Well yes, I wasn’t talking about the actual jury. I was responding to the “people in the MAGAsphere” discussion.
Her ability to think quickly on her feet appears to be quite remarkable. I suspect that a lot of people, because of her profession, assume that she’s stupid. She clearly isn’t and seems fully capable of out-playing Necheles.
This is a really interesting and satisfying take on things. And considering that she doesn’t look like a bog-standard Trump-woman I wouldn’t be surprised if this is accurate.
Considering the stress she’s under, I was very impressed with Ms. Daniel’s quick, smart, sharp replies. She held her own and ran circles around Necheles.
Given her job, I’m sure she’s quite used to getting stupid or “loaded” questions. Hazard of the profession.
Having only read (here) what she’s said, and not having heard her speak in public, she does seem to be very quick witted and intelligent, and likely very well prepared by her lawyers. It reminds me of something Dee Snider said about the PMRC hearings. I can’t find the actual line but he made a comment that they seemed to think, based on his looks and profession, that this was going to be some moron that probably doesn’t even know how to read, and it turns out they grossly underestimated him as he walked all over them.
Insulting Trump may have been a bonus, but doesn’t the defense have to get Stormy to say “orange turd” refers to Trump in order to connect statements she made referencing that phrase to Trump?
I did like her “I’m also not a toilet” comment.
I think there’s also extra points to be awarded in Ms. Daniels’s testimony for her “I don’t hit, but I will hit back” stance.
Kind of exactly what TFG has been saying about his Gag Order(s): that it inappropriately restrains his ability to counter-punch when those covered by the gag order attack him.
[That argument has succeeded, with – was it Merchan – calling those counter-punches ‘protected political speech’]
A taste of Trump’s own proverbial medicine.
Stormy’s tweets proved a while ago that she’s smart and funny.
reporting is cohen is on the list for monday. which makes me wonder how many people they have lined up for today.
The third option is more likely IMO: Trump is calling the shots. This whole strategy makes absolutely zero sense from a criminal defense point of view, but it’s exactly out of Trump’s playbook. These are competent lawyers and would not do this without being ordered to do so by their client. let’s all say it again: Worst. client. ever.
I do think a future appeal is factoring into their but not to the point of guiding their whole defense strategy. AFAIK “my lawyers had a really crap strategy because I told them to” is not grounds for appeal. But things like not objecting to Daniels testimony when it strayed into graphic details that weren’t pertinent to the case could be?
Except I think Judge Merchan has preempted that ground of appeal, by putting it on record that he was surprised that they hadn’t objected to some of the testimony.
He’s made it clear to the appeals court that he thought there were potential issues that Team Trump let slip. That may make it harder for them to raise it on appeal.
Yeah. He is no stranger to litigation, but he prefers to use it as a club, making things too expensive for folk who may well have meritorious claims against him. He’s too stupid - or at least too inflexible - to appreciate that this is a different setting, he is not calling the shots, and a different approach might be called for. Unfortunate that we do not get to see this applied in the other lawsuits…
It is almost scary. It will be curious to see what sort of defense they put on. But this is shaping up to appear a “no brainer.” A guilty verdict seems unavoidable. Scary because of the possibility that the jury will contain someone who actually has no brain.
To clarify, there’s no physical evidence of the encounter. Daniels’ testimony is evidence of the encounter.
Well, plus a $130K payment to keep the story under wraps.
My concern is that they’ll think it’s funny to object to everything until Merchan tells them to knock it off, then they can say ‘he told us to raise objections, then when we did he told us not to’.
Something I keep wondering about is if they’ll try to appeal based on Merchan not being strict enough with Trump. Could they argue that the only reason for Trump’s acting out was that Merchan never reeled him in and had he imposed penalties more on par with a ‘regular’ person, Trump wouldn’t have behaved like that. Basically a ‘your honor, the only reason my client hung himself is because you handed him all that rope’ defense. They might be right, but it’s not Merchan’s problem. Hopefully pushing back on the objections (or lack thereof) issue helps to make that point.
I’m not an attorney, but I used to handle H-1B Visa sponsorships and other immigration issues at my company. I basically explained to hiring managers how the sponsorship process worked, how much it would likely cost, and served as a liason between the company and our attorneys. On two occasions I had employees who attempted to dictate the application process to our attorney through me. i.e. They’d tell me when and how to file ignoring the advice of counsel. At least for me, I was able to stomp down on it pretty hard because the employer controls the process not the employee. But it was still a pain in my neck and our attorney.
I take a certain amount of delight that Melania isn’t there only because Trump attacked Nikki Haley about her husband’s absence from the campaign trail.
4Channing the hearing might be funny, and it might amuse their client, but I suspect the jury will be less entertained. This strategy would be peak Fuck Around, Find Out.
It’s probably also worth remembering the page from Trump’s dog-eared Roy Cohn playbook.
If anybody ever hits Trump, Trump hits back … hard. If the club he can wield is attorneys, then attorneys he wields.
He’ll spend $100k to avoid paying a legitimate $25k debt. He views it as a ‘head on a pike’ deterrent – the leviathan guard dog in the yard.
And that’s when somebody does have a legitimate claim.
But for Trump to write $400+k in checks to Michael Cohen to keep quiet something that never happened?
Nah. Profoundly out of character. Basically, inconceivable (to me).
I think of the typical Sovereign Citizen court appearances whenever someone suggests that a defense might play these “I’m not touching you!” type games.
The courts are very experienced in seeing through obvious bullshit, and the judge is in the position of telling them that they see through the obvious bullshit. And when someone whines “Who is it who decides what is bullshit?!?”, the answer is, The Goddamn Judge. It’s literally what we’re paying them for.
Having the power of law behind you is pretty awesome. It’s not like having to deal with a troll on a message board. You can legally find them full of shit, and no amount of whining on the troll’s part will change that.