Trump has already attack family members, so that ship has sailed. At this point, I don’t see what Merchan has to worry about in regards to an appeal. I don’t expect him to start by locking Trump up, but fines seem appropriate, and if that doesn’t work then incarceration.
Several witnesses, during their testimony, will probably acknowledge past departures from conventional morality. If meriting discussion, I would rather do it then. I fear discussing it now would risk a thread hijack.
Moderating:
It would. Thanks for being mindful about this.
As a response to how a witness with a questionable past of any sort should be handled by the party offering that witness, yes, the direct examination should definitely go into that to anticipate and as much as possible defuse any hay the defense would like to make of it. Standard courtroom tactic.
How did it come to be that Stormy sold this story to Cohen. Someone on Team Trump heard Stormy was going to sell this story and then they contacted Stormy to buy it before she did that?
Or more basically, was the initial contact: Team Trump contact Stormy, or did Stormy contact someone at Team Trump?
I knew at one point but I don’t remember and am curious to know how this went down since we’re talking about credible witnesses.
It was “caught” by the National Enquirer (David Pecker). Ordinarily, Pecker would payoff the woman and “kill” the story. Because Trump still hadn’t compensated Pecker for the two previous kills, he decided to take it inhouse and use Cohen as the bagman.
Did we actually make it past the close of business on Friday without any new motions? I was certain sure that there would be some ridiculous filing at 4:50pm ET, but if there was it isn’t being reported anywhere that I’ve seen.
Are we actually going to start jury selection on Monday? O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
I believe that is entirely not what happened.
There was. It’s been rejected.
Thanks.
Monday’s forecast: Stormy with a chance of bone spurs.
Funny to hear DJT claim he will testify. I think that would be over the dead bodies of his lawyers. I can’t imagine anyone worse to put on the stand. The cross examination would be like shooting fish in a barrel. As unlikely as I think that would be, I hope he does it. Let him nail his own coffin.
How will the jury selection process work? Call in a couple dozen at a time until you have twice as many make the cut as you need? I understand that each side can reject X number without cause, but what about rejection for cause? Can they simply keep rejecting for cause forever? And who decides if the cause for rejection is valid?
500 prospective jurors have been summoned. They’ll be seated at random 18 at a time and questioned by each side and the judge for cause (I assume they have all been already time-qualified, meaning they’ve indicated they have the time and financial wherewithal to serve on this jury).
Lather, rinse, repeat until you get 12 in the box plus as many alternates as have been agreed upon. For a regular 6-week trial, we might have picked as many as 4. For this case, maybe half a dozen? No one wants to have to try the case twice because you didn’t pick enough alternates.
Challenges for cause are made on individual jurors, can either be in or outside their presence. If the challenge is not accepted, it will most likely be argued outside the hearing of the prospective jurors (PJs). There are a limited number of challenges for cause. It’s up to the judge how many. He will also decide if a challenge for cause is valid.
ETA: Let me revise this: Challenges for cause are not limited. Peremptory challenges are limited, however many were agreed upon by the parties or by statute. But judges get quite short with frivolous challenges for cause, so that usually limits how many are heard. Usually.
ETA ETA: Challenges for cause are also naturally limited by finally getting a jury in the box. Trump lawyer: “I challenge this juror for cause.” Judge: “Denied.” Alvin Bragg’s team: “We accept this juror, your Honor.” And so on.
Of course, each of these denied challenges will be raised on appeal.
That’s just some dumb bullshit he says. I guess his idiot supporters take that as bravery. But he’s said it before, and the funny part (Trump supporter dipshits: this is the scam part. The lie part. Ready?) is that he never actually takes the stand.
And then says, “I was never allowed to defend myself in this rigged trial!”
Will the proceedings be televised? I can’t imagine they’ll show the prospective jurors but will we be able to hear the objections? How about the main trial?
I’m not positive, but I don’t think this trial will be televised. I don’t recall seeing Judge Mershan on the tee vee for any pretrial hearings, so that will carry through for the trial, I think.
They’ll never show the jurors under any circumstances. That courtesy is extended to all jurors everywhere, so far as I know. But especially in this trial.
I believe the jury will be fully anonymous. I know Judge Mershan was able to finally get Trump to shut up about the witnesses and his (the judge’s) daughter, etc. by saying he would not disclose the identities of the jurors even to defense counsel if Trump did not abide by the gag order.
Go on…
Stephanie Clifford (aka Stormy Daniels) gave an interview regarding her fling with donald to In Touch magazine in 2011. I believe she was paid for it.
When they went to donald for a response, he (predictably) threatened to sue, so they buried it.
Later, when donald decided to run for president, he had a meeting with David Pecker, who heads the National Enquirer, to “catch and kill” scandals about donald.
They caught two; a doorman who had a story that donald had fathered an illegitimate child (which does not appear credible) and the story of Karen McDougal, who did have an affair with donald for some time.
Incidentally, Pecker got an immunity deal in exchange for testifying in this trial.
I’m presuming that Michael Cohen, at this point, remembered that Stormy Daniels had her story out there. So they got with her and made a deal to buy her silence.
Specifically, Cohen created a company, Essential Consulting, LLC, which paid Clifford $130,000, funded by Cohen’s home equity line of credit.
Then, the repayments to Cohen were structured as payments for legal services.
Now, it seems to me that the defense might go to one of two ways (both of which I think donald has used). Either, Cohen did the “catch and kill” of his own accord, without knowledge of donald. (For this, I suspect that Pecker’s testimony is important, as he will corroborate Cohen when he says that they met with donald and formulated a plan to silence these stories).
Or, and this is what I think they’ll claim, the defense will argue that the Stormy Daniels story was never true, but they entered into a valid non-disclosure agreement with her solely to protect Melania from being embarrassed or upset. Meaning, it had nothing to do with the election (timing be damned: a decidedly ridiculous assertion). And it was Cohen, not donald, who falsified the records for Cohen’s personal tax benefit.
Meaning, donald was just a loving husband who was outwit by his dishonest associates. He never lied or was dishonest about anything.
Which is why the court reporter(s) take down a transcript of jury selection as well as the trial, to preserve the record for appeal on all issues.
Loser Donald has a long history of boasting that he’s going to testify and then not following through. IIRC, when he testified in the fraud trial he made it through all of one question before he started trying to ramble and give a stump speech, and the judge cut him off.
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trumps-long-history-of-not-testifying-after-saying-he-would
Ok, it was bugging me so I did a little more digging. I was right that the trial will not be televised. However…
Gift link: