Manhattan Prosecutors file criminal charges for Trump re Stormy Daniels case - ongoing discussion here (Guilty on all 34 counts, May 30, 2024)

Politics & Elections
3401

Yes, of course I want that, because proof never arises in a legal situation. If courts needed proof, then no wrongdoer would ever face sanction for any crime. What I want the court to have is extremely convincing evidence.

The fact that Habba made statements in her capacity as Trump’s official spokesperson is evidence that he directed her to make those statements. The fact that she’s still his official spokesperson, and has not been fired by him for misrepresenting his position, is extremely strong evidence that he so directed her.

That’s the same level of evidence that we have here. How do we know that the Twuths weren’t posted by some other person with access to Trump’s account? We don’t. But it doesn’t matter, because if someone has access to Trump’s account, he’s responsible for what they say. Just like he’s responsible for what any of his official spokespeople say.

3402

I can assure you, as someone who has proofread literally (yes, literally-literally) thousands of deposition transcript pages, few things disgust me more, to the point of despising the lawyer, than an attorney who twists a witness’s words over and over again.

I doubt I’m an outlier.

3403

I was curious about how the defense shenanigans would fly with the three lawyers on the jury.

3404

If I was a defense lawyer in a case like this, I would want my client’s loving and supportive wife beside my client at every opportunity. Greeting him at every break and clearly there for him.

Hmmmmm.

3405

I don’t think she really cares, do you?

3406

OK, that made me laugh.

3407

The exchange went something like this:

Trump attorney Susan Necheles: Isn’t it a fact you keep posting on social media how you’re going to be instrumental in putting President Trump in jail?

Daniels: Show me where I said I’d be “instrumental in putting President Trump in jail”.

Necheles: Alright. If we could show the witness J-43, please… Do you recognize that as your post?

Daniels: Yes. And I don’t see the word “instrumental” or “jail”.

Necheles: Blow it up a little bit more. (they display the post for everyone to see.) You were responding to the post, someone else’s post there?

Daniels: Yes. Someone calling me a “human toilet”. So I capitalized on the joke.

Necheles: The other post “Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels a/k/a the human toilet are star witnesses.” Right?

Daniels: Yes.

Necheles: You said, “Exactly. Making me the best person to flush the orange turd down.”

Daniels: Yes. …I don’t see “instrumental” or “jail” there. You’re putting words in my mouth.

Necheles: So, when you said you were “the best person to flush the orange turd down” you weren’t saying you were going to be instrumental in causing him to be convicted of a crime; that was not what you meant?

Daniels: No.

Necheles: What does that mean?

Daniels: I am pretty sure it is hyperbole. If somebody calls me a “toilet”, I say I can “flush” somebody. See how that works?

Necheles: You said you were going to “flush” President Trump?

Daniels: I didn’t say “President Trump”. It says “orange turd”. So if that’s what’s interpreted by you…

Necheles: What do you mean?

Daniels: I don’t know what I mean.

Necheles: You have no idea…

Daniels: I’m also not a toilet, so it’s all…

Necheles: I’m asking whether you knew what you meant when you said “orange turd”?

Daniels: Yes, I do.

Necheles: What did you mean?

Daniels: I meant I’m not a “human toilet”, so if they want to make fun of me, I can make fun of them.

Necheles: You don’t want to admit you meant Mr. Trump.

Daniels: I absolutely meant Mr. Trump.

Necheles: Why did you say no?

Daniels: It doesn’t say “instrumental” and “putting him in jail”.

I typed this out from my recording of Lawrence O’Donnell’s show tonight where he had all of this up on screen as he read it out. The closest I have to an actual cite for this is from CNN where they cover most of this back and forth.

I like the actual back and forth because it pretty much lays out what a fucking moron Necheles appears to be. If I could find a transcript of testimony there are plenty of other spots where it is clear all of these lawyers are making fools of themselves, presumably because they are letting DTJ dictate their line of questioning.

3408

The weird thing is that I’ve seen people in the MAGAsphere who seem to think Trump had a good day in court today. That Necheles absolutely torpedoed any credibility Daniels had as a witness. So often I feel like MAGA and I live in completely different worlds.

3409

I have not read the transcripts: why was Stephanie’s tweet even brought up? AIUI, cross has to draw on direct: this seems wildly far afield from direct. Is there a legitimate path to her direct testimony that can be drawn to this line of questioning?

3410

As I said above I haven’t found a transcript yet. This was transcribed by me from Lawrence O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC tonight and the CNN link quotes a lot of it.

I don’t have an answer about why her tweet was brought up or my whom. I just found the exchange rather hilarious and that it demonstrates how dimwitted Necheles appears to be and by extension the entire Trump team.

3411

For those looking for daily transcripts, here you go:

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/

Note that they’re typically a day or so behind. So, for example, today’s testimony should be posted before 5:00 pm Eastern tomorrow.

3412

My guess (and of course I’ll defer to the lawyers) is that Daniels, on direct, described her motivations for taking her various actions, and the defense response is to attack those motivations and attempt to show that she’s really just animated by irrational hatred for Trump and a desire to attack and destroy him. Weak, and based on the reporting rather ineptly pursued, but not wholly unconnected.

3413

I find myself wondering if she lacks skill (as I have heard various TV talking heads on MSNBC say she is a great lawyer) or if she is sabotaging her client on purpose.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to bag on her looks. But she’s not conventionally pretty in the way Trump likes his women to be. But while Trump would probably have preferred Alina Habba to be his attack dog here, his other lawyers probably told him that if that is the case he might as well just report directly to jail right now. So Necheles is part of Trump’s legal team but we can see he clearly does not like her. She is not his “type”. Whenever Trump entourage leaves the courtroom, she is always at the back and out of his sight line. He is probably furious that he has to be defended by a woman who is not attractive and I am certain she can perceive this coming off of Trump in waves (in addition to the BO, diaper stink, makeup fumes and ketchup scent). Why did she draw out a discussion about “the orange turd”? Because she knows exactly who that refers to and it’s one way she can get some passive-aggressive revenge on him while he just has to sit there and take it. I would bet one entire internet that if and when she writes a tell-all book, her descriptions of Trump will not be flattering.

3414

How often do you come across lawyers as bad as them in this respect?

3415

I did find that hilarious. I would’ve loved a bizarro Col. Jessup moment to have unfolded.

Necheles: To whom were you referring to when you said “orange turd?”

Daniels: I don’t know.

Necheles: You were referring to President Trump, correct?

Daniels: What do you think?

Necheles: I think I want you to admit Donald Trump is the “orange turd.”

Daniels: Do you think Donald Trump is an “orange turd?”

Necheles: YOU’RE GODDAMN RIGHT I DO!

3416

It’s tough to be a great lawyer when your hands are shackled by your client. There’s been talk, or at least people are saying, Trump is directing his attorneys as to how they should conduct his defense. Instead of taking their advice he is telling them how to do their jobs. It’s a bold move and I look forward to seeing how this strategy works out for him.

3417

While I can understand and appreciate Euphonius Polemic’s point of view, I think that smithsb’s comment is more on the mark. I don’t think that Donald and Melania have anything approaching a normal marriage. But each fulfills a need the other has: he gets a beautiful woman on his arm at social functions and when hosting heads of state or government at White House or Mar-a-Lago functions, and she gets a sugar daddy, who supports her in the lifestyle she likes and who has probably agreed to pay her off handsomely in the even of a breakup.

I imagine that Trump’s lawyers have asked Donald why she’s not there, for precisely the reason that EP stated. I cannot guess at his answer, unless he tells them that’s Melania’s business and to concentrate on the court proceedings. At any rate, if we can wonder about it, then I wonder how many of the jurors have noticed her absence too. Not that it should matter in the long run; the jurors should be concentrating on the facts brought out in court, and so far, it seems that they are. But still, Melania’s absence is noticeable.

3418

I suspect that a big part of that is the effect of their pre-existing biases. They think that a porn star or prostitute is an inherently untrustworthy type of person. So, the defense has established that she is, in fact, a porn star/prostitute type person, and so they’re free to not believe a word she said. Every discussion they’ll ever have about the case will be, “Well, yeah, but a porn star said that!” They’ll go to their death beds wondering, “Why did anyone believe that porn star?!?”

To them, it really is just as simple as “porn star == loser case”.

3419

Probably not well.

On Thursday, CNN suggested that Trump is telling his lawyers how to do their jobs. It’s one thing for a client to instruct their lawyers and to be advised by them as to their options and what can happen in all of them, and for the client to choose an offered option; it’s another entirely for the client to basically say (as I’m sure Trump has, though I have no proof), “Screw your advice and screw the rules of court and screw the rules of evidence; this is what I want and this is how you can do it, and you’re gonna deliver what I want.”

An attitude which CNN succinctly summed up as, “Trump is not a lawyer.”

I had a client like that once. No matter how I suggested we resolve the matter, he was intent on “playing lawyer,” demanding that I do things that were outside the norm for matters such as his, or were impossible under the rules, or were just plain unethical. I ended up withdrawing from the file.

I doubt we’ll see Trump’s lawyers withdraw, as they have likely received a huge (yuge?) retainer, and they’ll continue to milk it until it’s all used up. But they must be getting exasperated with him trying to tell them what approach to take and what to do and telling him that they cannot do that. I know I did.

3420

Sure, but MAGAts are not the jury. MAGAts will conveniently ignore the fact that (a) Daniels is credible, (b) whether the sex actually happened is irrelevant to the case, and (c) their orange hero is a lifelong sleazebag who has conned them for years and they’re still falling for it. It’s part (c) that’s hard for anyone to take.