I saw the Todd Blanche interview on Caitlin Collins’ show last Thursday evening. I admit I wasn’t paying as close attention as I should, but I’m pretty sure he said that one basis for an appeal is that the prosecution called Stormy Daniels as a witness.
How does that give them grounds for appeal?
I thought that so long as Trump denied ever having sex with Daniels the prosecution really had no choice in calling her to testify that it did in fact happen.
In my non-lawyer recollection from the news coverage, I think her testimony went beyond what had been agreed to. And when she implied in her testimony that the sex may not have been completely consensual, it might have prejudiced the jury against Trump. As I recall, Trump’s lawyers did not object at the time, which may damage their basis for appeal.
I would guess Trump had a tiny hand in that decision.
It’s the same theory that the prosecution should have called witnesses that would have been beneficial to Trump but never did.
IOW utter bollocks.
I suspect you’re correct, and as evidence
In case the link doesn’t work and/or anyone is adverse to X, it’s a clip from ABCs This Week with George Stephanopoulos of an interview with Trump’s attorney Will Scharf where he states that Trump is going to cooperate with the pre-sentence investigation. As with his testifying, the best evidence that Trump won’t do it is his saying that he will.
But but but… Trump now tells us that he was NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY.
Do you think he might be lying about this? < /s >
Yes. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin had an interesting comment about what the lying–in this case about dollars donated, but this applies to the crowd sizes and all the rest, too–may indicate:
The constant lying, in other words, does more than just boost Trump’s ego (though it clearly does do that). It creates a delusional world in which Trump is so popular and inevitable that we who oppose him may as well give up.
Thank all that’s holy that the guilty verdict puts a hole in the inevitability/invulnerability theory. But it’s a hole that Trump and his minions will be trying mightily to plug–with, unfortunately, the aid of the main-stream media.
Gift link:
And, I think, it also primes his supporters to believe his election-denial claims, since if he were as popular as he claims, there’d be no way he could possibly lose a fair election.
Yeah, there are plenty of examples of Trump supporters saying this about 2020, too–often as justification for the Jan 6 2021 violence, sadly enough.
Depends on what you mean (or he sees) as “make worse.”
Won’t refusing to submit to this unjust procedure and fearlessly drawing the ire of the judge (Biden’s personal puppet) actually enhance his martyr/hero status among his worshippers-- and maybe increase donations?
I dunno. It hurts to try to think [excuse the expression] like him.
We see that argument on this board all the time from people who oppose Trump. Unfortunately the propaganda works.
I’m not sure I understand you–you’re saying that people here who oppose Trump believes he’ll inevitably win in November–and that this will happen due to his immense popularity?
I know that some (including me from time to time) have said that we fear shenanigans will give Trump the Electoral College vote advantage.
But I don’t think I’ve seen Trump opponents saying they think he’d win the popular vote–much less that he’d do so legitimately.
??
No, that he can’t possible go to jail because he’s Trump, none of his other court cases will ever see a resolution because he’s Trump, etc. Every time you point out when he loses at something, well that’s the exception. They’re all exceptions, this huge pile of failures he has had over the years. He’s still somehow invincible.
Note that I’m mostly talking about his legal cases because this is a thread about a legal case, not the election.
Okay, but I’m still unclear: you believe a number of anti-Trump Dopers believe Trump wins all court cases/won’t go to jail, due to him supposedly being super-popular?
I do know that some anti-Trump posters have expressed cynicism about particular aspects of Trump’s adventures with American jurisprudence–for example, about choices made by Aileen Cannon and by the GOP SCOTUS Justices.
I’m not sure that these have been explained as being due to Trump being popular, though.
To an extent yes. He has too much support for anyone to let that happen. And more than that, the lies of his omnipotence are believed even by those who loathe him.
He’s facing crushing debt? No worries, his followers will pay for it. If anything bad happens to him, a wave of people will rise up and fight for him so we need to be careful. I see those concerns here frequently. I think it’s an illusion.
“Yes indeed” to the bolded. The guy is not magic. When it comes crashing down, it’ll be sudden - no foreshadowing. And there won’t be anyone if consequence doing anything about it anfter the fact, either. At least not in numbers.
Well, none of us know the future. But I will say I haven’t seen anyone here at the Dope arguing that if Donald skates on his court cases it will be because “he has too much support for anyone to let that happen.” I have seen people saying that he might skate on his court cases due to the fact that Cannon thinks she will thereby secure herself a SCOTUS seat or that current Justices are being literally paid by one-percenters who like the idea of an oligarchy such as the one Putin runs.
But I haven’t seen anyone saying that Trump will skate because he is supported by too many individual Americans.
Again, I do see anti-Trump posters commenting on the number of times Trump has gotten away with stuff–but I haven’t seen any of them stating that he does so due to being omnipotent. Instead, they usually comment on the fact that some billionaires apparently believe that the autocracy that Trump will build will be of personal advantage to them, so that they’re willing to put their money behind attempts to support him, whether in the courts (as with Clarence Thomas’s benefactor Harlan Crow) or electorally.
As I remember the defence did not object. in fact there were times the judge objected for them!
As I understand it, they can’t appeal on that basis.
Was that definitively answered? As I recall, they shortly thereafter (I think the same day) asked for a mistrial because of said testimony. While Judge Merchan did press them on why they didn’t object when it was happening, I thought the fact that they asked for the mistrial did preserve an objection of sorts in the record.
But what do I know? Hopefully one of our attorneys can clarify.
Think of it like a traffic ticket. You’re in front of the judge, and you’re found guilty. Technically, at that point, you’re being held accountable.
But on the way out, you have to pay the clerk. That’s when you’re genuinely and in reality accountable. That’s when you get your license back. Never before then.