Gosh, that sounds like a mistake by the defense! Was the unnamed bookkeeper mute? Had a stroke just as they were going to testify?
Or was it obvious that their testimony would actually harm the defense, as the unnamed bookkeeper was going to tell the truth?
How is this unnamed bookkeeper not a material witness? Should his imaginary status infer some kind of immunity?
Imaginary immunity.
That’s the kind SCOTUS is currently debating.
If you have imaginary immunity, and your opponent has imaginary immunity, that is imaginary immunity squared, or minus-one-immunity.
It kind of makes sense. You can’t solve a general quadratic equation without imaginary numbers just like trumps innocence cannot by proven without an imaginary witness.
Moderating:
Ok. Immunity is not a consideration in this case, so it’s confusing for you all to discuss it here. Let’s drop the riffing on it now. Thanks.
Here is the Defendant’s Memorial Day post on Truth Social
“Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for ‘DEFAMATION.’”
According to Newsweek, there was actually a Memorial Day post before that one [bolding mine]:
In a post on Truth Social, Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee for president, shared an image showing himself saluting a grave and said, “We can never replace them. We can never repay them, but we can always remember. Today, that is what we are doing - we remember.”
But as for your quote, Newsweek says there was more after that:
“Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for ‘DEFAMATION,’” Trump wrote in the post.
"She didn’t know when the so-called event took place - sometime in the 1990’s - never filed a police report, didn’t have to produce the ‘dress’ that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half - Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)?
“The Rape charge was dropped by a jury! Or Arthur Engoron, the N.Y. State Wacko Judge who fined me almost 500 Million Dollars (UNDER APPEAL) for DOING NOTHING WRONG, used a Statute that has never been used before, gave me NO JURY, Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000 - Now for Merchan!”
For contrast, here is Biden’s message:
Since America’s founding, our service members have laid down their lives for an idea unlike any other: the idea of the United States. Today, as generations of heroes lie in eternal peace, we live by the light of liberty they kept burning. May God bless them, always.
Trump seems angry about something. I hope he can find to relax this weekend.
I’m wondering how he’s going to look in court tomorrow. I can’t imagine that he will get any sleep tonight.
Who the hell is “Alison Cooper”?
Or is he being “clever”?
Anderson Cooper, no doubt. What’s in doubt is if that was an autocorrect typo, or if Trump was insulting an openly gay journalist through calling him by a female name.
Would have been funnier, from our point of view, if he had referred to his interview with Alice Cooper.
So, basically, Trump’s campaign put out a respectful post honoring veterans on Memorial Day on his behalf and he said, “nonsense … I’ve got shit to say …” and off he went, rogue thumbs and all.
The dog whistle is so loud, it’s hurting my ears
Yes, but I think we have to attribute it to the actual author of that particular Memorial Day post. Who is someone other than Donald.
Getting in a reference to Replacement Theory, so as to thrill the MAGA faithful, provides a clue that it was Stephen Miller who was tasked with authoring “Trump’s” MD post (the one that strangely failed to mention E. Jean Carroll.)
He’s being homophobic. Get it? Allison is a girl’s name!! What a wit.
1: Trump types something homophobic about a well known gay man.
2: Someone, anyone says: could have been auto correct.
3: Get the fuck out of here.
I’m not so sure that this case rests on ‘do you believe Cohen?’ I’m hoping that the prosecution can point out several facts in relation to the question 'can we conclude that Trump knew about the payoff even if we don’t believe Cohen’s evidence (about a particular phone call with Trump, etc.)'—???
It seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that supports the likelihood that Trump did, indeed, know that hush money had been paid to Daniels on his behalf—AND that he knew about the efforts to disguise the payments and prevent voters from knowing about them.
This evidence falls into two major categories:
- Trump’s conduct during previous examples of hush money being paid. We have Cohen’s tape made during the pay-off-McDougal situation. We have Pecker’s testimony about discussions with Trump and about how Trump chose to handle both the McDougal and doorman situations. We have testimony about Trump being a micro-manager who wouldn’t let checks over $10K go out without him being told the details. We have Hope Hicks describing the reaction to the Access Hollywood tape and Trump’s concern that another scandal would hurt his election chances. And more.
- The ‘gross-up’ document. This in itself negates defense claims about Trump not knowing about either the pay-off or the re-imbursement scheme. Because why would Trump agree to paying Michael Cohen $420,000 without knowing what it was for? It’s utterly implausible that Trump would do such a thing–whether he was President or not. And: no one pays their lawyer and then gives them a duplicate amount ‘to make them whole’ on taxes—taxes would be due on the duplicate amount, too! The only plausible explanation of the large sums given to Cohen is that they needed him to Stay Loyal, and the way to do that was to pay him back what he’d put out to keep Daniels quiet and give him enough more besides so that he’d stay quiet himself. No alternate explanation the defense could dream up could make that document make sense. It makes sense one way and one way only: as repaying Cohen for what he’d put out to keep Daniels quiet, and giving him enough extra to keep him loyal.
I can’t see anything the defense can throw up: ‘Cohen is a liar’ or ‘Cohen is a thief’ or ‘legal expenses are legal’ or ‘Trump wasn’t paying any attention to that $420,000 that he was paying out’ or any other fairy tale they might spin, as being able to overcome those two points.
…
Okay, which one of these guys do I want to vote for for President? 
Wait… don’t rush me. Let me think…