You are too kind. I have no doubt that everything Trump has ever done has been totally without regard for ethics or law.
Or logic. Like staring into an eclipse.
Or having sex with a porn star, who’s had probably hundreds of partners (I think Stormy Daniels said she’s been in at least 150 movies and who knows how many personal partners), without a condom.
Supposedly Trump asked about it, but STI tests can have false negatives.
Tertiary syphilis would explain a lot.
One of the countless things he’s said that should have been enough to rule out a POTUS run, was words to the effect that while he got out of serving in the Vietnam war he considers all the STIs he was exposed to in that era “his Vietnam war”
Actually, I believe that she testified that she worked for a company that required its actors to use condoms in their films.
Really, she was the one taking a risk fucking donald without protection.
And why is having sex with a porn star supposed to be some prestigious thing, anyway? He managed to convince a woman to sleep with him, who’s slept with hundreds of other men before?
Ooh. Slut shaming. Stay classy dude.
Moderating:
We’re getting really far afield of what’s actually happening in this case and discussing many tangential things. Time to stop now.
@hajario, dial it back. You’re engaging in a personal attack.
Totally. Especially as the chances of him doing something as selfless as take a god-damned STI test after he exposed himself to risk of STIs while married is zero.
I don’t really buy the “trumps showing signs of tertiary syphilis” story. But Trump refusing to get tested or treated despite having the best medical care on the planet is 100% believable
Now I’m going to be forced to go on PornHub to “do my own research”.
As this relates to the trial, it doesn’t seem like Trump ever considers the consequences of his actions in the moment, such as protecting his campaign by disguising hush money payments as legal fees. As his niece says, Trump’s never really had to face any until recently.
I agree. “When you’re rich, they let you do it” can apply to more than grabbing women. Trump’s approach to life is, “I’m rich; I can do whatever I want,” whether it is ethical or not. And if that’s worked for him so far, why stop now?
As for the law, Trump is no lawyer, and beyond knowing the essentials (e.g. don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t run red lights, etc.), has no more knowledge of the law than Joe and Jane Average. That’s why there are lawyers; to explain the law to clients, and to help them make their way through a very complicated field. But unlike most people who engage a lawyer, Trump doesn’t want legal advice that is the most sensible approach and correct for the situation, no matter how much it casts him in a bad light; he wants legal advice that conforms to his view of the way things should be and not necessarily the way they are. Because after all, “When you’re rich, they let you do it.”
I largely agree too. But a key point is he does have a lot experience of civil cases, he’s been involved in far more of them than your average Joe. And as he’s insisting his lawyers use the same strategy that’s worked for him over the years, even though its doomed to fail in a criminal case.
I’m constantly reminded of that old Simpsons episode where Homer had come up with some computer application, and at the end Bill Gates shows up at his door (with a couple of goons) to “buy him out”. Gates says “OK boys, buy him out!” and the goons start trashing the place. Homer says “I thought you were going to pay me!” and Gates replies “You don’t think I became a billionaire by writing checks, do you?”
IANAL
Any kind of deal, plea bargain, immunity, business, or anything else requires trust and good faith between parties. If one party acts in bad faith, then he won’t be trusted the next time he tries to negotiate a deal.
If state prosecutors promise immunity, and then the Feds prosecute anyway, it would jeopardize all future immunity negotiations. Defense lawyers would be reluctant to negotiate deals, if there is a history of deals being ignored. It would also cause mistrust between state and federal agencies.
I would therefore expect the Feds to respect the deal.
But even there, he mostly loses – like the huge losses in the E Jean Carroll case, the Trump Org fraud case, almost every single election “fraud” case, many lawsuits that he’s attempted, etc. His main strategy for “winning” is just to harass his opponents until they give up.
And yeah that’s what he’s trying to in his criminal cases (hence his fury at the gag order). He fails to realize that’s not how criminal law works.
The recent civil losses are fairly atypical for him (although even there he’s still not actually had to pay our yet), generally his combined strategy of denying everything, delaying and harassing his opponent has stood up pretty well over the years (because he’s rich you can get away with it if you’re rich). He seriously doesn’t comprehend how things have changed now he’s a criminal defendant
What research? I’d think you could just look up the transcripts to find out who she worked for and Google the company’s safety practices.
That’s a challenging wank.
She worked for (with? I don’t know how the business works, but she testified that she was a producer) Wicked Pictures.