Reply to Indictment Monday?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indictment Monday?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can we talk about the defense strategy on Stormy Daniels? It seems a bit bonkers.

First, they denied the meeting ever took place in opening statements, opening the door for her to testify. Legally, it doesn’t really matter to this case if she was telling the truth. So, I also don’t understand the aggressive cross examination of Daniels and the ho-hum cross of the other witnesses with far more damaging testimony.

The mistrial motions are also weird. Not only did they make sure she would testify, they didn’t object to a lot of things that they should have, and then claimed what she said was grounds for a mistrial.

Was all of it a plan to set up the mistrial claims? An ineffective assistance of counsel claim? Other than Trump being angry about Daniels, it doesn’t make sense. If they’re more concerned about the court of public opinion than the actual criminal court, how is that going to be good for the case? These are competent, experienced attorneys, making what seem to be huge strategy missteps. [/quote]

They never denied the meeting took place, there are photos of the two of them together. What they denied in the opening argument was that any sex occurred. THAT is what opened the door for her testimony. As her story unfolded, what became apparent is that TRUMP didn't want those details to come out before the election, otherwise it would have sunk his campaign, as testified by Hope Hicks. In fact, she also affirmed that the GOP, after the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, was considering a different candidate at that late date. So yes, Trump was desperate to keep Stormy under wraps, and hence the deal to pay her off in October 2016. It was the follow on payments to Cohen - not legal fees, but reimbursements, that are the crime.[/quote]

The prosecution is presenting, and the judge is letting them get away with it, that the above is a crime.  NDA is not a crime, nor is 'conspiracy' or 'scheme' to win an election.  They are focusing on all these catch and kill stories with National Enquirer participating.  The case is about business fraud, which is a misdemeanor for which the statue of limitations has expired, that the judge is letting the prosecutor elevate to a felony, without specifying the other crime needed to elevate to a felony.  Even then. they are fosuing on legal actions and letting the jury think they should convict if they prove Trump did these legal things.[/quote]

Well, there you go. Maybe the corrupt conman you're backing will win outright or on appeal.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics