Jury finally hears BOMBSHELL evidence against Trump

[Subduction Zone]

People who repeat Trump's line that he can't get a fair trial in New York should consider this:

Trump and his attorneys were involved in the selection of the jury. So Trump is saying that his lawyers are incompetent.

To convict Trump, all 12 jurors have to reach a guilty verdict. For Trump to be acquitted only ONE juror has to make that conclusion.

Well to be fair, when they work for Trump they have to be. Did you see how his lead attorney backed him up when Trump tried to claim that he could not testify? The problem with working for Trump as an attorney is the same as a scientist trying to work for AiG. Who you work for and what you promise to do as a result of working for that person can make that person look like an idiot. What is worse is that Trump forces his attorneys to act like fools and then he will likely try to claim that he had incompetent attorneys working for him and appeal for that reason. I wonder if he did that whether his attorneys would then be free to testify against him? It sounds only fair to me that he would lose the right to privileged information in regards to one's attorneys if that was don.

Oh well, I rambled a bit here. It is looking extremely bad for Trump and his only hope is that a true believer slipped through the vetting process.

 

[Ebionite]

Yeah, poor you.

No skin off my nose. Trump's current case is a symptom of the decline of the west.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just read a report that included two of yesterday's witnesses. Both contend that the money came from his personal accounts, and the instructions to write the checks did not come from Trump. Now it sounds like it's all going to hang on Cohen's testimony. He may just get off if they show a solid reasonable doubt. But, in any case, the probability of a split jury has increased, IMO.

Wait, are you trying to argue that Trump did not know? From what I understand it is clear that Trump knew, and the checks from his personal account had to have been written by him.

 

[Spice]

Wait, are you trying to argue that Trump did not know? From what I understand it is clear that Trump knew, and the checks from his personal account had to have been written by him.

Not at all. I'm sure he knew. And, no, he does not have to be the check writer on his personal account. It's not unusual for personal assistants or personal accountants to write checks.

What I'm saying is the "proof" has become more volatile with these two witness testimonies. Trumpet IS a master manipulator, and has absolutely no problem with letting others take the fall.

In a court of law there is a massive gap between "clearly" per intuition, or even past history, and per facts and direct testimony.

 

[McBell]

Ben Szemkus on Stormy Daniels, NXIVM, Anthony & Huma, James Alefantis...​

A five year old video by a guy who is "remembering" a party he is as far from sober as one can be without passing out from 11 years before the video ...

And you think this is "reliable"?

Your standards are so low no one has to worry about tripping on them.

 

[Copernicus]

Except for the politcal connections and Stormy Daniels being part of the story, of course.


Szemkus's story is relevant to the context of political animus.

Nobody disputes that there is political animus both to and from Donald Trump. That is irrelevant to the facts. As for your Szemkus video, it struck me that the person who posted it seemed concerned about innuendo surrounding Donald Trump, but not Stormy Daniels. All you have to go on is a half-hour monologue by some guy who appears to be standing in his bedroom and droning on about his hazy memories, which you apparently decided to take seriously.

 

[Copernicus]

I just read a report that included two of yesterday's witnesses. Both contend that the money came from his personal accounts, and the instructions to write the checks did not come from Trump. Now it sounds like it's all going to hang on Cohen's testimony. He may just get off if they show a solid reasonable doubt. But, in any case, the probability of a split jury has increased, IMO.

Yes. The checks had his signature on them. That was to establish that Donald Trump himself knew about the hush money payoffs. They had to transport the checks to the White House for his signature and then transport them back to be sent off to Michael Cohen. That corroborates a part of the testimony that Michael Cohen will testify to later. Cohen already served jail time for a crime in which Donald Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator.

 

[Ebionite]

That is irrelevant to the facts.

It's relevant to the facts that connect Stormy Daniels to Trump's political adversaries.

 

[McBell]

It's relevant to the facts that connect Stormy Daniels to Trump's political adversaries.

Do you think the "girls only" part of the party was Stormy Daniels and the other girls plotting against Trump?

 

[Copernicus]

[Nobody disputes that there is politic al animus both to and from Donald Trump.] That is irrelevant to the facts.

It's relevant to the facts that connect Stormy Daniels to Trump's political adversaries.

I included and put into boldface the part of my post that you replied to but did not include in your reply. What I put in boldface establishes the context in which my remark was made, so you should have included it in your reply. Donald Trump is a polarizing figure no matter who testifies in any of his trials, so you could just as well say that every witness connects Trump to his political adversaries. It has nothing to do with Stormy Daniels per se. The animus to and from Donald Trump is never going to go away no matter who testifies. Stormy Daniels supplies motive for his hush money payoff to her, but not to the catch-and-kill story that Pecker testified to regarding Karen McDougal. So this trial is not about just Stormy Daniels, but Trump's efforts to cover up stories about his affairs that he felt would have an impact on his election. And it is about the falsification of business records in order to cover up election interference.

You keep focusing on the salacious affair with Stormy Daniels as if that were what the prosecution was trying to prove. No. Those affairs are part of the backdrop to the story--testimony that explains why Trump allegedly broke the law--but he is being tried for breaking the law, not having affairs outside of marriage. The man is well know to be a philanderer. He had that reputation long before he ran for the presidency or married Melania. He may be a disgusting person for behaving like so many philandering men (e.g. Bill Clinton), but that is not a crime that he is charged with.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I included and put into boldface the part of my post that you replied to but did not include in your reply. What I put in boldface establishes the context in which my remark was made, so you should have included it in your reply. Donald Trump is a polarizing figure no matter who testifies in any of his trials, so you could just as well say that every witness connects Trump to his political adversaries. It has nothing to do with Stormy Daniels per se. The animus to and from Donald Trump is never going to go away no matter who testifies. Stormy Daniels supplies motive for his hush money payoff to her, but not to the catch-and-kill story that Pecker testified to regarding Karen McDougal. So this trial is not about just Stormy Daniels, but Trump's efforts to cover up stories about his affairs that he felt would have an impact on his election. And it is about the falsification of business records in order to cover up election interference.

You keep focusing on the salacious affair with Stormy Daniels as if that were what the prosecution was trying to prove. No. Those affairs are part of the backdrop to the story--testimony that explains why Trump allegedly broke the law--but he is being tried for breaking the law, not having affairs outside of marriage. The man is well know to be a philanderer. He had that reputation long before he ran for the presidency or married Melania. He may be a disgusting person for behaving like so many philandering men (e.g. Bill Clinton), but that is not a crime that he is charged with.

Ever get this feeling you are beating your head on the wall when talking to some people?

 

[Copernicus]

Ever get this feeling you are beating your head on the wall when talking to some people?

Yes, and I'm sure that they get the same feeling when talking to me, but it is unrealistic to expect people to change their minds suddenly because of my argument. Having to defend one's opinions promotes critical thinking, and people do change their minds on big issues when they see a reason to change. It's just that they have to convince themselves to change after weighing their own opinions against arguments made by a lot of people, not just me. Also, the discussion helps me to understand what motivates those who disagree with me. Sometimes I discover that I am wrong, and I need to adjust my own thinking about an issue.

 

[Ebionite]

so you could just as well say that every witness connects Trump to his political adversaries

The difference is that according the story Stormy Daniels was in the same social circle as a politically connected pizza maker who was at the centre of Pizzagate, and she is also where the current accusations against Trump start. Alison Mack's connection to sex trafficking of course relates to the central allegations of Pizzagate. It's not hard to find a photo of Mack with panda eyes on the internet.

 

[Copernicus]

The difference is that according the story Stormy Daniels was in the same social circle as a politically connected pizza maker who was at the centre of Pizzagate, and she is also where the current accusations against Trump start. Alison Mack's connection to sex trafficking of course relates to the central allegations of Pizzagate. It's not hard to find a photo of Mack with panda eyes on the internet.

Ebionite, I'm now backing away quietly towards the exit.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The difference is that according the story Stormy Daniels was in the same social circle as a politically connected pizza maker who was at the centre of Pizzagate, and she is also where the current accusations against Trump start. Alison Mack's connection to sex trafficking of course relates to the central allegations of Pizzagate. It's not hard to find a photo of Mack with panda eyes on the internet.

Pizzagate? Oh good grief.

 

[Ebionite]

Ebionite, I'm now backing away quietly towards the exit.

He who abandons the field loses by default.

 

[Copernicus]

He who abandons the field loses by default.

I see your point. The video below portrays the historic defeat of King Arthur by the Black Knight.

 

[Ebionite]

I see your point. The video below portrays the historic defeat of King Arthur by the Black Knight.

Ridicule doesn't work well in the context of severe trauma of the defenceless.

 

[McBell]

He who abandons the field loses by default.

The weak favor empty victory.

 

[Copernicus]

Ridicule doesn't work well in the context of severe trauma of the defenceless.

Sorry, but I didn't feel that your reference to Pizzagate deserved a serious reply. And I did not think of you as defenseless.