• Relativist
    2.2k
    the more serious press noted the disaster of Horse Face’s testimony yesterday. The defense played a recording of her lawyer trying to shake down Cohen, letting him know how much Stormy wanted the money before the election. Plus we learn of the schizophrenic differences between her story today and her story yesterday. And to top it all off, we also learn that she is a medium who speaks to dead people.NOS4A2
    I'm guessing you're implying this undermines her credibility. This is consistent with Fox News (here), but it's unclear to me how this hurts the prosecution's case. Her self-serving motivation doesn't undermine Trump and Cohen's motivation to keep her silent prior to the election. It almost seems like the desire of Trumpists is to throw mud back at those throwing mud at Trump (e.g. name-calling, in Trumpian fashion), but that juvenile behavior seems irrelevant to the case.

    A more serious concern for the prosecution would be that her testimony could be deemed prejudicial - painting Trump in such a bad light that it would prejudice them against him. That's the issue raised in WSJ articles (here, and here). This could be dealt with by the Judge through jury instructions, but he hasn't provided them yet.
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k


    Name-calling is entirely appropriate. But anti-Trumpists uncritically reserve themselves the right to call people names while at the same time critically chastising Trump for doing so. It’s as if what they hate in Trump is what they hate in themselves.

    What does undermine the theory regarding Trump’s motivation before the election is the testimony of the witnesses. Pecker noted that he killed stories for Trump and other celebrities numerous times, even when they weren’t running for election. Hope Hicks testified she believed Trump wanted to kill the story to protect his wife and family. Stormy's lawyer Keith Davidson testified it wasn't a payoff or hush money. Jeffry McConney, the former Trump Organization controller, testified that it was him who recorded the expenses as "legal expenses", and Trump never directed him to do so. The Stormy Daniels testimony was just the icing on the proverbial shit-cake that is this trial.
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    Name-calling is entirely appropriate.NOS4A2
    ROFL!

    What does undermine the theory regarding Trump’s motivation before the election is the testimony of the witnesses. Pecker noted that he killed stories for Trump and other celebrities numerous times, even when they weren’t running for election. Hope Hicks testified she believed Trump wanted to kill the story to protect his wife and family. Stormy's lawyer Keith Davidson testified it wasn't a payoff or hush money. Jeffry McConney, the former Trump Organization controller, testified that it was him who recorded the expenses as "legal expenses", and Trump never directed him to do so. The Stormy Daniels testimony was just the icing on the proverbial shit-cake that is this trial.NOS4A2
    You didn't answer my question: how did Stormy's testimony help the defense?
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k


    She comes off as a money-grubbing, lying, and crazy extortionist to the jury. By the way, you never asked a question.
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    Are you suggesting she lied about Trump f**king her? Stormy being money-grubbing doesn't have any bearing on Trump's alleged desire to keep her quiet before the election- which is central the the prosecution.
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k


    She did indeed lie.

    The reasons I already stated, which you have not addressed, has all the bearing needed to contradict the allegations.
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    She did indeed lie.NOS4A2
    You're as evasive as a politician. Did she lie about having the sexual encounter?

    The reasons I already stated, which you have not addressed, has all the bearing needed to contradict the allegations.
    I didn't address that because it was a tangent. I had specifically asked you how Stormy's testimony helped the defense. It may very well be that Stormy lied about being victimized and about how aggressively she went after a payment. That doesn't imply there was no sexual encounter. For that matter even if she lied about the sexual encounter (which I don't think she did lie about the encounter; she's been talking about it at least since 2011 -see this article
    and there's another interviewer who has said she told him about it in 2007) , the only thing that matters in the trial is whether or not she was paid to keep silent, and that this was to prevent damage to his election.
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k


    You're as evasive as a politician. Did she lie about having the sexual encounter?

    Yes. Are you thick?

    I didn't address that because it was a tangent. I had specifically asked you how Stormy's testimony helped the defense. It may very well be that Stormy lied about being victimized and about how aggressively she went after a payment. That doesn't imply there was no sexual encounter. For that matter even if she lied about the sexual encounter (which I don't think she did lie about the encounter; she's been talking about it at least since 2011 -see this article
    and there's another interviewer who has said she told him about it in 2007) , the only thing that matters in the trial is whether or not she was paid to keep silent, and that this was to prevent damage to his election.

    You didn’t ask me a damn thing.

    And for the reasons I stated, which you refuse to address, the idea that this was to prevent damage to his election is blown out of the water, no matter what the porn star says.
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    for the reasons I stated, which you refuse to address, the idea that this was to prevent damage to his election is blown out of the water, no matter what the porn star says.NOS4A2
    The story would be damaging even if it were made up. The doorman made up a story, and they still wanted to keep him quiet. McDougal was also paid off.

    What would you like me to address? I didn't notice a question.
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k


    I didn’t ask a question. I made arguments that contradict the main tenets of Bragg’s flimsy legal theory. Trump never wrote nor directed his controller to write “legal expenses”, therefor he did not falsify business records. Trump never falsified business records with the intent of committing another crime, whatever that may be.
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    I agree the prosecution has not tied the falsification to Trump, at least so far. I imagine their case relies on Cohen for this.
  • 180 Proof
    14.4k
    13May24

    Today in Trumpenfreude

    It must be Monday morning (poor effin' MAGA). With a boat load of receipts, former "fixer" Michael Cohen flagrantly flips on Don Snoreleone and apparently without even waking the soon-to-be convicted felon. :yawn:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/donald-trump-trial-news-hush-money-case-live-updates/73665779007/
  • Relativist
    2.2k
    I have been wondering how Trump could be held criminally liable for falsely reporting the Stormy-payoff as a legal expense. As Trump says, it was the job of the accountant to report it correctly, not Trump's job.

    So I did some research and learned how it works. If the prosecution proves Trump was involved in a conspiracy, then he is criminally liable for all the crimes committed through that conspiracy.

    This was referred to in this MSNBC article.

    MSNBC is a biased source, but they linked to an appeals court ruling that stated this (here). That case referenced an earlier one (here) that dealt with a stolen election.
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k
    It was a bad week for the prosecution.

    Here Anderson Cooper describes the collapse of their star witness Michael Cohen.



    The ex-advisor to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, describes the lies of Michael Cohen, but worse, also describes how the SDNY didn’t want any exculpatory evidence to reach the eyes of the grand jury. So much for justice.

  • Mikie
    6.3k
    Trump fucked a porn star and tried covering it up before the election.

    Trump also tried to overthrow an election he lost.

    There — I just saved everyone the time of reading countless words of apologetic gymnastics. Both are facts; both are obvious.
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k
    We’ve come to expect not a single original thought is possible. Listen for the propaganda, repeat it like a mantra until it’s true by sheer repetition. Rinse and repeat.
  • jorndoe
    3.4k
    the lies of Michael CohenNOS4A2

    What about the lies of the Clown in the first place?
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k


    “Look what the propaganda told me! Look at it!!”
  • jorndoe
    3.4k
    :D Because it's all deep fakes and hoaxes and conspiracies

    9c5qkotshams1dx6.jpg
  • 180 Proof
    14.4k
    :clap: :rofl:

    So what will the GOP (gang of pinheads)-MAGA (my ass got arrested) party-line be when Orange Turd-1 is found guilty in NYC (again!) this week or next of most or all of the 34 felonies he's been charged with?
  • NOS4A2
    8.4k


    The truth. Biden’s SS Stasi at work. Everything his enemies cry foul about is what they themselves are doing. You can set a clock to their corruption.
  • Mikie
    6.3k
    The guy knee deep in the Trump cult talks about how everyone else is propagandized. Not him though — he’s original. (As he repeats, verbatim, Trump’s tweets.)

    :rofl:

    Don’t let me interrupt. Please continue your boring one man display of sycophancy.
  • Wayfarer
    21k
    We’ve come to expect not a single original thought is possible. Listen for the propaganda, repeat it like a mantra until it’s true by sheer repetition. Rinse and repeat.NOS4A2

    At last! A confession.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.