Mr. Trump said he hated the deal with Ms. Daniels.... Prosecutors played the recording for the jury, letting them hear Mr. Cohen tell Mr. Davidson that Mr. Trump hated “the fact that we did it,” referring to the hush-money payment to Ms. Daniels....
They shouldn't write "Mr. Trump said he hated the deal with Ms. Daniels" when the evidence is only that Cohen said he hated "the fact that we did it."
Quite aside from whether the fact that they did the deal is different from the deal, all we know is that Cohen said Trump hated it. They should have to write something like Cohen said that Trump said he hated making the deal. Cohen could have been lying.
Frequently, Mr. Davidson would respond, “I don’t recall.” Mr. Bove confronted Mr. Davidson about his “fuzzy” memory and Mr. Davidson responded forcefully that his answers had been truthful.
Mr. Bove also tried to create distance between Mr. Trump and the hush-money payoff to Ms. Daniels, shifting the blame onto Mr. Cohen. He testified that Mr. Cohen wanted a job in the Trump White House and was “despondent” when he didn’t receive it, adding that he had hoped for a high-ranking position such as attorney general.
“I thought he was going to kill himself,” Mr. Davidson said of Mr. Cohen....
ADDED: In a different part of this live-blogging of the trial, the NYT reporters write about another tape, and that one does include Trump's voice:
On the recording [made by Michael Cohen during the 2016 campaign], Cohen is talking to Trump.... Cohen is explaining they had just gotten served by The New York Times to unseal records from Trump’s first divorce. That divorce, from Ivana Trump, was incredibly contentious.
The key part of this tape is the end, where Michael Cohen is telling Trump, “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend David.” Cohen says he talked to Allen Weisselberg, who was the Trump Organization's chief financial officer at the time. Cohen references “the financing,” and Trump interjects, “What financing?”
The David, in question, was David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer and first witness at this trial. This call related to the hush-money deal made with Karen McDougal, not with Stormy Daniels.
The NYT reporter declares that it is "incredibly damning to Trump for jurors to hear" this evidence.
पोस्ट्स
२२ टिप्पण्या:
They put it in bold as a sub-head. So it's OK!
I don't understand the point of the question. Why does it matter whether Trump liked or hated the deal? The question is whether the accounting for the deal constitutes a felony.
I mean, it doesn't (unless, apparently, it's Trump), but isn't that the question?
They allow heresay in this trial?
Again- what does any of that have to do with the charges in the indictment?
Also, this from the excerpt makes no sense:
Mr. Bove also tried to create distance between Mr. Trump and the hush-money payoff to Ms. Daniels, shifting the blame onto Mr. Cohen. He testified that Mr. Cohen wanted a job in the Trump White House and was “despondent” when he didn’t receive it, adding that he had hoped for a high-ranking position such as attorney general"
This makes it sound like Mr. Bove said this, not the guy testifying. Are there any standards any longer in the profession of journalism? Any at all?
Remind me again why lawyers have a bad reputation?
Davidson seems sleazier than Stormy...
yes that would seem to be another party, well you can't hang someone properly if all the aspersions are properly applied,
yes there is more smog here than the mutaran nebula,
“I thought he was going to kill himself,” Mr. Davidson said of Mr. Cohen....
Michael Cohen didn't kill himself.
What law was broken?
What are the jury instructions?
Seriously what is the jury going to be deliberating on?
Judge: "The jury is instructed to disregard any suggestion that the defendant isn't GUILTY !" BANG !
Even Wikipedia's description of Davidson makes him sound like a man who makes his living extorting hush money from celebrities and taking a healthy cut of the proceeds. Sort of like an ambulance chaser, but substantially more slimy.
If you hate Trump - any lie will do.
You can even believe he is a Russian Asset/Agent or whatever.
Rachel and Schitt will help you believe.
There is enough reasonable doubt in this case, to warrant calling the only witness who saw Trump shoot someone on Faith Avenue.
What’s the time line? Did Cohen strike a deal with Davidson and then tell Trump about it after the deal was done? Did Trump then tell Cohen he didn’t like it who related that to Davidson during a recorded conversation? Not much is quoted so it’s difficult to know the full context. I take it Trump is on trial because his accountants improperly recorded the extortion money paid to the shakedown artist Davidson as a legal expense as opposed to a blackmail expense. This accounting error caused Clinton to lose the election because voters were shielded from the secret that Trump is a philanderer.
The Lawfare Machine is aiming at the verdict that says “ the Defendant is not Guilty but probably should be sent to Jail anyway.”That won’t pass Appellate review but will bankrupt Trump’s campaign.
Trump is always the victim even when he’s cheating on his wives. MAGA compartmentalized thinking at its finest. In this box Trump is god-like, but in this box, Trump is helpless. How can both be true? This is like Schrödinger's cat, Trump is both unless you open the box.
"I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order" ~ Donald Trump
Judge Merchan should start today inquiring of Trump’s understanding and whether Blanche misadvised him on his 5th Amendment rights.
I really don't understand any of this. Why would Cohen saying Trump said that he hated that they made the deal mean anything other than that Trump either felt like he was being extorted for a lie, and that they should have told them to go away, or that he didn't care whether it was made public or not? And what relevance does it have to the "crime" being charged against Trump?
There is no question that they "made the deal;" Trump already sued Daniels for breaking the deal--and won.
Also--what was Cohen's answer to the "What financing?" question? We are told this is the "key part", but what is "key" about it?
Where are all lawyers that comment on Althouse blog?
We have got something around 5 days of testimony.
1) Categorizing the execution of NDA's as a legal expense. A misdemeanor.
2) Violating NY State election laws.
Where is the testimony if reference to these two crimes? How can a Defendant present a defense when the Prosecution refuses to present evidence of the "crimes"
Rich said...
Trump is always the victim even when he’s cheating on his wives. MAGA compartmentalized thinking at its finest. In this box Trump is god-like, but in this box, Trump is helpless. How can both be true? This is like Schrödinger's cat, Trump is both unless you open the box.
Rich has voted for Clinton and Biden.
2 known rapists who were married when they raped women.
Schrödinger's cat indeed.
Democrats are just terrible people.
iowan2 said...
Where is the testimony if reference to these two crimes? How can a Defendant present a defense when the Prosecution refuses to present evidence of the "crimes"
5/3/24, 8:01 AM
Whoa there cowboy, didn't you know that in "our democracy" you don't need none of that there evidence when the criminal is that scoundrel Trump! Heck, they alreadies started on settin up the gallows!
Althouse complains about ambiguously misleading attribution. Trump suffered years of charges of being in "Collusion With Russia!" before that slimy Hillary-created piss and mud puddle dried up. At least now Trump did the thing, paying Daniels, which is being called a part of a crime.
They're getting better at lawfare. Eventually they should try accusing him of doing something he actually did which was also illegal in reality, not just in their fever swamp dreams.
"Cohen could have been lying" is an apt addendum or summation of this entire trial, and the primary reason why it never should have been brought forward in the first place.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा