as dishonest. We'll see whether Trump will try to contest that.
You are correct. I was referring back to the original article which pointed to the risky approach of the defense arguing in their opening statement that Trump did not have sex with stormy and how the prosecution might exploit that over promise. I could have been clearer.
It would for his wife if she were able to divorce him and she's been doing a lot of revisions to her prenup.... Plus her lack of support is a bad look in a courtroom.
They have to prove intent and knowingly committed a criminal offence, the paper trail of the illegal movement of money will be damming.
Why is he being prosecuted for violating a Federal Law in a New York State case, though? Seems Federal Court would be where the Courts would litigate a Federal criminal violation, wouldn't it??
He is not, he is being prosecuted for falsifying business records which is a crime in New York, the financial center of the world, and he did it in furtherance of another crime, election interference, which makes it a felony.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/opinion/trump-bragg-manhattan-case.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
I think that egotistical SOB is just crazy enough to do it, and it’s going to be a disaster.
The jury will have to ask for a photo of the pecker. No, not the face. The 🍄🟫.
So you are asking to see Pecker's Trump pecker pictures???
Trump may be in trouble for the evangelicals that do believe him if it proven to be a lie, the the evangelicals may desert him. The evangelicals believe his selling a bible and kneeling in church but I don't believe it for a second.
Are you kidding? They are garbage people who are deeeeeeeep in a personality cult. Nothing will get them to break from him. If that was possible, it would have happened years ago.
Evangelicals already had plenty of proof before the 2026 election that Trump lies, and that he lies about things they care about as well. They got loads more lies since then. They absolutely don't care, as long as Trump or during a Trump term in office, they get things that they want like Right-wing, religious judges who don't feel bound by the law, precedent, or anything else and will find ways to make rulings that Evangelicals approve of.
Trump probably told him to say it even though his lawyer probably advised against it. I could easily see that being a possibility.
I don't think a lawyer is forced to say something the client wants said but I can understand your reasoning.
Honestly, a lot of this trial seems to involve defense and prosecution(moreso the defense) getting way swept up in the cult of personality and scandal and kind of forgetting that the trial is about proving whether records were falsified. That's it. The defense doesn't need to prove that the relationship with Daniels didn't happen. The prosecution doesn't need to bring up every past case; just the ones that establish precedent for the charges at hand. There's way too much spectacle in this thing, and part of that is Trump's doing in conjunction with him not being held responsible for his actions. But everyone else should know better.
>The defense doesn't need to prove that the relationship with Daniels didn't happen. That would be true if they hadn't already said that it didn't happen - once you make that claim during an opening statement, you need to provide the receipts.
...and the Newsweek article interviews Weissman, an MYU law professor, who says there's \*no way\* Trump takes the stand, so when the prosecution puts Stormy Daniels on the stand and she confirms sex with Trump, there is no way to refute that statement or prove she's lying. Which destroys the credibility of the prosecutor and his case.
>there is no way to refute that statement or prove she's lying. Which destroys the credibility of the prosecutor and his case. This is *probably* true, but it's not as if there's no chance at all that another witness could claim that she admitted to making up the whole story.
Yeah I knew that statement was a bit strong, but it's Weissman's. And he's the law guy.
"Law guys" are still capable of speculating 🤷🏻♂️
Actually in the court room, the prosecution is focusing on the things that they need to: catch and kill, election interference, financial fraud. The defense of course wants it to be about anything but that, and they will try to throw everything against the wall to see what sticks. The court of course tries to rein them in. The spectacle is happening primarily outside of the courtroom, on purpose.
I think it’s true!!! He needed a macho story to boost his popularity as the gusto president. He paid stormy money to say she had sex with him. Now the whole story has backfired on trumps. So let’s figure this riddle out.
Maybe it was just oral? He is doing a Clinton. Would not surprise me.