Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Xaiter
Dec 16, 2007

Everything is AWESOME!

Nitrousoxide posted:

I mean, he's kinda iffy on his credibility. He's been fairly recently convicted of perjury to congress, which is something they can bring up on cross to impeach his character even if those lies are entirely unrelated to this instant case.

wasn't he convicted for lying to protect trump? cover up some ties to russia?

"This man can't be trusted because he lied to Congress to protect my client!" might not go well. But I'm no fancy legal person, maybe that particular detail would be barred from the record for some reason.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Clarste
Apr 15, 2013

Just how many mistakes have you suffered on the way here?

An uncountable number, to be sure.

Accipiter posted:

I love how they pretend they don't understand how courts work.

Like, you can't file a lawsuit without specific charges. It's not as if the prosecution keeps everyone in suspense throughout the entire process.

And defense attorneys are just supposed to wing it?

The point of him saying that is to undermine the legitimacy of this particular case. Like "they are ignoring all the procedures to push this through!" I mean, it's a lie, but the thrust of it is that the courts are not working properly. And you, the viewer, should be mad at that.

DTurtle
Apr 10, 2011


Xaiter posted:

wasn't he convicted for lying to protect trump? cover up some ties to russia?

"This man can't be trusted because he lied to Congress to protect my client!" might not go well. But I'm no fancy legal person, maybe that particular detail would be barred from the record for some reason.
The prosecution went into all of this stuff quite deeply. The explanation was indeed that he wanted to protect Trump and be seen to protect Trump. They also brought up tweets by Trump that could and were interpreted as admonishments to stay loyal. The jury now knows all about that stuff and the defense will have to try some other things in order to undermine his believability.

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005

Related news:

‘Judge Judy’ Sheindlin sues for defamation over National Enquirer, InTouch Weekly stories

quote:

“Judge Judy” Sheindlin sued the parent company of the National Enquirer and InTouch Weekly on Monday for a story that she said falsely claimed that she was trying to help the Menendez brothers get a retrial after they were convicted of murdering their parents.

The story was first published on InTouch Weekly’s website on April 10 under the headline “Inside Judge Judy’s Quest to Save the Menendez Brothers Nearly 35 Years After Their Parents’ Murder,” according to the lawsuit, filed in circuit court in Collier County, Florida.

A version of the story later appeared in the National Enquirer, a sister publication to InTouch Weekly also owned by Accelerate360 Media. The 1989 Menendez murders in Beverly Hills, California, was a case of some tabloid renown.

Sheindlin said she’s had nothing to say about the case. Her lawsuit speculated that the news outlets used statements in a Fox Nation docuseries made by “Judi Ramos,” a woman identified as an alternate juror in the first Menendez trial, and misattributed them to the television judge.

There was no immediate comment from Accelerate360, whose attempt to sell the National Enquirer last year fell through.

Sheindlin does not ask for a specific amount of damages, but made clear it wouldn’t be cheap.

“When you fabricate stories about me in order to make money for yourselves with no regard for the truth or the reputation I’ve spent a lifetime cultivating, it’s going to cost you,” she said in a statement. “When you’ve done it multiple times, it’s unconscionable and will be expensive. It has to be expensive so that you will stop.”

Sheindlin, who hosted the syndicated “Judge Judy” through 2021 and now hosts “Judy Justice,” has had run-ins with the Enquirer in the past.

In 2017, the newspaper retracted and apologized for stories that falsely claimed she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and depression and had cheated on her husband.

I guess admitting under oath that your paper makes poo poo up has consequences.

Ynglaur
Oct 9, 2013

The Malta Conference, anyone?

Deteriorata posted:

Related news:

‘Judge Judy’ Sheindlin sues for defamation over National Enquirer, InTouch Weekly stories

I guess admitting under oath that your paper makes poo poo up has consequences.

I hope more people start suing news organizations who can't be arsed to do even basic fact-checking. "Leans one direction politically" is fine. Expressing political opinions is extra fine. Making poo poo up is not fine.

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Ynglaur posted:

I hope more people start suing news organizations who can't be arsed to do even basic fact-checking. "Leans one direction politically" is fine. Expressing political opinions is extra fine. Making poo poo up is not fine.

Fox News successfully fought in court for the right to be labeled "entertainment" so they wouldn't fall subject to such lawsuits

Ynglaur
Oct 9, 2013

The Malta Conference, anyone?

mdemone posted:

Fox News successfully fought in court for the right to be labeled "entertainment" so they wouldn't fall subject to such lawsuits

I know, amd they should have been forced to change their name at the least.

Nitrousoxide
May 30, 2011

do not buy a oneplus phone



DTurtle posted:

The prosecution went into all of this stuff quite deeply. The explanation was indeed that he wanted to protect Trump and be seen to protect Trump. They also brought up tweets by Trump that could and were interpreted as admonishments to stay loyal. The jury now knows all about that stuff and the defense will have to try some other things in order to undermine his believability.

If I was on defense counsel I'd argue that his perjury conviction is proof that he's untrustworthy and would be willing to lie for the State in testimony just as well if he thought it would benefit him via immunity to claims or an early release or whatever. There's a lot of ways you can reframe it to not just being a loyal guy turning on Trump into a more self-interested reason.

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

mdemone posted:

Fox News successfully fought in court for the right to be labeled "entertainment" so they wouldn't fall subject to such lawsuits

and blocked from Canadian TV on that basis at one point

Scratch Monkey
Oct 25, 2010

👰Proč bychom se netěšili🥰když nám Pán Bůh🙌🏻zdraví dá💪?
Tucker Carlson has straight up said “when I am cornered in an argument I lie” and no one cared so the distinction between journalism and entertainment is meaningless in todays world

DTurtle
Apr 10, 2011


Nitrousoxide posted:

If I was on defense counsel I'd argue that his perjury conviction is proof that he's untrustworthy and would be willing to lie for the State in testimony just as well if he thought it would benefit him via immunity to claims or an early release or whatever. There's a lot of ways you can reframe it to not just being a loyal guy turning on Trump into a more self-interested reason.
That's why the prosecution had evidence for basically every statement he made corroborating it - things like call records, tweets, E-Mails, etc. In addition, he apparently came over very well (see the jurors laughing in sympathy with some of his answers), while the defense lawyer didn't (see the first few questions being asked and quickly racking up a good number of sustained objections).

I'm not saying it is foolproof, but again, it seems like the prosecution (and Michael Cohen) really did a fantastic job with his time on the stand so far. It now remains to be seen what the defense comes up with for Thursday.

El Spamo
Aug 21, 2003

Fuss and misery
Apparently nothing, word is they'll rest without calling witnesses so it'll go to closing arguments after that I think.

Ynglaur
Oct 9, 2013

The Malta Conference, anyone?

Scratch Monkey posted:

Tucker Carlson has straight up said “when I am cornered in an argument I lie” and no one cared so the distinction between journalism and entertainment is meaningless in todays world

It has become so, but it needn't be so.

red19fire
May 26, 2010

El Spamo posted:

Apparently nothing, word is they'll rest without calling witnesses so it'll go to closing arguments after that I think.

Weird, Trump was in his little bullpen saying he’d testify just last week. Almost as if he’s a gutless coward when it’s time to put up or shut up.

Nissin Cup Nudist
Sep 3, 2011

Sleep with one eye open

We're off to Gritty Gritty land




Trump Layer has spent all time trying to pin Cohen as a meanie lying liar and hasn't gotten to the key question of "did Trump know this is an illegal use of funds"


bold strategy

dr_rat
Jun 4, 2001

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Trump Layer has spent all time trying to pin Cohen as a meanie lying liar and hasn't gotten to the key question of "did Trump know this is an illegal use of funds"


bold strategy

That does make sense. Cohen is a pretty slimy guy so why not try and point out, oh the prosecution is using a pretty slimy witness. Defense would have a pretty hard time showing trump as innocent, so seems easier to just try and show the prosecutions case isn't as strong as it's trying to say, so there's reasonable doubt.

Simplex
Jun 29, 2003

Nissin Cup Nudist posted:

Trump Layer has spent all time trying to pin Cohen as a meanie lying liar and hasn't gotten to the key question of "did Trump know this is an illegal use of funds"


bold strategy
I'm not following it closely, but "the guy who was supposed to advise Trump this was illegal is a slimeball with active contempt for Trump" is probably a viable defense to create reasonable doubt.

Gyges
Aug 4, 2004

NOW NO ONE
RECOGNIZE HULK

red19fire posted:

Weird, Trump was in his little bullpen saying he’d testify just last week. Almost as if he’s a gutless coward when it’s time to put up or shut up.

85-95% of any Defense for Trump has been and will always be convincing him not to take the stand.

Blind Rasputin
Nov 25, 2002

Farewell, good Hunter. May you find your worth in the waking world.

When Trump took the stand in the E Jean Carrol case wasn’t he so hard to control that they asked 3 questions?

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

Blind Rasputin posted:

When Trump took the stand in the E Jean Carrol case wasn’t he so hard to control that they asked 3 questions?

yeah and they had to hash out exactly what they would ask and what they could not ask, because Engoron was convinced it would be a shitshow, which it was

Tesseraction
Apr 5, 2009


"And thereafter, you called me a real bitch baby loser, a buffoonish stack of clowns in an idiot suit?"

"Yeah sounds right."

"That I look like I just poo poo my pants and that those turds were the closest thing to a brain I had left?"

"Them's my words."

"Your honour no further questions."

OgNar
Oct 26, 2002

They tapdance not, neither do they fart
Salon says that the judge may hold a contempt hearing over Trump giving everyone cues on what to say outside the courtroom.
Sadly it doesnt really give any evidence to prove it.
https://www.salon.com/2024/05/15/legal-expert-may-hold-contempt-hearing-over-surrogates-circumventing-gag-order/

"On Monday, New York Magazine's Andrew Rice told MSNBC he witnessed the defendant in the courtroom appearing to edit the statements that his self-declared surrogates would go on to say. “I was sitting close enough that I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading,” Rice recounted. As Michael Cohen testified, Trump was “going through and annotating and editing the quotes that these people were going to say," Rice said."

Also after leaving New Jersey and landing in Florida, Trumps Boeing clipped an unoccupied plane.
No statement on damage though.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/wing-trumps-plane-hit-corporate-jet-west-palm-beach-airport-source-says-2024-05-14/

SpelledBackwards
Jan 7, 2001

I found this image on the Internet, perhaps you've heard of it? It's been around for a while I hear.

It has never seen that other plane before in its life. The other plane is probably a loser. Might have gotten them jet fuel one time on the tarmac.

Raenir Salazar
Nov 5, 2010

College Slice

mdemone posted:

Fox News successfully fought in court for the right to be labeled "entertainment" so they wouldn't fall subject to such lawsuits

Didn't they lose, or were clearly going to lose a defamation lawsuit regarding Dominion Voting machines?

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001

Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Raenir Salazar posted:

Didn't they lose, or were clearly going to lose a defamation lawsuit regarding Dominion Voting machines?

They settled the case for just shy of eight hundred million dollars, which does not suggest their case was going particularly well.

Push El Burrito
May 9, 2006

Soiled Meat

Captain_Maclaine posted:

They settled the case for just shy of eight hundred million dollars, which does not suggest their case was going particularly well.

Tucker was mysteriously let go right after.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009



Dirk the Average posted:

I would argue that if they read a prepared statement from Trump that was provided to them by Trump and evidence shows that that was Trump's statement verbatim, then Trump might get in trouble for violating the gag order. But the evidence would need to be ironclad.



OgNar posted:

Salon says that the judge may hold a contempt hearing over Trump giving everyone cues on what to say outside the courtroom.
Sadly it doesnt really give any evidence to prove it.
https://www.salon.com/2024/05/15/legal-expert-may-hold-contempt-hearing-over-surrogates-circumventing-gag-order/

"On Monday, New York Magazine's Andrew Rice told MSNBC he witnessed the defendant in the courtroom appearing to edit the statements that his self-declared surrogates would go on to say. “I was sitting close enough that I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading,” Rice recounted. As Michael Cohen testified, Trump was “going through and annotating and editing the quotes that these people were going to say," Rice said."

Fuckinh lmao

mdemone
Mar 14, 2001

If I'm Merchan, I'm swearing the reporter in and asking him about it, and then I'm gonna go absolutely hog fuckin wild

BiggerBoat
Sep 26, 2007

Don't you tell me my business again.
Why are so many people lining up to swear loyalty to this loving idiot?

Angry_Ed
Mar 30, 2010




Grimey Drawer

BiggerBoat posted:

Why are so many people lining up to swear loyalty to this loving idiot?

And be absolutely 100% upfront about it no less


Was probably a bad idea to enlist the help of noted idiot Tommy Tuberville though

Independence
Jul 12, 2006

The Wriggler

BiggerBoat posted:

Why are so many people lining up to swear loyalty to this loving idiot?

Politicians do it because he has a stranglehold on primary/borderline violent voters that will hound them until they leave office and probably a bit after.

People with money do it because the average Trump voter is dumb and willing to give up money for all things Trump.

The clown timeline.

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001

Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

BiggerBoat posted:

Why are so many people lining up to swear loyalty to this loving idiot?

They think if he wins, they get to be the new American aristocracy in the post-democratic United States.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010

mdemone posted:

If I'm Merchan, I'm swearing the reporter in and asking him about it, and then I'm gonna go absolutely hog fuckin wild

I suppose Merchan can order Trumps doodle pads handed over? A bigger step would be to subpoena one of the speakers (or the speaker as it were) to appear in court to answer questions and hand over any documents received from Trump or his team?

Seems like a lot.

Tatsuta Age
Apr 21, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 4 hours!

Angry_Ed posted:

And be absolutely 100% upfront about it no less

Was probably a bad idea to enlist the help of noted idiot Tommy Tuberville though

If you get away with it it's not stupid!

Lammasu
May 8, 2019

lawful Good Monster

BiggerBoat posted:

Why are so many people lining up to swear loyalty to this loving idiot?

This is what I don't get. Trump wasn't trying to murder just Pence. He would have been perfectly happy with any members of congress getting killed. That was his best chance of stopping the certification. Doesn't matter how loyal you are to him if your death benefits him, he doesn't care. You would think they could muster up enough spite to cut him loose.

Tatsuta Age
Apr 21, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 4 hours!

Lammasu posted:

This is what I don't get. Trump wasn't trying to murder just Pence. He would have been perfectly happy with any members of congress getting killed. That was his best chance of stopping the certification. Doesn't matter how loyal you are to him if your death benefits him, he doesn't care. You would think they could muster up enough spite to cut him loose.

they want to be one of the ones allowed to keep their necks when he wins in november

The Bible
May 8, 2010

Tatsuta Age posted:

they want to be one of the ones allowed to keep their necks when he wins in november

Although that's no guarantee either.

Help him or hurt him, Trump will roll over anyone who happens to be in the way of... whatever it is he thinks he's doing. If you hurt him, he'll probably take revenge. If you help him, he won't remember your name or face and will just steamroll you anyway. It's incredible that his supporters still don't see that. He doesn't even know who they are, and doesn't care.

Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Simplex posted:

I'm not following it closely, but "the guy who was supposed to advise Trump this was illegal is a slimeball with active contempt for Trump" is probably a viable defense to create reasonable doubt.

The problem was that it ended up just being established that he was a slimeball whose lying was for the purposes of helping Trump, in order to do the crimes that Trump is accused of ordering him to do. And not only did he testify that he was a slimeball in that way, but they have documented proof that he was a slimeball lying to protect Trump.

In other words, it didn't help the defense at all.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010
I’m very curious to see how cross goes tomorrow. You have to assume Blanche spent all day with the team trying to figure out how to adjust his questioning or, potentially, working with one of the other defense attorneys to prep them to take over.

If they blow it though and really aren’t calling any defense witnesses this could get interesting pretty quick.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

InsertPotPun
Apr 16, 2018

Pissy Bitch stan

Lammasu posted:

This is what I don't get. Trump wasn't trying to murder just Pence. He would have been perfectly happy with any members of congress getting killed. That was his best chance of stopping the certification. Doesn't matter how loyal you are to him if your death benefits him, he doesn't care. You would think they could muster up enough spite to cut him loose.
after world war 2 in germany, when the nazis were all removed and anyone left was long dead, the ultra-conservatives-but-not-nazis who were still around were the ones to take power. in a lot of germany, oddly, the local lawmakers didn't change at all. iin some ways it wasn't much different because the nazis took those laws from the ultra conservative christians in the first place.
all of these people, in one way or another, are planning on ruling in the ashes of what comes after because they're so very special. except for trump, who simply thinks things will always stay the same because he does not have the capacity to understand time in that way.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply