In court, Stormy Daniels pulled a Trump on Trump

[robosmith]

In court, Stormy Daniels pulled a Trump on Trump

Quote

As Stormy Daniels testified in the hush money case, Trump’s angry response was unmistakable.

“A very revealing day,” Donald Trump said on the 15th floor of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse here after his hush money trial adjourned for the evening on Tuesday.

And how.

The trial, which on Monday had been in the doldrums of bookkeepers’ testimony about general ledgers and accounts payable, exploded into its most memorable day yet with the arrival on the witness stand of adult-film actress Stormy Daniels herself.

For nearly a decade, Trump has been the nation’s main chaos agent: He causes the mayhem, and the rest of us have to react, adjust, adapt and try to stay calm. But for one day, somebody else was causing the chaos, and Trump and his lawyers were the ones who had to react and adapt. They had to ride out Stormy’s storm.

She was a worthy adversary. Daniels attacked her target with the very blend of vulgar accusations and insinuations without evidence that Trump routinely uses on others. In effect, she pulled a Trump on Trump. She was furious, out of control and uninhibited by what even prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, out of the jury’s hearing, referred to as her witness’s “credibility issues.” Trump, glowering from the defense table, tasted his own bitter medicine. 

Of course, Trump will not respond under oath in court, cause he cannot without opening the door to HIS EXTENSIVE CREDIBILITY ISSUES. AKA, HIS PERJURY.

[gatomontes99]

Perjury? What perjury was that?

Everyone is saying Stormy torpedoed the case. The next question the defense is going to asking is to the "fixer" and they are going to ask "Mr. Cohen, were you lying then or now?"

Cohen has no credibility. Next week, the NDA case will fail. The documents case has already failed, when Fani gets dismissed from the GA case it will also fail and that will leave the bogus fraud suit that is now under serious jeopardy. The banana republic is starting to tumble. The democratic republic and justice system are starting to prevail. As in every movie, the bad guys got to a crescendo that looked insurmountable and then lost spectacularly.

 

[robosmith]

33 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Perjury? What perjury was that?

The perjury which he will commit IF he testifies in the case like he promised. ㊙️ he won't.

33 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Everyone is saying Stormy torpedoed the case.

You mean everyone on FOS LIES? LMAO

33 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The next question the defense is going to asking is to the "fixer" and they are going to ask "Mr. Cohen, were you lying then or now?"

Cohen has no credibility. Next week, the NDA case will fail. The documents case has already failed, when Fani gets dismissed from the GA case it will also fail and that will leave the bogus fraud suit that is now under serious jeopardy. The banana republic is starting to tumble. The democratic republic and justice system are starting to prevail. As in every movie, the bad guys got to a crescendo that looked insurmountable and then lost spectacularly.

Cohen doesn't need credibility. Everything he's going to say has already been corroborated by PREVIOUS testimony.

Maybe you should listen to HONEST reporting instead of FOS LIES.

[gatomontes99]

42 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The perjury which he will commit IF he testifies in the case like he promised. ㊙️ he won't.

You mean everyone on FOS LIES? LMAO

Cohen doesn't need credibility. Everything he's going to say has already been corroborated by PREVIOUS testimony.

Maybe you should listen to HONEST reporting instead of FOS LIES.

Lol, so you made upna perjury charge and asserted it like fact? Yeah. Ok.

Who is FOS lies? Seriously.

How about CNN:

CNN via Msn.com

"However, Honig said the cross-examination was “disastrous” for the prosecution:     

But the cross-exam, boy. Her responses were disastrous. I mean, “Do you hate Donald Trump?” “Yes.” Of course, she does. That’s a big deal. When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that’s a big damn deal! And she’s putting out tweets, fantasizing about him being in jail. That really undermines the credibility.     

The fact that she owes him $500,000 by order of a court, owes Donald Trump a half million dollars, and said, “I will never pay him. I will defy a court order,” the defense is gonna say, “She’s willing to defy a court order. She’s not willing to respect an order from a judge. Why is she gonna respect this oath she took? So, I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam."

 

[robosmith]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lol, so you made upna perjury charge and asserted it like fact? Yeah. Ok.

Can you even read:

Quote

Trump will not respond under oath in court, cause he cannot without opening the door to HIS EXTENSIVE CREDIBILITY ISSUES. AKA, HIS PERJURY.

Do you understand the meaning of "opening the door" and "will not respond in court"? LMAO

 

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Who is FOS lies? Seriously.

FOS = full of shit. AKA Fox

Do you seriously not know how FOS destroyed their credibility? LMAO

 

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

How about CNN:

CNN via Msn.com

"However, Honig said the cross-examination was “disastrous” for the prosecution:     

But the cross-exam, boy. Her responses were disastrous. I mean, “Do you hate Donald Trump?” “Yes.” Of course, she does. That’s a big deal. When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that’s a big damn deal! And she’s putting out tweets, fantasizing about him being in jail. That really undermines the credibility.     

The fact that she owes him $500,000 by order of a court, owes Donald Trump a half million dollars, and said, “I will never pay him. I will defy a court order,” the defense is gonna say, “She’s willing to defy a court order. She’s not willing to respect an order from a judge. Why is she gonna respect this oath she took? So, I thought it went quite poorly on cross-exam."

 

One person (not "everyone") thought the direct was "plausible," but the cross "went quite poorly." AKA NOT disastrous.

I have heard MANY saying the prosecution was pleased with her testimony. Trump's lawyers WERE NOT.

Stormy Daniels's salacious testimony angers Trump team

[Fluffypants]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

One person (not "everyone") thought the direct was "plausible," but the cross "went quite poorly." AKA NOT disastrous.

I have heard MANY saying the prosecution was pleased with her testimony. Trump's lawyers WERE NOT.

Stormy Daniels's salacious testimony angers Trump team

Of course the prosecution in going to say that because they have to put a happy face on it and the defense has to appear to be mad but at worst the Stormy testimony was a net zero because cross destroyed her credibility, the woman claimed to talk to dead people admitted to hating Trump and wanting to see him in jail.

All it really did was increase the chance that the conviction will be overturned on appeal, since Weinstein just had an conviction overturned for the same thing. Stormy's testimony had 0 to do with the facts of the case. This is about falsifying business records and all she knew is she got checks from Cohen and not who was paying her.

Don't forget  even if he falsified business records they still have to prove that he did it with the sole intent to break Campaign laws to be able claim it as a felony and the FEC has already looked into it and said there was nothing there. Bragg essentially has to convince the jury that Trump broke a law that he was investigated and was never even indicted for along with the falsifying business record law beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember he doesn't have a conviction for the other law to fall back on.

Cohen is the very definition of reasonable doubt, the guy is a convicted liar. He was just busted for lying to a court like 2 weeks ago. He hates Trump for not bailing him out and for not putting him in the administration. He has proven he doesn't give a darn about perjuring himself he only cares about himself.

 

 

 

 

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

Of course the prosecution in going to say that because they have to put a happy face on it and the defense has to appear to be mad but at worst the Stormy testimony was a net zero because cross destroyed her credibility, the woman claimed to talk to dead people admitted to hating Trump and wanting to see him in jail.

All it really did was increase the chance that the conviction will be overturned on appeal, since Weinstein just had an conviction overturned for the same thing. Stormy's testimony had 0 to do with the facts of the case. This is about falsifying business records and all she knew is she got checks from Cohen and not who was paying her.

Don't forget  even if he falsified business records they still have to prove that he did it with the sole intent to break Campaign laws to be able claim it as a felony and the FEC has already looked into it and said there was nothing there. Bragg essentially has to convince the jury that Trump broke a law that he was investigated and was never even indicted for along with the falsifying business record law beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember he doesn't have a conviction for the other law to fall back on.

Cohen is the very definition of reasonable doubt, the guy is a convicted liar. He was just busted for lying to a court like 2 weeks ago. He hates Trump for not bailing him out and for not putting him in the administration. He has proven he doesn't give a darn about perjuring himself he only cares about himself.

Nope. Sole intent is NOT REQUIRED. There can be a secondary intent and that does not negate the criminal intent.

Trump is  being prosecuted under NY state law, NOT federal law, and the FEC was dismantled under Trump when he took office to prevent any prosecution by it.

Cohen is corroborated by SEVERAL OTHER SOURCES PRECISELY because of his credibility issues.

Have you  even been watching the trial COVERAGE? LMAO

[CdnFox]

She's actually not doing well. 

This is  a kind of rediculous attempt to spin a poor response into some sort of victory, but in reality her testimony has left he door wide open for an appeal and won't make anyone believe her story more. 

it's become pretty obvious that she came forward when she did because she thought she could get more money just before an election. She said as much on the stand and then tried to walk it back.  So that's going to hurt her credibility. 

[Fluffypants]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Nope. Sole intent is NOT REQUIRED. There can be a secondary intent and that does not negate the criminal intent.

Trump is  being prosecuted under NY state law, NOT federal law, and the FEC was dismantled under Trump when he took office to prevent any prosecution by it.

Cohen is corroborated by SEVERAL OTHER SOURCES PRECISELY because of his credibility issues.

Have you  even been watching the trial COVERAGE? LMAO

Then where is the campaign violation charge how the hell can get a conviction based off something not charged? If you dont have enough to charge him for campaign violations how the hell can you charge him as if he was charged with a campaign violation.

Do you see how this doesn't make  sense?

Yes i have been watching the coverage and none of this has linked Trump personally to falsifying business records.

[herbie]

No need to drain the swamp when you can elect a guy who lives in the sewer. Buy a Proud To Be Deplorable hat. Wear it backwards and carry a Bolo bat.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Then where is the campaign violation charge how the hell can get a conviction based off something not charged? If you dont have enough to charge him for campaign violations how the hell can you charge him as if he was charged with a campaign violation.

Do you see how this doesn't make  sense?

Yes i have been watching the coverage and none of this has linked Trump personally to falsifying business records.

There are written notes of the plans between Cohen and Weisselberg, and Trump signed the CHECKS to reimburse Cohen. There is testimony confirming that Trump is a micromanager who would never let over $400K slip through his fingers without know exactly what it was for.

Just cause you're IGNORANT of the case in whole does not mean that Bragg does not have ALL THE BASES COVERED.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

No need to drain the swamp when you can elect a guy who lives in the sewer. Buy a Proud To Be Deplorable hat. Wear it backwards and carry a Bolo bat.

You really shouldn't drink and post. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

There are written notes of the plans between Cohen and Weisselberg, and Trump signed the CHECKS to reimburse Cohen. There is testimony confirming that Trump is a micromanager who would never let over $400K slip through his fingers without know exactly what it was for.

Just cause you're IGNORANT of the case in whole does not mean that Bragg does not have ALL THE BASES COVERED.

then why is the case struggling? Why did they need daniel's testimony in the first place. 

I doubt very much trump signs very many of his own cheques.  And i'm sure he authorizes lawyer's bills all the time. His business isn't some small little organization that writes 4 cheques a month   Bill comes in - ahhh it's from the lawyer, fine, authorized.   And the accountant looks at it and says 'lawyer reimbursement, put it under legal". 

This is why they have to prove he did it knowing that it should have been a campaign contribution. 

Funny story - Obama got busted for major campaign funding fraud and so did Hillary.  I don't remember you demanding they be put in jail for it... did you?  

[Nationalist]

This is ridiculous. The charges are unprovable.

100,000+ showed up in NJ yesterday to see Trump. No Middle East protestors...no terrorist flags...no BS. Just happy thousands celebrating the inevitability of common sense.

Hell it even came with the endorsement of local football heroes. 

As for Brandon...he was out west...begging for money...

 

[Fluffypants]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

There are written notes of the plans between Cohen and Weisselberg, and Trump signed the CHECKS to reimburse Cohen. There is testimony confirming that Trump is a micromanager who would never let over $400K slip through his fingers without know exactly what it was for.

Just cause you're IGNORANT of the case in whole does not mean that Bragg does not have ALL THE BASES COVERED.

Notice what you said plans between Cohen and Weisselberg there is one person missing there, Trump.

He is elevating a misdemeanor to a felony without a corresponding crime, you can't just choose what is and isn't a felony.

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Notice what you said plans between Cohen and Weisselberg there is one person missing there, Trump.

He is elevating a misdemeanor to a felony without a corresponding crime, you can't just choose what is and isn't a felony.

 

To make it worse, the only person who has any evidence that would suggest that it is a crime is someone who has been convicted themselves, perjured themselves numerous times, and whose defense is I'm often so blindly loyal that I do stupid things because at the moment it seems like a good idea", which the defense will note means he could be doing that right now to protect himself and frankly likely is.

So what they are doing is an old legal tactic whereby they try and come up with a number of unrelated things that they can prove to mask the fact that they can't prove the one thing that they want to. They know that people's brains tend to work in such a way that if you make nine accusations that have nothing to do with the case and prove them right that people's brains assume that the 10th one must also be correct even if it isn't proved

Here's a fun game: Save the following as fast as you can.

then answer the question at the end. Ready? Go:  "Silk silk silk." What does a cow drink?

No.  It drinks water. You said milk didn't you. Try it with your friends, 90 percent will say milk. 

That's what they're trying to do with the jury.