The defense is now showing a statement that was released in January 2018, in which Daniels said that she did not have an affair with Trump. But [Trump's lawyer Susan] Necheles did something clever, changing the wording to suggest she denied having sex with Trump — and Daniels agreed, not splitting hairs about the wording here....
So I take it the idea is that Daniels could have said: The statement is true. I did not have an affair with Trump. I had sex with him on one occasion. That is not an affair.
Did Daniels miss an opportunity? The NYT credits Necheles with cleverness: She got Daniels to admit that she made an inconsistent statement by denying that she ever had sex with Trump.
If Daniels had seen the loophole and chosen to take it, it would also have hurt her credibility. She'd look like someone who is crafty with word choice and issued a phony denial, claiming no "affair" and reserving the power to say that she did or did not have sex with Trump — whichever better served her interests.
पोस्ट्स
४५ टिप्पण्या:
Is one event an affair? Depends on what the meaning of "is" is, I suppose. And the tolerance of the jury (and the general public) for Clintonian game playing. If one spouse cheats on the other, even once, they had an affair. That is the common understanding of the word.
This all happened in 2006.
Is it illegal to have sex with a porn star? Is it illegal to cheat on your wife?
After tossed out of several courts - the campaign funding issue is a pile of garbage.
So all this is - is to humiliate Trump.
Trump might be a cad - but that is not illegal. Unless you are a Soviet Maddow Shitt.
She'd look like someone who is crafty with word choice …
In other words “lawyerly,” or perhaps “Cintonesque.”
They will fix that on redirect.
Althouse how closely are you following this trial?
I have not read your linked material, but I have followed the trial closely.
I ask you, because I have read the transcript from Keith Davidson's testimony of just a few days ago. He explained how this document -- the clever non-denial "denial" was crafted as part of the scheme to advnace the larger coverup of the sexual encounter -- was drafted and presented to Ms. Clifford to sign as "Stormy Daniels." It was all clever wordplay. The jury heard it already, and if Susan Necheles thinks she can get some "reasonable doubt" out of it, then so be it. I don't see it.
And really, where does this go? Is Trump and his counsel really going to say that there was never any sexual encounter? is that it?
Perhaps this whole unfortunate misunderstanding will get cleared up when Donald Trump takes the stand and testifies in his customarily clear and authoritative voice as to all the details.
Gee, I thought this was going to be a boring trial with accountants and auditors discussing GAAP!
Wow, I get have sex with lots of prostitutes and tell my wife that I'm not having affairs just as long as it is one and done for each prostitute. Who knew? /sarc
The progressive bubble prevents people like NYTimes hacks from realizing that word games like that undermine credibility even worse than claiming the first statement was a flat out lie. There is no cleverness in the Trump lawyer's tactic- all normal people with IQs above body temperature understood the original statement to cover sex in any form with the word "affair". If Daniels wants her testimony to be believed by anyone at all she had no choice but to claim the original statement was a lie.
Chuck the Cunt still trying to imply that this testimony means anything in regards to the actual charges. I again request Chuck the Cunt outline the theory of criminality in this entire affair a request Chuck the Cunt has steadfastly refused to do.
So, Chuck the Cunt, step up to the plate and dazzle us with your analysis of the criminal charges here and how Daniels' or her lawyers' testimony furthers the argument that any of this was a crime. Are you a coward, Chuck the Cunt?
Trump “denied any romantic involvement with Daniels”
I don’t think anyone has suggested there was any romance.
"...it would also have hurt her credibility."
Does she really need help to do that?
Chuck-E-DemcoratCheeze
Is it illegal to have sex? You say "sexual encounter" as if that is illegal in an of itself.
It is not illegal - nor is paying someone to keep quiet about it.
We all note your complete silence over Crook Joe Biden family awfulness, and his corrupt international pay to play for personal family profits.... while Crook Joe was Obama's VP.
Stormy has had sex with hundreds of men and was paid to do so.
Why would anyone believe anything she says?
I still think there's an outside chance Merchan will grant a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution's case:
1.) Merchan can say he gave the prosecution their chance in every conceivable way.
2.) Merchan can rehabilitate his own reputation if the sham trial stops.
3.) The "damage" to Trump is done and he can deny Trump a mistrial or, heaven forbid, a not guilty verdict.
"If one spouse cheats on the other, even once, they had an affair. That is the common understanding of the word."
Actually, I disagree. In my mind, affair requires on ongoing relationship, not a one-episode fling. "Affair" has been used in the news to describe the Trump/Daniels sexual encounter, which led me to the mistaken impression that they had had an ongoing relationship; something I just recently discovered I was wrong about.
Simple but effective: "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"
"And really, where does this go? Is Trump and his counsel really going to say that there was never any sexual encounter? is that it?"
Is there corroborating evidence that there was? (you, who have followed this pig stye so closely)
shaking a finger, while saying;
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." She just suck my cock
Chuck, Stormy Daniels should not even be on the stand. Her testimony is completely irrelevant to the case at hand. The judge admitted as much after Stormy's initial testimony as he was very uncomfortable with what was being said and is making indications that he will instruct the jury to ignore the testimony, and then tried to blame Trump's lawyers for not objecting enough, despite the fact that they objected to her even testifying.
This is known as "reversable error." And the judge knows it. The whole point of Stormy's testimony is to attack Trump's character and get a jury nullification conviction.
AGAIN - this all happened in 2006.
She must be feeling very creative.
Our legal system is completely corrupt. This is a complete farce and everyone knows it. But for democrats it is deadly serious. Get trump on this and they can get all republicans on something.
She blacked out! LOL.
Trump's attorneys are making a mistake here in my opinion.
They are treating the Jurors and this trial like Jurors and a trial.
They need to start using more humor and satire and making the judge highlight his farce in the transcripts.
Not to worry - the Judge gives money to Crook Joe.
the jury is rigged.
Don't worry Soviet leftists - They will get their Trump scalp. You can celebrate.
Chuck said...
Althouse how closely are you following this trial?
I have not read your linked material, but I have followed the trial closely.
Chuck is so ridiculous that Ann has publicly banned him as opposed to all of her silent shadow bans.
Chuck knows there is no crime here.
Chuck is still waiting to find Stormy's description of Trump's Penis. His jealousy is palpable. Chuck is reading and re-reading the transcript looking for what he has been dreaming of since 2006.
Chuck is racist scumbag who dreams of giving titty twisters to women who don't toe the democrat line.
It is hard to be a more despicable and pathetic human being than Chuck.
“I never slept with that woman”
-it’s truth: we were both awake the whole time.
A wife might not consider a "one-night stand" to be an "affair". She can easily define it as "cheating". But sex of any kind outside of marriage is still "sex", no matter what Clinton and his apologists said.
The online dictionary that I read stated that an affair may be "an event of series of events"; also, "a sexual relationship".
As mentioned by many others, it is an effort by the prosecution to embarrass 45 and, in their small minds, to affect this presidential election. Talk about "election interference".
Can you call a chick's GF efforts to cock-block you, "erection interference"? Paging Emily Litella.
Yancey asks, "Are you a coward?" He'll get no answer.
The ca-chucker from Whitmer's kingdom never tires of displaying his utter ignorance on these pages, as an officer the court no less, for the sole purpose of being punked repeatedly on the Law and the Facts by mere laymen, laymen with a spotless record of calling these cases for the farces they are long before the first gavel comes down using nothing more than the widely reported facts and common sense. Of course, common sense is rare among the LLRs, which is why they often toss out silly questions (usually in obsequies queries of the host) but can never answer any addressed to them. Just be glad you're not dwelling in the leafy neighborhoods of Grosse Point in need of an attorney.
If Daniels wants her testimony to be believed by anyone at all she had no choice but to claim the original statement was a lie
That just leaves me not knowing what to believe. If she admits to being a liar, why should I believe that the old statement was a lie and this new one is true? She got money for the old one, but she's getting fame and the potential for a lot more money with her new statement.
If I'm forced to pick, I pick "she's a liar and it doesn't matter if they had sex or not". I going to be voting for a president, not a boyfriend.
"Chuck is so ridiculous that Ann has publicly banned him as opposed to all of her silent shadow bans."
Every forum needs its troll the way ever village needs its idiot.
This must PROVE and accounting entry. Right?
I'm doing what Althouse has asked. I'm not doing personal back-and-forth nastiness. I'm sticking to the blog post. I'm even restraining myself from taking the bait of the vile personal attacks on me on this page. Even when there are more than a hundred other vile pages like this one.
Comments may need to pass through moderation. Comments should respond to material raised in the post. I encourage brevity and substance and discourage personal attacks and repetition. You must use a name or pseudonym. The non-name "unknown" is not accepted.
Hoisted by her Fani (sic).
“Did you sleep with her?”
“No, I fucked her.”
Achilles wrote:
"Trump's attorneys are making a mistake here in my opinion. They are treating the Jurors and this trial like Jurors and a trial. They need to start using more humor and satire and making the judge highlight his farce in the transcripts."
That isn't wrong but nothing really matters- the jury will either refuse to play along with the charade or they won't. If it is the latter, nothing the defense does will work, the jury will just convict. So, I think the defense lawyers are simply doing what they have to do to strengthen the appeal they will make subsequent to this trial, to the federal courts if necessary. Worse, it being New York, attempts by counsel to mock this process, even if subtly done will almost certainly result in their being disbarred in New York state (might happen anyway). Thus, if this trial needs to mocked in the court itself, Trump needed to dismiss his defense and put up nothing with the statement that he will not participate in a show trial. Alex Berenson thought this would be the best strategy, and he advocated Trump not showing up either- let them try and convict him in absentia.
So I take it the idea is that Daniels could have said: The statement is true. I did not have an affair with Trump. I had sex with him on one occasion. That is not an affair.
That would be a lie.
If you have sex with someone else, then they are also having sex with you (Bill Clinton was a liar)
If you have "an affair" with someone else, then they are also having "an affair" with you.
A married man who has sex with someone not his spouse is "having an affair", even if he only has sex once.
I'm disappointed Chuck didn't provide any independent evidence that the sex happened. Is this whole thing just he said/she said?
A practice tip: The perfect question to ask a hostile witness on cross-examination is a Yes - or- No question, to which EITHER answer will help your client.
Stormy is a loopy hole, ain't she?
It seems clear to me that getting to the truth is so important that it cannot be left to the ordinary processes of the legal system. It’s critically important to waterboard Stormy Daniels.
The NYT is wrong. The defense didn't do anything "clever." The plain meaning of the denial to any ordinary person is that no sex occurred, and the defense simply took it that way.
Taking it at face value is only "clever" if you think that the denial itself was also crafty and clever.
Praising Trump's lawyers as "clever" sets the stage for later, to sneer if Trump wins: "He's guilty, but he can get away with anything because he has good lawyers."
The prosecution's case is that the account labeling this payment to the lawyer's office was incorrect. The accounting line should have said something else (is there a line item for "payments to prostitutes" or something like that anywhere? I don't know, I am not an accountant.) This testimony is supposed to establish what? The payment is on record no matter what actually happened. If the prosecution wants to establish that tye lawyer paid money to "make her go away" then they have a wuestion with tye accountants and whether they were directed to hide things, or the lawyer if he was directed to hide things. Otherwise this testimony is just "orange man bad."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा