- Aug 18, 2012
- 25,039
- 21,106
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When there is a concern that something the jury should not have heard reached the jury, they are asked by the judge if they are aware of it.
They polled the jury today to see how many saw Daniel’s post about testifying. I don’t know what the results were
How was her credibility destroyed during cross examination ?Daniels was a terrible witness for the prosecution, her testimony was not necessary to prove the charges, her credibility was destroyed during cross examination and the prosecution had to know this would happen. This seems more like an attempt to damage Trump than to get a conviction.
She said she didn’t care about money she wanted to get the story out then admitted she took money to keep quiet about it, and has since profited greatly from selling her story. She admitted that she hates Trump and wants him to go to jail.How was her credibility destroyed during cross examination ?
Too bad the jury isn’t privy to this “information“.She talks to dead people (maybe she can use this talent to communicate with Biden) and chases ghosts
I thought it came out during testimonyToo bad the jury isn’t privy to this “information“.
I thought it came out during testimony
”At one point, Trump attorney Susan Necheles said Daniels is a woman who has a “lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real.” The attorney cited Daniels’s experience writing adult films and working on a reality show that purports to talk to dead people’s relatives — suggesting that since those are made-up scenarios, Daniels also lied about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump.”
I thought it came out during testimony
”At one point, Trump attorney Susan Necheles said Daniels is a woman who has a “lot of experience making phony stories about sex appear to be real.” The attorney cited Daniels’s experience writing adult films and working on a reality show that purports to talk to dead people’s relatives — suggesting that since those are made-up scenarios, Daniels also lied about her alleged sexual encounter with Trump.”
I wasn’t talking about that. Just that she contradicted herself and there were inconsistencies in her story. And that it came out that she communicates with the deadThat seems to be quite a stretch to claim that simply because someone writes fiction as a job that they believe their fiction is reality. By that logic, Ronald Reagan, and even Donald Trump, should never have been President since they both acted in fictional films, so must believe that fiction is real.
Sounds like spin to me. There hasn’t been any testimony that proves Trump is guilty of the charges yet as far as I can tell.Daniels was all over the place....and the prosecution could have asked more pointed questions to keep her from her narratives. But the defense attorney was even worse, with the judge even calling her out for not objecting more. It seems the defense strategy was to let Daniels talk...and then try to have her dimissed as a witness. That obviously failed...and their lack of objejections will not server them well in a court of appeals....
They objected to her testifying because she had nothing to testify about concerning a crime. Which she had no knowledge about the accounting of Donald trump. The Judge rejected to that objection. So what if they had sex or not? It is not illegal. So what if he paid here for non-disclosure, No crime there either. He did the same thing with a doorman, which accused him of fathering a child, Trump paid him as well. That was proved to be a lie. Wealthy people do that stuff all the time. It can be a form of extortion. But preferable in some cases to go through the courts, it's cheaper and easier.Daniels was all over the place....and the prosecution could have asked more pointed questions to keep her from her narratives. But the defense attorney was even worse, with the judge even calling her out for not objecting more. It seems the defense strategy was to let Daniels talk...and then try to have her dimissed as a witness. That obviously failed...and their lack of objejections will not server them well in a court of appeals....
What does that have to do with the charges? Was that necessary to prove the charges?
Sounds like spin to me. There hasn’t been any testimony that proves Trump is guilty of the charges yet as far as I can tell.
Credibility of the witness. Anyone who testifies can expect to be cross examined. The question is why was this witness there in the first place?What does the attorney's questioning her story have to do with the charges?
When the defense opens by alleging that the events that prompted those payments never happened, then establishing that there was reason for Trump (or his proxies) to pay off Stormy Daniels is relevant.Credibility of the witness. Anyone who testifies can expect to be cross examined. The question is why was this witness there in the first place?
Whether Trump had sex or not has nothing to do with how he recorded payments to Cohen.
It doesn’t matter if the allegations were true or not. Suppressing them to influence the election is the claim and then not recording them as campaign contributions. It makes no difference as far as the charges if Daniels story was true or notWhen the defense opens by alleging that the events that prompted those payments never happened, then establishing that there was reason for Trump (or his proxies) to pay off Stormy Daniels is relevant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?