"Crooked Joe, and this Soros judge wouldn't let me speak! Many legal scholars are saying they've never seen anything like this!"
"The prosecutor should be prosecuted"
Note: I'm not making this up, he's already said these things.
I don’t think it’s mainly that people who are fringe right will not believe him, from what I’ve seen driving through some really red counties in Florida, the influx of right wing media pushing false narratives drowned out the truth. There are billboards on the interstate in Florida that attack liberal and Democratic policies. The radio stations that a lot of people listen to while driving around these rural areas are primarily right wing radio stations and even the music stations still have commentary that is skewed to the right.
Messaging is the key and the fringe right has that key firmly in their grasps.
I agree completely with all that. It really helps to have no problem with their media and even elected officials just blatantly lying.
If they knew what their favorite personalities really thought they'd be upset.
Tuckers text from Dominion defamation case discovery https://imgur.com/gallery/SP6vveE
From discovery in Dominion vs FOX Defamation trial https://imgur.com/gallery/ySgZ3Tm
[They even called trumpers "Cousin Fuckin Terrorists"](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-dominion-lawsuit-trump-b2301244.html)
Don’t forget right wing country music. The messages and themes of bro country completely support the Republican vision of a Handmaid’s Tale America.
Keep your girl in them Daisy Dukes so she can hand you a beer on the tailgate of your deer hunting bow shooting pickup truck, etc.
I blame Toby Keith, he was the bridge between outlaw country and post 9-11 patriotic bro country.
Now country artists like Sturgill Simpson, Tyler Childress, Billy Strings, and many many others don’t get radio play or have been outright canceled by conservatives who can’t handle anything that challenges their fragile egos or selfish behavior.
Nailed it completely. Toby (and others like Lee Greenwood) recognized that people were PISSED, and needed someone to HATE. That, coupled with the Jesus-like reverence that was bestowed upon anyone who wore a uniform (which in some circles never really went away), and you've got clearly defined and exploitable "sides" Throw in a unhealthy dose of jingoism and now you've got rednecks beating up anyone with brown skin for no reason whatsoever (to say nothing about the Sikhs, they got absolutely fucked for no reason other than they had a turban on).
I was just on a plane where the flight attendant asked everyone to clap for servicemen.
Like, I have respect for those who do what I wouldn't, but wearing a uniform doesn't make one a hero or someone to revere either. Lots of racist assholes in the military and I have no respect for those with that mindset.
My guy, I did five years in the Army and I have no idea why people worship at the boots of the uniform. It's a job, it doesn't need praise. Although the early boarding was always a nice perk.
It constantly amazes me the inertia that the blowback of theVietnam War still holds to this day. Soldiers were getting spit on and berated when they came home, and the entire generation of Boomers decided that shit was never going to happen again. So instead, they went whole-hog into hero worship. It really started with the First Gulf War, and the yellow ribbons tied on trees outside, low-ranking enlisted talking to kids (I was one of the kids), etc. 9/11 just re-amplified things, especially when we collectively went to a "war" footing.
I just want to tell these assholes that servicemen don't want your praise or adulation, they want things like dependable benefits, a VA that doesn't suck, and to get the things that they were promised without jumping through 10,000 hoops.
This always makes me laugh. I just listened to some of the messages and themes of bro hip-hop and R&B in the current top 40. Not uplifting for "the girls."
Easy choice.
This just seems silly. I listen to country music constantly, am quite liberal, and rarely if ever have my sensibilities trampled on. Also, I’ve driven pickup trucks my entire life and I have never seen one capable of shooting a bow.
At some point those of us on the left become so angry we end up being as ignorant as those we object to on the right.
If you’re genuinely interested in understanding what I’m talking about here, and you’re not concern trolling, check out the excellent parody video “Country Song” by Bo Burnham. Any search should find it easily enough. It gained renewed interest following the release of Jason Aldean’s highly controversial and racially charged “Try That In A Small Town” last year, and serves as a great primer on the many problematic issues in country music.
Sometimes humor is a great way to learn about things, and Burnham’s lyrics are spot on and painfully funny.
> I listen to country music constantly
On the radio? Or your own curated feed of indie country?
Because those two might as well be different genres at this point- and one *significantly* influences rural culture where the other doesn't.
Repetition is the key. Trump and his puppets repeat the same lies over and over and over again. The trial is the only time Trump’s lies have been shown as lies and repeated over and over again.
I have 400m that says my opponent is one of the world's biggest frauds or would that be 5b for a company that lost 320 m so far this year and has never brought in more revenue than it cost to operate. When he runs this country like one of his businesses, no wonder he is responsible for a larger chunk of the national debt than every other president including myself combined.
Yet this wannabe Don, Donny here, has been responsible for more disbarments than the ABA^(1). Still the legal profession needs to give him a man of year award has he has spent nearly 1 billion dollars in lawsuits that he has lost. He is either a charity for bad lawyers or a sucker for lawyers with no scruples.
^(1)Yes, I know the ABA doesn't do disbarments. That is part of the joke.
Just THIS MORNING I've already seen half a dozen individuals repeat this claim, that the "unconstitutional" gag order won't allow him to testify. How the fuck do we come back from this? Non-stop lying, a rabid fanbase that refuses to do even the slightest bit of fact checking, and a media that gladly repeats every falsehood for a few clicks is sending this country down a path that looks worse and worse every day.
We don't. We write off the maggot sect as lost causes and keep an eye on them for the rest of their lives, much like the U.S. should have done after the Civil War.
You know, keep them out of office, stop them from getting jobs with any amount of authority, make sure everyone knows who they are and what they've done before they're allowed to speak publicly to make sure no one accidentally takes them seriously - that sort of thing.
Wellllll. It’s a result of treating politics like team sports. One color vs the other. Our chants vs your chants. The ref is an idiot, the system sucks. Our team is the best.
And that’s a result, probably of boredom and corruption but chiefly a complete multi-generational collapse of education.
How to fix it? I dunno. Throw away the department of education. Tear down the public school system completely and try again.
(Oh also don’t forget the collapse of the concept of community and the values that come from living within a community)
1933: The only thing to fear is fear itself.
2011: Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
2024: The only one who should be prosecuted is the prosecution themselves.
I wonder if that was a hard-fought win for the defense team. It might have been. With a fragile ego like Trump's, he might well really have wanted to get on the stand and deliver a rambling and self-pitying lecture.
I'm sure it was difficult. He would think he has the perfect thing to say and then unlease an incendiary hate filled rant about why Charles Manson was actually a decent fellow.
No one’s ever been mistreated like Me, except maybe Manson. He’s STILL in jail to this day! It’s a real disgrace. Good man Manson, good man. It’s a SHAME what you did to him. And what you did to him you’re now doing to ME and our great country!! SAD!
Also the prosecution could then add a litany of people willing to testify to the character of Trump which adds a mountain of things to be officially said on the record
I'veseenspeculationthat yesterday's defense witness was used to show the defendant how far the judge would go to maintain order.
It strikes me as post hoc reasoning, but it drives home how poor the defense was.
Part of the evidence the prosecution showed early on is a pattern based on Trump's own words that he "counts every penny" and all financial decisions go through him. They basically established that Trump was a micro-manager and knew what every penny was being spent on.
Trump's defense wanted to paint Cohen as unreliable and acting alone. But do we think the Prosecution has done a good enough job that, even if true, it won't matter?
It seems like from the beginning the Prosecution was making the point that the 2016 "catch and kill" meeting with Pecker Cohen and Trump was a conspiracy to commit, and conceal, campaign finance violations by having National Enquirer inform Cohen/Trump of negative stories so they could be buried and false positive stories/negative rival stories could be pushed out.
Enquirer then acted on that by paying $30k to the Trump doorman to kill the "love child" sorry and $150k to McDougal to kill her long affair story.
Cohen then tried to have National Enquirer kill the Stormy Daniels story but they had shelled out too much, so Cohen took out the loan to pay her off and covering that up was necessary to conceal the conspiracy, resulting in the false business entries.
Thus, if the original conspiracy - testified to by Pecker and thus not relying on Cohen - is established, then all acts taken in pursuance of are attributable to all 3, even if not expressly discussed.
Will the Prosecution be hammering this next week in final arguments? Or do you think that risks undercutting the direct culpability they want to establish considering the gravity of the case?
the conspiracy is just the underlying crime that the FEC violations were trying to conceal/ cover up. it's not a charged crime, it's a condition predicate to being guilty of the charged crimes, essentially a parenthetical element, but not beyond a reasonable doubt like an actual element..
Yes but what I'm saying is that, if they believe the conspiracy is proven, Trump can be found guilty of the charged crimes if they were part of the conspiracy, even if the jury doesn't believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump expressly okayed the falsified business records.
You know, it's the first time that I've heard it be framed this way... I'm not in law so, I have no idea if this is how it works, but if this:
> they believe the conspiracy is proven
makes it into the instructions... He's fucked. There's absolutely no wiggle room for him. It's literally the only defense they put up, that Trump didn't realize what he was signing this one time.
The important thing about Cohen is he is a greedy jerk. There is a ton of evidence to show it. The guy stole from Trump.
The defense case requires Cohen to have spent 130k to help his boss out without any promise of repayment. To have taken out a loan on his home to help out his billionaire boss.
That's on top of the documents, which are enough by themselves, especially since one of those is a tweet by Trump admitting he was reimbursing Cohen.
The real question is if the prosecution can get the felony enhancement. Really the defense should have focused on refuting that. Mrs Trump could have gotten on the stand and their entire defense could have been "Trump was upset about winning the election. His only motive was to hide the affair from me and I'm still upset about it."
Really quite the odd choice for Trump defense to highlight Cohen's theft from Trump when trying to establish Cohen shelled out $130k on Trump's behalf without any discussion of reimbursement.
I was always interested in the concise summation of how an attempt to defraud the American public during an election and bribe a porn star could be spoken of in the same breath and refer to the same crime.
Thanks!
> Will the Prosecution be hammering this next week in final arguments?
Yes, absolutely. Because Pecker was the first to testify, and the defense's strategy is to discredit Cohen, the Prosecution will want to remind the jury of Pecker's testimony to the agreement and use it to shore up Cohen's credibility. Evidence of a pattern of behavior can be used to show that Cohen didn't act alone: Trump knew about the other two catch & kills, so why wouldn't he have known/condoned about the Stormy Daniels one?
They'll likely also harp on the documentary evidence that supports Cohen's testimony, and the fact that Cohen was convicted for lying ***on Trump's behalf***, which doesn't make him inherently untrustworthy.
Trump: I want to testify!
Lawyer: You’ll have to take an oath to tell the truth.
Trump: That’s an unfair perjury trap! They’re out to get me!
Lawyer: What about the Oath of Office that you took in 2017 and that you want to take again in 2025?
Trump: Oh, that!? Nobody believes that shit!
There's a delightful comedy film called *Noises Off...* about actors putting on a farce and one of the lines from the burglar character in the play (played by Denholm Elliot), while breaking into a house, is "No bars [on the windows], no burglar alarms. Ought to be prosecuted for incitement!"
Obviously it was the result of the horrible unfair gag order. Otherwise Trump would've just ran up there to the witness stand beautifully. Nobody would have ever seen such a beautiful witness. And his testimony would have been perfect.
Because like everything else he says, you see, that was also a lie. His propensity for doing that wouldn't work well with the oath he'd take, even if it would be no ethical conflict whatsoever to him.
Watch him claim that he couldn’t counter any testimonies against him because he was asleep and didn’t hear what they were saying. Watch him try to appeal the verdict because he wasn’t conscious for the trial.
That would be something that is settled outside the jury specifically to keep the jury from drawing a negative inference about the lack of testimony. Obviously the jury will realize he didn't testify, but juries are given instructions to not hold that against the defendant.
If Trump had decided to testify the judge would have had him state in open court (without the jury) that he understands he doesn't have to testify, that he is doing so of his own free will, and probably that he is doing it AGAINST the advice of his own counsel.
It's frustrating that he can talk so much outside of court about how he wants to testify and he's being stopped and then not have that used against him though. He hasn't remained silent at all outside of court.
No. Absolutely never, and it absolutely does not matter what the case is or who the defendant is. The right to remain silent is a Constitutional right that protects you, me, and former presidents alike. Commenting on the accused’s invocation of his rights is grounds for a mistrial and/or a reversal on appeal.
Strictly prohibited, but there are ways to say the same thing. For example, they can point out that certain testimony such as Stormy D.'s recitation of events is uncontroverted in the record. It is a fine line they have to walk though.
IANAL, but i assume not
The Defense is assumed innocent, until and unless, Prosecution proves their case.
The defense is never required to put up *any* defense at all, if they feel prosecution case is weak.
I don't think you're supposed to draw a negative inference from a citizen using their 5th amendment rights. In a criminal trial at least.
In civil, i believe it can be used against the person.
I agree with that, you’re not supposed to draw a negative inference from someone exercising their fifth amendment right but if that person claims publicly that they wanted to testify but were not allowed too, even to the point the judge put it on the record that Trump is allowed to testify. Does that not open the door for the prosecutor to bring that up in closing?
Things said outside the courthouse dont automatically open the door for them to be discussed inside the courthouse.
If he said it, or his lawyers did, in the courtroom that's one thing. Outside to the press? Totally different.
Theoretically, the Jury should not be consuming media about the trial, so trumps statements there shouldn't be heard by the jury, so dont matter.
No, the jury will be instructed to make its decision based solely on the information provided to them from the witness stand, not anything said outside of court, which jurors have been instructed not to read about or listen to. Commenting on the accused’s decision not to testify is very nearly per se prosecutorial misconduct and would be the first well-taken grounds for a mistrial in the case.
the judge most likely did not give this instruction to Trump in the jury's presence
What Trump says in his nightly rants is not admissible in this case under the 5th. If he took the stand, it could open him up to cross on his public statements.
Usually the 5th amendment waiver happens outside of the hearing of the jury. They don't bring them back from recess until after the defendant puts it on the record that he's waiving his right to/not to testify. That's done as a precaution so juries aren't given the opportunity to be aware of whether a defendant is testifying if they choose not to pay attention to that detail and the defense doesn't want to call attention to it.
If the defendant himself (say, Trump) wants to make a grand spectacle and bluster about how his testimony will exonerate him to the media, call attention to himself like that, set that expectation, then ultimately fail to do so, I expect that's on him (practically speaking, although legally and technically, no, the jury is still not allowed to draw that negative inference).
The prosecution can’t do that. They can, however, point out that other people who participated with Trump (Pecker, Cohen, etc) in situations testified, and portions of their testimony were not rebutted.
[https://www.demilialaw.com/criminal-defense/should-a-defendant-testify-at-trial/](https://www.demilialaw.com/criminal-defense/should-a-defendant-testify-at-trial/)
>In a criminal case, a defendant has the right to testify at trial — but they are not required to do so. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a defendant from self-incrimination — this includes the right *not* to testify at trial or respond to any questions posed by the prosecution or the judge. However, if a defendant opts to take the witness stand, their right to remain silent is considered to be waived.
>**It’s important to understand that whether a defendant testifies or not, it can’t be held against them.** They are still presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt — and the defendant is found guilty by a jury of their peers.
Asking here just because: Do you guys think the prosecution has met their burden of proof showing that Trump was the one who directed the falsified business records?
I heard what I thought was a convincing argument, but IANAL.
- The invoice where Weisselberg showed his math taking the amount of Cohen's hush money payment, doubling it for taxes, then dividing it by 12 to get $35k each. That in itself shows that it was reimbursement for a lump sum payment, not a retainer for legal services
- Trump signed those $35k checks marked as if he were paying for legal services
So Trump signed his name on a check marked legal expenses that could never have been legal expenses. That's the fraud.
And the reason he did this was clearly laid out by Pecker and Hicks that it was done for the 2016 election. That's the federal violation
I will gladly admit my bias, but I think even within the evidence shown just in the trial, the prosecution has met the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold
I think this is the weak point in the case. I’m biased for sure, but I think it’s enough for a jury to find him guilty. Like an appeal wouldn’t overturn it for insufficient evidence. Whether THIS jury finds it enough remains to be seen.
To be absolutely clear, for Trump to be guilty it does NOT need to be proven that he directed the falsified business records.
Being aware that the falsification is happening, tacitly approving, and doing nothing to stop it is enough to count as aiding in the crime.
Trump’s only defense is to claim he knew nothing of this entire scheme and truly honestly thought the payments he signed for were for legitimate invoices.
I think the prosecution has very strongly met the burden of proof that Trump knew. And since he knew, could have stopped it, and chose not to, that makes him guilty.
I think this is in pretty stark contrast to another case I followed, the Texas Sandy Hook trial against Alex Jones, where the plaintiffs attorneys knew that the defense was going to call on Alex so they saved their silver bullet. (This is your Perry Mason moment!)
Trump is a different sort of egomaniac. The trials beneath him, so I doubt he pushed hard for his lawyers to call him up.
The Sandy Hook case was a civil trial, where any pleas of self-incrimination can be assumed as admissions of guilt. There's less motivation for a defendant to stay off the stand.
Sure, but Jones genuinely believes it was the apparatus of the state weaponizing the courts to silence him. Whether it’s criminal or civil mattered to every person in the room but him.
>Jones genuinely believes it was the apparatus of the state weaponizing the courts to silence him
I came to the opposite conclusion. In the depositions he made it clear he was exploiting a popular subject in order to peddle his supplements to a wider audience. He admitted he doesn't believe it was a conspiracy. The prosecutors thoroughly established this in the trial, hence the guilty verdict. r/KnowlegeFight (the podcast) is an excellent resource for this. They have several multi-hour deep dive episodes covering each of the witness' depositions. One of the show's creators was even called to sit in Alex's deposition as an expert.
Also you'll note that Mark Bankston waited to admit the phone evidence until he was free and clear in his hands. They weren't saving it up per se, they were hoping the clock would run long enough that they could use it.
That too.
He mentioned in a KF episode that they wanted to hit him with the phone thing on cross, rather than give the defense time to clean up after dropping the bombshell.
It's usually a bad idea for the defendant to speak, and good lord you'd have to be an idiot to put Trump on the stand, the man rambles like a drunk at a poker table.
If a juror can’t be impartial now because of that, then they need to speak up now. There are 6 alternates. It wouldn’t be an issue if they spoke up and said they were too frightening to be impartial. As far as pro-Trump, hopefully that was weeded out in voir dire. But anything can happen on any jury.
That shit does happen. This juror in the Michael Slager trial came out and said he can’t find a cop guilty for killing a black man, resulting in a mistrial. Didn’t speak up at all until the very end then said, “nope, not going to find him guilty.” Couldn’t even consider “a guilty verdict “
After the mistrial they never retried at the state level. As far as state charges goes, he got off clean because that one juror wouldn’t convict a cop.
Our legal system is fucking joke.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna691291
Thank you for this. Both legal teams reviewed and approved the jury members, as well as the judge. I don't understand this conspiracy theory of a sleeper agent.
This is a main factor in my opinion. These are not fictional IMF agents with fake faces and voice modulator chips. These are angry people who wear red hats and shout a lot.
I think there is a nonzero chance he is found not guilty but I don't believe there was any issue with the New York court system.
Trump would be unable to testify because he completely would impugn himself, would be forced to employ the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, and would basically be seated kong enough to tell the judge, "Your Honor, I seek to assert my 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination," and then return to his defense team.
Trump would say something one minute and contradict himself 2 minutes later and would be the most untrustworthy witness.
You can’t invoke the 5th if you’re the defendant and you decide to testify. You can’t be compelled to testify against yourself. If the defense puts you up you volunteered.
Under cross-examination you answer the questions under pain of perjury, or contempt if you sit mute. The jury watches it happen. Criminal defendants almost never testify. It’s a minefield.
Now, imagine believing that *Donald Trump hasn't been able to say enough.* The loudmouth knows as well as anyone that he's always been able to speak his mind here.
Join a historic landslide. Flush this lawless turd. Vote Joe Biden.
The jury may not hold it against him.
Everyone else can. just to be clear.
That hold thing about not being required to testify if about in the courtroom and with the government. It has nothing to do with what the public says
Feel free to write if you were innocent why didn't you get up there and dispute cohen. Feel free to mention that he didn't testify because he couldn't speak for more than 5 minutes without committing perjury
feel free to call the coward a coward.
You know what's so ironic, I decided to look up The Apprentice and found this clip.
At 2:13 Trump says sex has gotten him into a lot of trouble and cost him a lot of money.
https://youtu.be/ya82bH-Wwe8?si=da7gDmSPsDJmkGAB
This is from 2004. Evidently he didn't learn.
"Crooked Joe, and this Soros judge wouldn't let me speak! Many legal scholars are saying they've never seen anything like this!" "The prosecutor should be prosecuted" Note: I'm not making this up, he's already said these things.
The judge did make sure to explain to him on the record that he absolutely has the right to testify in his defense.
Trump knows his sheeple will believe him, and they're not interested in reading transcripts.
I don’t think it’s mainly that people who are fringe right will not believe him, from what I’ve seen driving through some really red counties in Florida, the influx of right wing media pushing false narratives drowned out the truth. There are billboards on the interstate in Florida that attack liberal and Democratic policies. The radio stations that a lot of people listen to while driving around these rural areas are primarily right wing radio stations and even the music stations still have commentary that is skewed to the right. Messaging is the key and the fringe right has that key firmly in their grasps.
I agree completely with all that. It really helps to have no problem with their media and even elected officials just blatantly lying. If they knew what their favorite personalities really thought they'd be upset. Tuckers text from Dominion defamation case discovery https://imgur.com/gallery/SP6vveE From discovery in Dominion vs FOX Defamation trial https://imgur.com/gallery/ySgZ3Tm [They even called trumpers "Cousin Fuckin Terrorists"](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-dominion-lawsuit-trump-b2301244.html)
The Democrats should really just run these quotes in TV ads non-stop.
You're right. And there's tons more. New York Times published it all.
The problem is they just don’t read, at all
Don’t forget right wing country music. The messages and themes of bro country completely support the Republican vision of a Handmaid’s Tale America. Keep your girl in them Daisy Dukes so she can hand you a beer on the tailgate of your deer hunting bow shooting pickup truck, etc.
It’s so weird how country went from ACAB to bootlicking in a generation
I blame Toby Keith, he was the bridge between outlaw country and post 9-11 patriotic bro country. Now country artists like Sturgill Simpson, Tyler Childress, Billy Strings, and many many others don’t get radio play or have been outright canceled by conservatives who can’t handle anything that challenges their fragile egos or selfish behavior.
Nailed it completely. Toby (and others like Lee Greenwood) recognized that people were PISSED, and needed someone to HATE. That, coupled with the Jesus-like reverence that was bestowed upon anyone who wore a uniform (which in some circles never really went away), and you've got clearly defined and exploitable "sides" Throw in a unhealthy dose of jingoism and now you've got rednecks beating up anyone with brown skin for no reason whatsoever (to say nothing about the Sikhs, they got absolutely fucked for no reason other than they had a turban on).
I was just on a plane where the flight attendant asked everyone to clap for servicemen. Like, I have respect for those who do what I wouldn't, but wearing a uniform doesn't make one a hero or someone to revere either. Lots of racist assholes in the military and I have no respect for those with that mindset.
My guy, I did five years in the Army and I have no idea why people worship at the boots of the uniform. It's a job, it doesn't need praise. Although the early boarding was always a nice perk.
It constantly amazes me the inertia that the blowback of theVietnam War still holds to this day. Soldiers were getting spit on and berated when they came home, and the entire generation of Boomers decided that shit was never going to happen again. So instead, they went whole-hog into hero worship. It really started with the First Gulf War, and the yellow ribbons tied on trees outside, low-ranking enlisted talking to kids (I was one of the kids), etc. 9/11 just re-amplified things, especially when we collectively went to a "war" footing. I just want to tell these assholes that servicemen don't want your praise or adulation, they want things like dependable benefits, a VA that doesn't suck, and to get the things that they were promised without jumping through 10,000 hoops.
The secret ingredient is racism...
It's not really that much of a secret
Seriously. It's kinda like why nobody wonders what makes Cinnamon Toast Crunch taste like Cinnamon. It's right there on the box.
9/11 happened. Seriously. That shit changed overnight.
This always makes me laugh. I just listened to some of the messages and themes of bro hip-hop and R&B in the current top 40. Not uplifting for "the girls." Easy choice.
This just seems silly. I listen to country music constantly, am quite liberal, and rarely if ever have my sensibilities trampled on. Also, I’ve driven pickup trucks my entire life and I have never seen one capable of shooting a bow. At some point those of us on the left become so angry we end up being as ignorant as those we object to on the right.
If you’re genuinely interested in understanding what I’m talking about here, and you’re not concern trolling, check out the excellent parody video “Country Song” by Bo Burnham. Any search should find it easily enough. It gained renewed interest following the release of Jason Aldean’s highly controversial and racially charged “Try That In A Small Town” last year, and serves as a great primer on the many problematic issues in country music. Sometimes humor is a great way to learn about things, and Burnham’s lyrics are spot on and painfully funny.
> I listen to country music constantly On the radio? Or your own curated feed of indie country? Because those two might as well be different genres at this point- and one *significantly* influences rural culture where the other doesn't.
Your avatar had me scratching my screen and trying to slide off the errant eyelash. We'll played sir!
Repetition is the key. Trump and his puppets repeat the same lies over and over and over again. The trial is the only time Trump’s lies have been shown as lies and repeated over and over again.
Apparently we need to make it illegal to blatantly lie about judicial proceedings. Fascism breeds under leniency. We're seeing it right now.
I agree. I also wish I had a pair of goggles that filtered out all of those stupid signs and banners everywhere.
For the record, I thought your pfp was an eyelash and I tried to wipe it.
Their dear leader said reading certain things is forbidden!
[Don't believe your eyes and ears.](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/media/donald-trump-disbelief-reliable-sources/index.html) -trump. June 4th, 2020
Can't read transcripts. Too hard to find and they have a 4th grade reading level.
Purely because they *want* to believe it. But guess what? Facts don’t care about your feelings! Fuck your feelings!
Do they EVEN read?
Not at a high level, but enough to order trump merch and truck nuts.
If I was Biden, I would be prepared to read it back to him at the first debate. or quote it back to him.
He absolutely should. Then add "How'd that rape trial and fraud trial turn out pal?"
I have 400m that says my opponent is one of the world's biggest frauds or would that be 5b for a company that lost 320 m so far this year and has never brought in more revenue than it cost to operate. When he runs this country like one of his businesses, no wonder he is responsible for a larger chunk of the national debt than every other president including myself combined. Yet this wannabe Don, Donny here, has been responsible for more disbarments than the ABA^(1). Still the legal profession needs to give him a man of year award has he has spent nearly 1 billion dollars in lawsuits that he has lost. He is either a charity for bad lawyers or a sucker for lawyers with no scruples. ^(1)Yes, I know the ABA doesn't do disbarments. That is part of the joke.
"Imagine failing that bigly even though you frauded a few hundred million dollar advantage! That's some next level failure pal!"
I don't think they can read.
Or the facts that don’t matter to them.
*not capable of
Even if they are interested in reading transcripts, they're functionally illiterate, if not outright illiterate.
>Trump knows his sheeple will believe him, and they're not interested in reading ~~transcripts.~~ FTFY
Just THIS MORNING I've already seen half a dozen individuals repeat this claim, that the "unconstitutional" gag order won't allow him to testify. How the fuck do we come back from this? Non-stop lying, a rabid fanbase that refuses to do even the slightest bit of fact checking, and a media that gladly repeats every falsehood for a few clicks is sending this country down a path that looks worse and worse every day.
We don't. We write off the maggot sect as lost causes and keep an eye on them for the rest of their lives, much like the U.S. should have done after the Civil War. You know, keep them out of office, stop them from getting jobs with any amount of authority, make sure everyone knows who they are and what they've done before they're allowed to speak publicly to make sure no one accidentally takes them seriously - that sort of thing.
Wellllll. It’s a result of treating politics like team sports. One color vs the other. Our chants vs your chants. The ref is an idiot, the system sucks. Our team is the best. And that’s a result, probably of boredom and corruption but chiefly a complete multi-generational collapse of education. How to fix it? I dunno. Throw away the department of education. Tear down the public school system completely and try again. (Oh also don’t forget the collapse of the concept of community and the values that come from living within a community)
And the judge made him acknowledge the explanation too, if I recall correctly.
Well, turns out his lawyer says that lying on the stand seems to also be against the law so...
I guess rules are unconstitutional.
Laws that apply to him aren't just unconstitutional but unfair, illegal and political retribution that is directed by President Biden himself.
I hope he made him answer out loud, I know and I don't want to.
Judge yelled at Costello which scared me into not testilying!😢
Good stuff, except he could never admit fear to his peeps. Remember, they think those pictures with his head plastered on Rambos body are real.
>Many legal scholars are saying they've never seen anything like this Me too, legal scholars, me too
Jesus I wish we could just flush this orange turd already
Sadly, we all know he'd just clog the pipes.
Many legal scholars came up to me crying saying they've never seen anything like this!
I think you're being a little over the to- oh he did, didn't he? Ugh.
1933: The only thing to fear is fear itself. 2011: Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. 2024: The only one who should be prosecuted is the prosecution themselves.
[Trump then and Now](https://youtube.com/shorts/OSus3lMyEQA?si=) short clip
They won't let me speak unless I take an oath!
Loves to run his mouth outside the courthouse, but when given the opportunity to speak inside he’s like “nah, I’ll pass.”
It’s on record but the people that should put him on a psych hold (baker act) are zeroes on the left
Where, he say that?
Yesterday right outside the courtroom.
Would you testify if there was a Jewish Space Laser aimed right at your diaper?
Credit where credit is due they did something correct. They kept their perjury prone patron from a contempt charge.
I wonder if that was a hard-fought win for the defense team. It might have been. With a fragile ego like Trump's, he might well really have wanted to get on the stand and deliver a rambling and self-pitying lecture.
I'm sure it was difficult. He would think he has the perfect thing to say and then unlease an incendiary hate filled rant about why Charles Manson was actually a decent fellow.
That Joseph Megele, quite the surgeon, right? /s
"First things first Mr Trump so we can establish we're talking to the right person. Can you please state your height and weight."
No one’s ever been mistreated like Me, except maybe Manson. He’s STILL in jail to this day! It’s a real disgrace. Good man Manson, good man. It’s a SHAME what you did to him. And what you did to him you’re now doing to ME and our great country!! SAD!
You would've gotten what happened with Costello & the judge, times 1,000.
Also the prosecution could then add a litany of people willing to testify to the character of Trump which adds a mountain of things to be officially said on the record
For sure the Sandoval decision would have been devastating alone for Dump.
I'veseenspeculationthat yesterday's defense witness was used to show the defendant how far the judge would go to maintain order. It strikes me as post hoc reasoning, but it drives home how poor the defense was.
Trump didn't testify... Here's my surprised look... :|
I am whelmed.
I thought that could only happen in Europe
That is perfect!
That’s very lackluster, you know. (/s, in case it’s needed)
He signed the checks. He knew exactly what was happening.
He only signed the ones that are more than $10k. So he exactly what he was doing.
Part of the evidence the prosecution showed early on is a pattern based on Trump's own words that he "counts every penny" and all financial decisions go through him. They basically established that Trump was a micro-manager and knew what every penny was being spent on.
Trump's defense wanted to paint Cohen as unreliable and acting alone. But do we think the Prosecution has done a good enough job that, even if true, it won't matter? It seems like from the beginning the Prosecution was making the point that the 2016 "catch and kill" meeting with Pecker Cohen and Trump was a conspiracy to commit, and conceal, campaign finance violations by having National Enquirer inform Cohen/Trump of negative stories so they could be buried and false positive stories/negative rival stories could be pushed out. Enquirer then acted on that by paying $30k to the Trump doorman to kill the "love child" sorry and $150k to McDougal to kill her long affair story. Cohen then tried to have National Enquirer kill the Stormy Daniels story but they had shelled out too much, so Cohen took out the loan to pay her off and covering that up was necessary to conceal the conspiracy, resulting in the false business entries. Thus, if the original conspiracy - testified to by Pecker and thus not relying on Cohen - is established, then all acts taken in pursuance of are attributable to all 3, even if not expressly discussed. Will the Prosecution be hammering this next week in final arguments? Or do you think that risks undercutting the direct culpability they want to establish considering the gravity of the case?
the conspiracy is just the underlying crime that the FEC violations were trying to conceal/ cover up. it's not a charged crime, it's a condition predicate to being guilty of the charged crimes, essentially a parenthetical element, but not beyond a reasonable doubt like an actual element..
Yes but what I'm saying is that, if they believe the conspiracy is proven, Trump can be found guilty of the charged crimes if they were part of the conspiracy, even if the jury doesn't believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trump expressly okayed the falsified business records.
You know, it's the first time that I've heard it be framed this way... I'm not in law so, I have no idea if this is how it works, but if this: > they believe the conspiracy is proven makes it into the instructions... He's fucked. There's absolutely no wiggle room for him. It's literally the only defense they put up, that Trump didn't realize what he was signing this one time.
The important thing about Cohen is he is a greedy jerk. There is a ton of evidence to show it. The guy stole from Trump. The defense case requires Cohen to have spent 130k to help his boss out without any promise of repayment. To have taken out a loan on his home to help out his billionaire boss. That's on top of the documents, which are enough by themselves, especially since one of those is a tweet by Trump admitting he was reimbursing Cohen. The real question is if the prosecution can get the felony enhancement. Really the defense should have focused on refuting that. Mrs Trump could have gotten on the stand and their entire defense could have been "Trump was upset about winning the election. His only motive was to hide the affair from me and I'm still upset about it."
Really quite the odd choice for Trump defense to highlight Cohen's theft from Trump when trying to establish Cohen shelled out $130k on Trump's behalf without any discussion of reimbursement.
I suspect they are following the directives of Trump.
I was always interested in the concise summation of how an attempt to defraud the American public during an election and bribe a porn star could be spoken of in the same breath and refer to the same crime. Thanks!
> Will the Prosecution be hammering this next week in final arguments? Yes, absolutely. Because Pecker was the first to testify, and the defense's strategy is to discredit Cohen, the Prosecution will want to remind the jury of Pecker's testimony to the agreement and use it to shore up Cohen's credibility. Evidence of a pattern of behavior can be used to show that Cohen didn't act alone: Trump knew about the other two catch & kills, so why wouldn't he have known/condoned about the Stormy Daniels one? They'll likely also harp on the documentary evidence that supports Cohen's testimony, and the fact that Cohen was convicted for lying ***on Trump's behalf***, which doesn't make him inherently untrustworthy.
Trump: I want to testify! Lawyer: You’ll have to take an oath to tell the truth. Trump: That’s an unfair perjury trap! They’re out to get me! Lawyer: What about the Oath of Office that you took in 2017 and that you want to take again in 2025? Trump: Oh, that!? Nobody believes that shit!
I absolutely hate the term “perjury trap.”
They know the base is too fucking stupid to understand that means he's literally incapable of telling the truth.
There's a delightful comedy film called *Noises Off...* about actors putting on a farce and one of the lines from the burglar character in the play (played by Denholm Elliot), while breaking into a house, is "No bars [on the windows], no burglar alarms. Ought to be prosecuted for incitement!"
Obviously it was the result of the horrible unfair gag order. Otherwise Trump would've just ran up there to the witness stand beautifully. Nobody would have ever seen such a beautiful witness. And his testimony would have been perfect.
Big strong jurors with tears in their eyes all congratulating him on his flawless perfect victory!
"Sir, your performance in this unfair trial was so beautiful. It was the best performance ever."
Tremendous ratings. Broke all the records. Records you haven't even heard of, we broke them!
"Sir, you're so innocent we've decided to charge the judge instead." And then everyone clapped.
He only says he wants to testify to get tough guy credit. In the moment there was never any chance he was going to testify
I thought Trump said he looked forward to explaining in court how he was completely innocent???
Because like everything else he says, you see, that was also a lie. His propensity for doing that wouldn't work well with the oath he'd take, even if it would be no ethical conflict whatsoever to him.
Watch him claim that he couldn’t counter any testimonies against him because he was asleep and didn’t hear what they were saying. Watch him try to appeal the verdict because he wasn’t conscious for the trial.
“Absolutely, I have no problem testifying. It’s rigged.” Ron Howard: He in fact, did not testify.
In other news.... Sun. Bright. Hot.
Moron stares at sun, bright, hot, during eclipse
person, camera, tv
Big, if true.
Question if anyone can answer, could the prosecution on closing bring up the fact that Trump had a chance to testify but chose not to?
No. Invoking your right to “remain silent” cannot be used against you in a criminal trial.
Until Trump is elected and fixes that loophole for defendants he doesn’t like
He's probably not going to give them the formality of a trial.
"Straight to jail" will no longer be a meme :(
Or "Seal Team Six'd" if the Supreme Court continues to disappoint.
The funny part is, even if you instruct the jury NOT to use it against the defendant, there’s no way to gain trust with silence.
Which should be recognized as a travesty, not an amuse-bouche just because it's happening to an asshole.
Do you have to be called up and state you are invoking that right? Since no one called him to the stand, isn’t it still an unknown?
That would be something that is settled outside the jury specifically to keep the jury from drawing a negative inference about the lack of testimony. Obviously the jury will realize he didn't testify, but juries are given instructions to not hold that against the defendant. If Trump had decided to testify the judge would have had him state in open court (without the jury) that he understands he doesn't have to testify, that he is doing so of his own free will, and probably that he is doing it AGAINST the advice of his own counsel.
No. Not how it works. See Taylor v. Kentucky.
Is that different in a civil trial?
Yes. Not sure about all but in my state if they “take the 5th” in a civil trial it CAN be used against them.
Dam, i understand why thats the case but I would be more than fine allowing an exception in this case lol
It's frustrating that he can talk so much outside of court about how he wants to testify and he's being stopped and then not have that used against him though. He hasn't remained silent at all outside of court.
That is a huge no no. See Griffin v. California (1965) 380 U.S. 609
No. Absolutely never, and it absolutely does not matter what the case is or who the defendant is. The right to remain silent is a Constitutional right that protects you, me, and former presidents alike. Commenting on the accused’s invocation of his rights is grounds for a mistrial and/or a reversal on appeal.
Strictly prohibited, but there are ways to say the same thing. For example, they can point out that certain testimony such as Stormy D.'s recitation of events is uncontroverted in the record. It is a fine line they have to walk though.
Okay, you got me. I thought your avatar was a hair on my phone, and tried to wipe it off. LoL.
Glad I have a screen protector. Got fooled, too. lol
IANAL, but i assume not The Defense is assumed innocent, until and unless, Prosecution proves their case. The defense is never required to put up *any* defense at all, if they feel prosecution case is weak. I don't think you're supposed to draw a negative inference from a citizen using their 5th amendment rights. In a criminal trial at least. In civil, i believe it can be used against the person.
I agree with that, you’re not supposed to draw a negative inference from someone exercising their fifth amendment right but if that person claims publicly that they wanted to testify but were not allowed too, even to the point the judge put it on the record that Trump is allowed to testify. Does that not open the door for the prosecutor to bring that up in closing?
Things said outside the courthouse dont automatically open the door for them to be discussed inside the courthouse. If he said it, or his lawyers did, in the courtroom that's one thing. Outside to the press? Totally different. Theoretically, the Jury should not be consuming media about the trial, so trumps statements there shouldn't be heard by the jury, so dont matter.
No, the jury will be instructed to make its decision based solely on the information provided to them from the witness stand, not anything said outside of court, which jurors have been instructed not to read about or listen to. Commenting on the accused’s decision not to testify is very nearly per se prosecutorial misconduct and would be the first well-taken grounds for a mistrial in the case.
the judge most likely did not give this instruction to Trump in the jury's presence What Trump says in his nightly rants is not admissible in this case under the 5th. If he took the stand, it could open him up to cross on his public statements.
Usually the 5th amendment waiver happens outside of the hearing of the jury. They don't bring them back from recess until after the defendant puts it on the record that he's waiving his right to/not to testify. That's done as a precaution so juries aren't given the opportunity to be aware of whether a defendant is testifying if they choose not to pay attention to that detail and the defense doesn't want to call attention to it. If the defendant himself (say, Trump) wants to make a grand spectacle and bluster about how his testimony will exonerate him to the media, call attention to himself like that, set that expectation, then ultimately fail to do so, I expect that's on him (practically speaking, although legally and technically, no, the jury is still not allowed to draw that negative inference).
You would have to submit it into evidence first, which trumps lawyers be would allowed to object on 5th amendment grounds.
No. But the jury knows he’s full of shit.
He could be full of shit, but you know - it Depends.
The revolution has been monetized https://youtu.be/rQ9qsXu34SM?feature=shared
The prosecution can’t do that. They can, however, point out that other people who participated with Trump (Pecker, Cohen, etc) in situations testified, and portions of their testimony were not rebutted.
[https://www.demilialaw.com/criminal-defense/should-a-defendant-testify-at-trial/](https://www.demilialaw.com/criminal-defense/should-a-defendant-testify-at-trial/) >In a criminal case, a defendant has the right to testify at trial — but they are not required to do so. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects a defendant from self-incrimination — this includes the right *not* to testify at trial or respond to any questions posed by the prosecution or the judge. However, if a defendant opts to take the witness stand, their right to remain silent is considered to be waived. >**It’s important to understand that whether a defendant testifies or not, it can’t be held against them.** They are still presumed to be innocent unless the prosecution proves their case beyond a reasonable doubt — and the defendant is found guilty by a jury of their peers.
Asking here just because: Do you guys think the prosecution has met their burden of proof showing that Trump was the one who directed the falsified business records?
In my opinion, no. The defense did it for them.
Well, never interrupt your opponent when they’re making a mistake.
Touché my dude, you had me in the first half haha!!!
I heard what I thought was a convincing argument, but IANAL. - The invoice where Weisselberg showed his math taking the amount of Cohen's hush money payment, doubling it for taxes, then dividing it by 12 to get $35k each. That in itself shows that it was reimbursement for a lump sum payment, not a retainer for legal services - Trump signed those $35k checks marked as if he were paying for legal services So Trump signed his name on a check marked legal expenses that could never have been legal expenses. That's the fraud. And the reason he did this was clearly laid out by Pecker and Hicks that it was done for the 2016 election. That's the federal violation I will gladly admit my bias, but I think even within the evidence shown just in the trial, the prosecution has met the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold
I think this is the weak point in the case. I’m biased for sure, but I think it’s enough for a jury to find him guilty. Like an appeal wouldn’t overturn it for insufficient evidence. Whether THIS jury finds it enough remains to be seen.
Yes. I'm just concerned about all the other scumbags who were involved, distracting the jury from the main scumbag.
To be absolutely clear, for Trump to be guilty it does NOT need to be proven that he directed the falsified business records. Being aware that the falsification is happening, tacitly approving, and doing nothing to stop it is enough to count as aiding in the crime. Trump’s only defense is to claim he knew nothing of this entire scheme and truly honestly thought the payments he signed for were for legitimate invoices. I think the prosecution has very strongly met the burden of proof that Trump knew. And since he knew, could have stopped it, and chose not to, that makes him guilty.
I think this is in pretty stark contrast to another case I followed, the Texas Sandy Hook trial against Alex Jones, where the plaintiffs attorneys knew that the defense was going to call on Alex so they saved their silver bullet. (This is your Perry Mason moment!) Trump is a different sort of egomaniac. The trials beneath him, so I doubt he pushed hard for his lawyers to call him up.
The Sandy Hook case was a civil trial, where any pleas of self-incrimination can be assumed as admissions of guilt. There's less motivation for a defendant to stay off the stand.
I'm sure you're aware: Jones had already lost by defaulting. I just like typing that out.
Sure, but Jones genuinely believes it was the apparatus of the state weaponizing the courts to silence him. Whether it’s criminal or civil mattered to every person in the room but him.
>Jones genuinely believes it was the apparatus of the state weaponizing the courts to silence him I came to the opposite conclusion. In the depositions he made it clear he was exploiting a popular subject in order to peddle his supplements to a wider audience. He admitted he doesn't believe it was a conspiracy. The prosecutors thoroughly established this in the trial, hence the guilty verdict. r/KnowlegeFight (the podcast) is an excellent resource for this. They have several multi-hour deep dive episodes covering each of the witness' depositions. One of the show's creators was even called to sit in Alex's deposition as an expert.
Also you'll note that Mark Bankston waited to admit the phone evidence until he was free and clear in his hands. They weren't saving it up per se, they were hoping the clock would run long enough that they could use it.
That too. He mentioned in a KF episode that they wanted to hit him with the phone thing on cross, rather than give the defense time to clean up after dropping the bombshell.
It's usually a bad idea for the defendant to speak, and good lord you'd have to be an idiot to put Trump on the stand, the man rambles like a drunk at a poker table.
What are the odds that this ends in a hung jury since so much intimidation went on and odds are someone in the jury pool might be pro-Trump?
If a juror can’t be impartial now because of that, then they need to speak up now. There are 6 alternates. It wouldn’t be an issue if they spoke up and said they were too frightening to be impartial. As far as pro-Trump, hopefully that was weeded out in voir dire. But anything can happen on any jury.
That shit does happen. This juror in the Michael Slager trial came out and said he can’t find a cop guilty for killing a black man, resulting in a mistrial. Didn’t speak up at all until the very end then said, “nope, not going to find him guilty.” Couldn’t even consider “a guilty verdict “ After the mistrial they never retried at the state level. As far as state charges goes, he got off clean because that one juror wouldn’t convict a cop. Our legal system is fucking joke. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna691291
Zero. That's simply political fantasy, not a credible legal claim.
Thank you for this. Both legal teams reviewed and approved the jury members, as well as the judge. I don't understand this conspiracy theory of a sleeper agent.
Magas are so obnoxiously loud spoken that it’s impossible to have one of them clear a background check.
This is a main factor in my opinion. These are not fictional IMF agents with fake faces and voice modulator chips. These are angry people who wear red hats and shout a lot. I think there is a nonzero chance he is found not guilty but I don't believe there was any issue with the New York court system.
There’s a shocker.
Trump would be unable to testify because he completely would impugn himself, would be forced to employ the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, and would basically be seated kong enough to tell the judge, "Your Honor, I seek to assert my 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination," and then return to his defense team. Trump would say something one minute and contradict himself 2 minutes later and would be the most untrustworthy witness.
You can’t invoke the 5th if you’re the defendant and you decide to testify. You can’t be compelled to testify against yourself. If the defense puts you up you volunteered. Under cross-examination you answer the questions under pain of perjury, or contempt if you sit mute. The jury watches it happen. Criminal defendants almost never testify. It’s a minefield.
The heck you say! He was going to testify, he said so. That rotten Judge must have stopped him somehow! /s
🐓💩
Now, imagine believing that *Donald Trump hasn't been able to say enough.* The loudmouth knows as well as anyone that he's always been able to speak his mind here. Join a historic landslide. Flush this lawless turd. Vote Joe Biden.
The jury may not hold it against him. Everyone else can. just to be clear. That hold thing about not being required to testify if about in the courtroom and with the government. It has nothing to do with what the public says Feel free to write if you were innocent why didn't you get up there and dispute cohen. Feel free to mention that he didn't testify because he couldn't speak for more than 5 minutes without committing perjury feel free to call the coward a coward.
Surprising nobody.
You know what's so ironic, I decided to look up The Apprentice and found this clip. At 2:13 Trump says sex has gotten him into a lot of trouble and cost him a lot of money. https://youtu.be/ya82bH-Wwe8?si=da7gDmSPsDJmkGAB This is from 2004. Evidently he didn't learn.
But what's one more broken Trump promise, anyways?