Below is my New York Post column on the unseemly scene in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan as prosecutors used porn star Stormy Daniels to present lurid details on her alleged tryst with former president Donald Trump. It was a dumpster fire that Judge Merchan watched burn for a full day and then said the jury may have to disregard much of what they saw and heard.
Here is the column:
Before the start of the Manhattan prosecution of former president Donald Trump, I characterized the case of District Attorney Alvin Bragg as based on a type of obscenity standard.
In a 1984 pornography case, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote “I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]. . . . But I know it when I see it.”
Bragg has refused to clearly define the crime that Trump was seeking to conceal when payments for a non-disclosure agreement were listed as a legal expense.
We would just know it when we saw it at trial.
We are still waiting, but this week, Bragg seems to be prosecuting an actual obscenity case.
The prosecution fought with Trump’s defense counsel to not only call porn star Stormy Daniels to the stand, but to ask her for lurid details on her alleged tryst with Trump.
The only assurance that they would make to Judge Juan Merchan was that they would “not go into details of genitalia.”
For Merchan, who has largely ruled against Trump on such motions, that was enough.
He allowed the prosecutors to get into the details of the affair despite the immateriality of the evidence to any criminal theory.
Neither the NDA nor the payment to Daniels is being contested.
It is also uncontested that Trump wanted to pay to get the story (and other stories, including untrue allegations) from being published.
The value of the testimony was entirely sensational and gratuitous, yet Merchan was fine with humiliating Trump.
Daniels’ testimony was a dumpster fire in the courtroom.
The most maddening moment for the defense came at the lunch break when Merchan stated, “I agree that it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.”
He then denied a motion for a mistrial based on the testimony and blamed the defense for not objecting more.
That, of course, ignores the standing objection of the defense to Daniels even appearing, and specific objections to the broad scope allowed by the court.
This is precisely what the defense said would happen when the prosecutors only agreed to avoid “genitalia.”
There was no reason for Daniels to appear at all in the trial.
Even if he was adamant in allowing her, Merchan could have imposed a much more limited scope for her testimony.
He could also have enforced the limits that he did place on the testimony when it was being ignored by both the prosecutors and the witness.
Merchan said that he is considering a limiting instruction for the jury to ignore aspects of the testimony.
But that is little comfort for the defendant.
The court was told that this would happen, it happened, and now the court wants to ask the jury to pretend that it did not happen.
Merchan knows that there is no way for the jury to unhear the testimony.
More importantly, the prosecution knew that from the outset.
Daniels appeared eager to share the stories for the same reason that she was eager to sell her story. While she said that she “hates” Trump and wants him “held accountable,” Daniels is no victim.
She had an alleged tryst with Trump and then sought to cash in on the story.
It is a standard form of extortion of celebrities.
She later sought to cash in on the notoriety by appearing in strip clubs as part of a “Make America Horny Again” tour.
She is in her element in Merchan’s courtroom.
In New York, the relevance or credibility of witnesses like Daniels is largely immaterial.
This is a district that voted against Trump, 84.5% to 14.5%, in the 2020 presidential election.
New Yorkers elected a state attorney general, Letitia James, who ran on the pledge to bag Trump on something — without specifying any crime.
Bragg then indicted Trump without clearly defining any crime — a debate that continues among legal experts after two weeks of testimony.
This is entertainment for many in New York — as is the thrill of the possibility of his going to jail under Merchan’s poorly written and arguably unconstitutional gag order.
When it comes to a thrill kill trial, who better to call than Daniels?
After all, she has been treated as a heroine by many, even being given the key to the city of West Hollywood, California, on “Stormy Daniels Day.”
Well, it was Stormy Daniels Day in Judge Merchan’s courtroom this week, and it is a bit late for the court to express shock over her testimony.
It is not the witness, but the case that seems increasingly obscene.
You have a judge who should have recused himself given his daughter’s major role as a Democratic activist and fundraiser.
You have a gag order that is allowing a New York Supreme Court justice to regulate what the leading candidate for the presidency may say in an election on the weaponization of the legal system.
You have a lead prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, who not only left the Biden Justice Department to revive this case, but once worked for the Democratic National Committee.
You have a case based on two dead misdemeanors shocked back into life by a still mysterious theory of an undefined crime.
In comparison, Daniels may be the only authentic part of the entire case in New York v. Trump.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
“. . .the unseemly scene in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan . . .” (JT)
With the approval of policy “Judge” Merchan, the prosecution has created a Tabloid Trial. Their hope is that the jury equates salacious with criminal. That the media runs with the salacious (which it is). And that the salacious turns off the electorate.
This is not a trial. It’s not even a witch hunt. It’s a panty raid.
The really tragic part about all of this, and it is tragic, is the fact that a contender for the office of President of the United States bedded a playboy model and a porn star, paid them to keep quiet, and a sizable section of the American public do not care. Think about that for a minute. Is this what America has become? Do we really want a man in that office with absolutely zero moral compass? Really?
Jeff, I doubt there are many Trump supporters that would want their son to be like him. However, if you’re that naive to believe that Biden is some kind of upstanding citizen or he has some higher moral values than Trump, you are sadly mistaken. And what makes Biden way worse is how his family has profited off his years in office, especially the last 15 years. And what righteous person would run for President in this day and age with the media attacks from so many sides? This is where we are in the year 2024.
Stop. See Bill Clinton. He has been credibly accused of raping multiple women. And is still Democratic royalty.
The really tragic part about all of this is a sizable section of the American public are going to vote for mentally incompetent man who showered with his own under
aged daughter, sexually assaulted an aide, and likes to sniff little girls hair.
Do we really want that man to have another four years in office?
Oh, and looking at his track record in the WH do we really want that man to have another four years in office?
Putin endorsed Biden.
Who does it benefit for another four years of a Biden admin? Russia, China, Iran, Hamas, pro-Hamas protesters, Hothis, drug cartels, illegal aliens.
Unfortunately, the damage done by Biden just may not be fixed or reversible.
Upstate keeps hitting them out of the park!
for the office of President of the United States bedded a playboy model and a porn star, paid them to keep quiet, and a sizable section of the American public do not care.
FACTS not in evidence. Play your stupid games over at Salon, or Mother Earth News
“. . . zero moral compass”
If Trump did not have a moral compass, he would be unable to withstand the onslaught of the Left’s lawfare cases. In reality, his moral endurance is heroic.
For an actual example of “zero moral compass,” behold the Left — who runs a brain addled candidate who can’t feed himself a *salad.” And the candidate’s wife who permits her Silver Alert husband to run for office.
No, Jeff. America changed when a former President publicly claimed “. . . I never had sexual relations with that woman”, and Americans were explicitly told not to care.
Americans were explicitly told not to care.
True.
A feminist on camera, advised all women must line up on their knees to give William Jefferson, Clinton BJ’s, because the absolute ONLY important thing on earth is to allow women to murder their babies.
-Jeff,
Interesting view. Porn is everywhere on the Net, no doubt due to the proliferation by Playboy and Others.
So People have become ‘desensitized to the issue’ of Porn Stars becoming a factor of everyday lives.
Obviously the Porn Industry has become quite lucrative as it is becomes less taboo (legit) and wide spread.
Trump’s “Vanity” was the preconception that Porn (Porn Star’s association) was going to be used against Him and found unacceptable to the greater Public, the same ‘Calculation of Vanity’ (Weaponizing the Stigma of Porn) of which had been made by Hillary and Team Clinton (Bragg et.al.).
In addition to the fact that He was being “$queezed” by two Layers and a Porn Star (Three Grifters).
He was correct, The issue was Weaponized and used against Him, and here we are Today – The proof is in the pudding.
I don’t feel it is a far stretch of the imagination to think that Hillary Clinton and James Comey (DNC et.al.), are behind this prosecution at the roots.
Blackmailing an Opponent is ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ in overt and covert missions. But Hey! you believe what they want you to believe.
“Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”
“Do we really want a man in that office with absolutely zero moral compass? Really?”
Funny thing, I thought the same thing when I worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and while Bill Clinton was in office.
“it is tragic, is the fact that a contender for the office of President of the United States bedded a playboy model ”
Jeff, do you shower with your daughter? I believe not, but then how can you not support Trump since you only object to his sexual activities with an adult female as opposed to Biden’s sexual activities with a child?
It is time for people to grow up and recognize that sex is regular for adults. Some people are monogamous, and some are not. Live and let live. Why should your values be imposed on others?
In case you wish to charge me with Trump-like activities, I am monogamous with the same woman, probably for more years than you are alive.
Moral Compass like JFK, or Clinton? please.
Jeff made this careful and unfinished statement
Do we really want a man in that office with absolutely zero moral compass? Really?
Really, indeed? Did you have one name in mind… or a long list of occupants of the White House? Any particular reason why you couldn’t come up with a name?
Like Biden, who aside from selling his country from the White House, was having “inappropriate showers” with his teenage daughter and happily funding the drugs and whores of his adult son – both from inside and outside the White House? The Biden who Tara Reade came forward to say he raped her when he was a senator and she was one of her interns? The one who got off swimming naked in front of his female Secret Service agents – NOT his male Secret Service agents?
Jeff… when did your ‘absolutely zero moral compass’ concerns surface concerning Biden? That Biden had EIGHT YEARS in the White House for your moral compass concerns to surface prior to Trump running as a candidate.
Before that you had the Obama’s – eight years of them having Harvey Weinstein as a close friend and on the White House open door guest policy list… despite the Secret Service warning them their BFF Harv was a serial pedophile and rapist that they were allowing to be near their daughters. They even arranged for one of their daughters to intern under their BFF Harvey – either figuratively or literally.
Jeff… any ‘absolutely zero moral compass” concerns about the Obamas? You still have a chance to develop that concern – both are now publicly pimping for Bribery Biden (any moral compass evident in accepting bribes from adversarial nations?) for the coming election.
And then there’s the moral compass of both of the Clintons – who also had Harvey Weinstein on the open door policy for their eight years there, hanging around with their daughter. The Bimbo Eruption war room, payoffs to women he sexually assaulted in the White House, blow jobs in the Oval Office, etc.
Jeff, both the Clinton’s are still powerful political players in Soviet Democrat election campaign strategy. You have any concerns you’d like to express that the Clintons have proven for decades that both of them have absolutely zero moral compass?
Jeff… we’re wondering if you have absolutely zero moral compass when your concerns about morality are only limited to Trump. It seems like it is far more likely that morality only becomes one of your personal character attributes if making morality claims might help keep Bribery Biden, The Kiddy Fondler In Chief, in the White House.
And of course one of the marks that identifies Soviet Democrats and their fellow police state fascist Marxist Useful Idiot voters is that they claim their character flaws are actually those of those who stand in the way of their objective. Just as they claim that their opponents are the ones doing what they themselves are doing.
It’s not like we’ve never seen these sophomoric tactics here before.
We have had several over the last 100 years that were far worse,,,, why start being being indignant now?
We cab go all the way back to Jefferson and Hamilton with that.
Regardless, if this is important to you – vote accordingly.
Allegedly bedding a pornstar is not a crime.
boy are you naive.
Trump is no conservative and neither are his followers. Look at the pathetic hillbilly losers who show up to his rallies. Look up video of the people who showed up to Republican campaign speeches in the 1990s and before. Totally different crowd.
The good news is that everyone now understands the government, including courts, is completely controlled by the left and its primary function is advancing left wing political interests.
In the long run it’s much more important that people recognize this reality than have Trump treated appropriately.
So explain to me how government control of the courts by the LEFT resulted in the overturn of Roe v Wade.
Because that’s not the Court.
Its the Constitution.
Because… (let me pull something out of my ass and concoct an answer that I think makes me right).
The bad news is your demonizing of absolutely everyone left of you sounds just like Nazi rhetoric in 1936.
Ralph Chappell said: “Now Avenatti has chimed in from behind Bars claiming Daniels is guilty of all sorts of crimes and is calling for Bragg to prosecute her.”
Avenattii, who was Daniels’ second attorney, has also claimed that Daniels and her first attorney, Keith Davidson, tried to extort money from Trump, and then perjured themselves about it. Avenatti has reportedly volunteered to testify at the trial. I think that Trump’s lawyers should take him up on it. I know that Avenatti is serving prison time, but afaik he hasa not been convicted of perjury, like prosecution witness Micheal Cohen, so the damage to the defense from merely calling him in this shoddy, melodramatic, travesty of a trial should be minimal. The entire purpose of trying Trump is twofold: keep him form campaigning; stir up as much dirt about him as possible. Since the trial does not truly serve Justice in any way, shape, or form anyway, why not see that the mud is equitably slung?
The NY court system is now lower than the Jerry Springer show. What a complete disgrace. I just got back from overseas and some of the folks I spoke with think we’ve lost our collective minds.
This is a complete disgrace and an embarrassment of our legal system and our nation.
Traveling under a variety of names, DEI has been going on for decades.
What does DEI get you? Judge Juan M. Merchan.
How do you spot a ‘DEIer’? In over their head to the point of self destruction though gross ignorance. Just ask Claudine Gay.
Look, we all know what this is all about and why. It’s like watching a cat play with a mouse before eating it. Bragg, (representing the entire prog/left), is enjoying the sadism of this because the prog/left – just like the hamas agitators calling for death and beheadings – is a pernocious bag of hate-filled sadists and thugs surrounded by brainwashed tools in need of a cult.
so when does Trump get back the BILLIONS Democrats are systematically STEALING From him via Government Criminal Action?
I’m sending Trump my life savings.
I truly hope for the day that Republicans jail Democrats by the 1000’s for their ACTUAL crimes across government! Including judges, Congress, DOJ, etc
A righteous fantasy that would only happen if there were a revolution first that disinfected our entire government system at all levels. We are like a house infested by termites where the only means of saving the house is to tent it and then send in the insecticide.
Eventually the house is beyond saving and the only recourse is to knock it down and start over. I believe that is where we are today. It’s not Democrats or Republicans it’s the entire rotten system.
You remind me that the National Guard needs to get ready to take to the streets when Trump loses and his followers riot. The morgues and prisons need to be ready.
My Vote goes to a President that Bangs age appropriate Hot Chicks (Trump) verses one that’s been having sex with under age Girls and an Ole Granny (Bill Clinton).
That said, Bragg just proved:
MOST EXPENSIVE ONE-NIGHT STAND EVER!
Anonymous said: “My Vote goes to a President that Bangs age appropriate Hot Chicks (Trump) verses one that’s been having sex with under age Girls and an Ole Granny (Bill Clinton).”
NTM a President who hyper-sexualized and showered with his impressionable young daughter:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-leaked-diary-accusation/
Who knows if there might not have been behavior that she was too traumatized by to record even in her diary?
Also, Bragg didn’t prove d!ck. Allegations in Daniels’ testimony are extremely questionable; her former attorney Michael Avenatti has credibly accused her of perjury in previous testimony, why should we assume this account is any more truthful?
It’ll be interesting when the details of Epstein flight logs get released in Florida in July. Of course you probably won’t care if Trump is prominently listed. Trump could rape your mom and you’d blame her.
Democrats persecute Trump for non-crimes…while Republicans fund Democrats Civil War against America.
Rule of Law is DEAD in America
A real question.
Is there some filing to a higher court to suspend this trial and investigate the Record of the trial and the ruling handed down. Yesterday was literally obscene. Not the sex fiction presented, but the total abandonment of blind Justice. As a citizen I felt like I was witnessing a crime in motion.
Its like 100 cops standing around watching a group of men gang rape a twelve year old, but none of them move until its all over so they can ask the victim if they are harmed, to decide if they should apply the law.
I also have been thinking about the same question raised by iowan2. In my many decades of practice I have never seen such a filing so I cannot say for sure, but yes, I do believe that an imaginative and bold lawyer could indeed file a petition in the appellate court to stop this travesty of justice. I urge Professor Turley to address this soon. My first thought is a petition for a Writ of Mandamus. There must be others that could be made to fit.
Here is a likely move to make:
A “writ of prohibition”, in the United States, is a court order rendered by a higher court to a judge presiding over a suit in an inferior court. The writ of prohibition mandates the inferior court to cease any action over the case because it may not fall within that inferior court’s jurisdiction. The document is also issued at times when it is deemed that an inferior court is acting outside the normal rules and procedures in the examination of a case. In another instance, the document is issued at times when an inferior court is deemed headed towards defeating a legal right.
Prohibition is more often used by appellate courts. Most often, these courts issue writs of prohibition to prevent lower courts from exceeding their jurisdiction. In some cases, this writ may also be used to prevent an inferior court from acting contrary to the rules of natural justice. The writ of prohibition may not be used to undo any previous acts, but only to prohibit acts not completed.
Writs of prohibition are similar to writs of certiorari, as both types of writs allow superior courts to manage inferior courts. However, unlike a writ of prohibition, superior courts issue writs of certiorari to review decisions which inferior courts have already made.
wiseoldlawyer,
Thank you for offering your experience and training in the law.
I am much more interested in talking about, the scenario you have laid out. It is clear to me, NAL, that the Judge is ignoring rules of evidence. If someone can explain the value of Daniels, to a trial over accounting procedures, I am willing to listen.
“If someone can explain the value of Daniels . . .”
An explanation that will come on the heels of explaining what the underlying “crime” is.
Don’t ask for the meaning of an absurdity. Ask what it’s meant to accomplish.
Sam I am in a real twist over this. What I am witnessing is so in conflict of what I “know” it is impossible to take in information and logically organize the information.
Its like ghosts. People believe in that, fine, you do you. But in my life if I were to encounter such a thing, I dont think I can process the sensory input.
Thats where I am at. I’m getting the input, but I just cant organize it.
“Sam I am in a real twist over this.”
Same here. Because you and I come from a different universe — the one where you try to “logically organize the information.”
My first reaction after that debacle was: How in the hell am I supposed to understand whatever that was?
Then I remembered the point about absurdities. And it all made sense.
I would like to have a realistic hope that a court of oversight jurisdiction would step in to say “Enough of this”. Whether they called it a charade, a trial more reminiscent of Stalin’s Lavarentiy Beria “show me the man and I’ll find you his crimes”, or perhaps a trial reminiscent of how Obama sent Jack Smith to take out his most feared opponent for the 2012 re-election campaign.
I’d be simply happy to hear “Enough of this”. But that isn’t going to happen. For whatever reason, not even SCOTUS is going to stop this. They are almost certainly going to sit quietly and say “We’ll deal with it when it gets here – after the election is over unfortunately, just as we did with Jack Smith taking out Obama’s threat to re-election in 2012”
Of course, their unanimous reversal of Jack Smith’s conviction of Governor McDonnell after Obama defeated the less threatening Romney was cold comfort to McDonnell who was left asking SCOTUS “Where do I go to get my good reputation and political career back”. And Americans with another four years of Obama/Biden.
There’s always hope… but in none of these Soviet Democrat Lavarentiy Beria prosecutions of Trump while at the same time shielding Soviet Democrats from prosecution, I don’t see a realistic hope of intervention.
Many things are going on concurrently.
Daniels testimony extremely benefiicial to Daniels.
I was impressed by Daniels performance in Kimmel – net because I beleived her, but because she was doign a very very good job of self promotion.
If you think of Daniels testimony as self promotion – it was a big win for her. She will be in the spotlight for a long time – especially if Trump wins the election. She will make all kinds of deals and make lots of money.
And I am fine with that.
At the same time – I beleive her story less today than before.
There is some indications she wnet over badly with the jury – we will se.
She absolutely put Merchan and Bragg in a bind. And she gave Trump another major legal issue.
And she did this all with no personal risk. No one is prosecuting her for perjury and she knows it.
Separately – with all this lawfare – the law is taking a huge beating.
The judges, lawyers and legal scholars on the left do not seem to grasp how thoroughly they have undermined peoples faith in our legal system.
You want a legal remedy – there probably is one, but the big deal is trust is not restored until this left wing nut lawfare gets policed by the courts.
Regardless, The left has made law-fare their campaign. They have nothing else. What is going on in Manhattan and GA and FL is their political campaign.
And it is going very badly.
Trump joked earlier that he is one indictment away from a landslide. But this is more than a joke. The reality – is the left has chose to fight this election in the courts. And it is LOSING. Trump is putting Merchan, Bragg, the Democratic party, the left, Biden on trial, as they put him on trial. Trump is on Trial in Manhattan with a Manhattan Jury – Merchan, Bragg, the Democratic party, the left, Biden are on trial before the country and they are losing – badly.
As Sun Tzu said – never interfere when your enemy is making a mistake.
Regardless, my point is that many many many things are going on at once here. And they are mostly going quite well for Trump.
This Manhattan trial – itself only part of all that is going on, has many facets.
Does it matter if Trump is convicted, if polls do not change or are even boosted ?
Despite the fact that Daniels said bad things about Trump, I think that her testimony helped herself, Helped Trump and harmed Bragg and Merchan.
Those on the left here focus on what she said – literally, believing every word. They likely beleive Trump has a mushroom penis, and would not vote for him specifically for that reason.
They ignore the effect of what she said – on her own future, on Trump’s on the court, on Bragg on the Jury.
Judging those perfectly is nearly impossible.
But the indications are that despite the literal words she said – Trump was helped – against Bragg, Merchan, and Biden and with the Jury.
The justice going on yesterday in court is of the poetic variety. Trump, like a 5-year-old still in diapers, always lies when faced with critique. He digs in that “they never had sex — she’s making the whole thing up”. So, the Judge allows Stormy to force the truth upon him under oath to the delight of every human being disgusted with his moral vacuum chamber.
It’s fine if the jury comes back either hung on a felony charge, or with a misdemeanor. That would be judicial justice.
But, poetic justice has its own rules, JT, let’s not conflate the two..
pbinca
This is criminal trial. Trump is not on trial for lying. But you give us a glimpse into the Hate Trump crowd. We can see the facts will not enter into your world of hate Trump.
The law is meaningless to you
Hey Moron Pbinca, how does Trump supposedly lying about sleeping with Daniels have anything to do with a crime? Is he charged with lying about the sex? Is he charged with sleeping around? Is he actually charged with any felony so far?
Little fascist pigs like Pbinca take joy in something she calls “justice of the poetic variety”?? Forget guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, for Republicans we now have some sort of cosmic legal karma standard.
Terminal TDS.
Re. “Poetic variety justice”… I cannot seem to find that emotion in the US Constitution, nor Black’s Law Dictionary. However, it is readily evidenced in the reign of terror set forth by Carl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin.
“I cannot seem to find that emotion in the US Constitution . . .”
It’s in 14A.
First she denied it, many times, for years.
Then says it did actually happen.
Either way, she was lying at some point.
“they never had sex — she’s making the whole thing up”
PbinCA, you act as if Trump said those words. You even put the words in quotes for emphasis.
Why don’t you ask yourself who they are if this is a quote made by Trump?
Poetic Justice shouldn’t happen in a court
pbinca, Soviet Democrat police state fascist popped up with his latest BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP! moment
But, poetic justice has its own rules, JT, let’s not conflate the two..
Justice for Soviet Democrat police state fascist like pbinca, is when Soviet Democrats can go full on Lavarentiy Beria: defending and hiding their criminal felons in politics, while at the same time inventing crimes to take out their most feared opponents. And nothing says “we’re police state fascists”, like Bragg inventing a crime that every prosecutor before him said never existed, and then prosecuting the crimes he invented.
Once again, here we have Soviet Democrat police state fascists echoing Lavarentiy Beria promising Stalin “Show me the man and I’ll find you his crimes or invent them”. Just as Jack Smith did when taking out the most dangerous opponent to the Obama/Biden re-election in 2012
Police state fascist Soviet Democrats don’t care that their Soviet show trials will be overturned on appeal – AFTER THE ELECTION. Just as Jack Smith’s conviction of McDonnell was overturned in a rare unanimous SCOTUS decision joined in by Obama appointees. If it takes out a dangerous opponent, then it’s Soviet Justice – “poetic justice” has nothing to do with it.
These culls would merely be Americans to be embarrassed we share oxygen with and little else when it comes to being American. But they are dangerous police state fascists, supporting and pimping for dangerous police state fascists who act as Lavarentiy Beria did.
BTW, pbinca… speaking of “still in diapers” – you might want to remember that it’s Biden that the Secret Service is carrying a diaper bag for. Not Trump’s Secret Service detail.
And if “always lies when faced with critique”… it isn’t Trump who can’t tell the truth when facing any critique. Whether about why he abandoned Americans in Afghanistan, abandoned Americans in Baghdad before that, etc.
Now, you here you are spouting to us from your moral vacuum chamber that has been behind (and remains behind) your moral icons like the Clintons, the Obamas, and now the Bidens.
I wish there was a link to her testimony, if available.
Now Avenatti has chimed in from behind Bars claiming Daniels is guilty of all sorts of crimes and is calling for Bragg to prosecute her.
Also…not a part of Turley’s article is the huge rocks the Florida Classified Documents Case just ran into in its prosecution of Trump.
The Special Prosecutor there had to admit to the Court he and his staff have lied to the Court about the document evidence and that the FBI had done a very sloppy job of examining the documents.
Turley also left out the continuing problems for Willis and her Case against Trump in the Georgia State Courts in Fulton County.
These are all own goals by Prosecutors who are using every corrupt effort possible to “get” Trump.
In all three Cases the Judges involved should have declared a Mistrial in each case and publicly informed the Prosecution of the tawdry standards of conduct they all have stained the various Judicial systems by their shoddy misconduct.
In the Bragg Case the Judge should be removed from the Bench over his behavior.
Perhaps those college students wanting to bring the guillotine are targeting the wrong people if they seek to improve the way the system of justice works in this country.
But then that crowd is a whole different kettle of fish that need to be dealt with and not be tolerated or negotiated with.
The judge in the Bragg case should not just be removed, he should be disbarred.
The goal was accomplished!! Get the BS into the brains of the jury and public! The Genie is out of the bottle, try putting it back in……
The core of the case is that her story would be so embarrassing to Trump that he had to keep her quiet. This reaction to this testimony demonstrates how bad it would have been for Trump, and that is important for the jury to understand.
Thank you for proving my point………….
The core of the case is that her story would be so embarrassing to Trump that he had to keep her quiet.
It is not the “core” of anything. This is an accusation of accounting decisions violating a law. Yesterday’s testimony never touched on the indicted crimes.
Sammy, if the so called evidence is so embarrassing then wouldn’t any MARRIED man want it kept quiet? Wouldn’t any BUSINESSMAN want it kept quiet? So how is this some sort of campaign violation? How is being blackmailed by a money grubbing wh*re and paying for her silence a crime?
Sammy loves the Clintons who had an entire team dealing with ACTUAL bimbo eruptions. Eruptions that were coming from state employees and not film wh*res.
The goal of her testimony was not to answer all the legal questions, but to provide details of a particular part of the case. It is my understanding that campaign finance laws have requirements about how much people can donate, and how that gets reported. The hush money payment, if used in attempt to aid the campaign, would have violated those laws.
It is my understanding that campaign finance laws have requirements about how much people can donate,
The indictment never touches campaign finance law.
Despite the fact Judge Merchan has in fact told the jury four (4) times that Trump is charged with campaign finance violations
There is a rather large elephant in the room concerning that the left ignores
Federal civil campaign laws are under the Original Jurisdiction of the FEC Federal Elections Commission. To Explain to you Sammy, means NO OTHER court in the Nation has jurisdiction to hear evidence.
The Criminal Election Statutes assign original Jurisdiction to the DoJ No other enitity can enforce the criminal statutes than the DoJ
State of NY Election Laws only apply to those running for State or local positions.
Daniels Testimony never provided any evidence to advance the charges in the indictment.
Merchan violated rules of evidence by allowing Daniels on the stand despite Objections of the Defense, citing the relevant rules.
Sammy must be hungry…because Iowan keeps eating his lunch.
Sammy, Nope.
First and foremost – the government can not constitutionally restrict what people can spend on their own political campaigns. The supreme court decisions on this are atleast 40 years old, almost as old as the earliest efforts to restrict campaign spending.
If as alleged by Bragg Trump paid off Daniels for political reasons – that can not violate the law.
Trump has contributed millions to his own campaigns. There is no limit on what he can spend.
Next, even beyond Candidates contributing to their own campaigns – as a rule Federal Election laws apply primarily to presidentical contests where the candidates receive federal matching funds. This was discussed with the Obama/McCain campaign, because tghe amount that candidates could raise without federal matching funds was begining to approach what could be raised inside the constraints imposed by the laws based on matching funds.
None of this should surprise – The federal government does not have a general police power. Federal laws are imposed one of two ways – there is a clear delegation of a specific power to the federal government in the constitution, or the 2nd way is that the federal government delivers money – with strings attached. The federal election laws are the strings attached to federal matching funds.
Edwards got into trouble – because he used Donor money to pay for the silence of his paramour – even then – the FEC refused to call it a problem – and Jack Smith lost in court when without the FEC he tried to prosecute Edwards in court.
Before that – the Clinton campaign pulled every stuntt under the sun – including payoffs, NDA’s and trashing any women that came forward to kill unfavorable stories from Clinton’s daliances – yet, no charges ever.
” It is my understanding that campaign finance laws have requirements about how much people can donate”
Not to their own political campaigns.
“The hush money payment, if used in attempt to aid the campaign, would have violated those laws.”
Nope. Lets presume this actually is a campaign expenditure – despite the FACT that the FEC which has exclusive jurisdiction over federal elections has said that a campaign expenditure is something that ONLY benefits the campaign.
Out side of using campaign funds to commit crimes – the FEC can not tell a campaign how to spend the money it raises.
THAT would be election interference.
Primarily Federal Election laws limit the amount that donors – other than the candidate themselves can donate DIRECTLY to a campaign – in return for federal matching funds.
The primary role of government in elections is to conduct VOTING in such a fashion that the people can trust the results.
It is NOT to control the way Campaign’s are conducted.
Further that should be obvious. Every candidate has their own style and strategy. No one in their right mind would want the FEC saying – you can only spend so much on Radio, or TV or staging campaign rallies. Or campaign busses, or on GOTV efforts.
What does her story have to do with the so-call, still yet to be determined crime?
Absolutely nothing.
Merchan should be thrown off this case. A mistrial. Someone needs to step in. this is an embarrassment to the entire Legal system. Courts. This Judge is simply a Rubber stamp for Bragg/Biden Admin. Merchan should be disbarred for this entire case.
We all know that this will be overturned on appeal but I agree with Anonymous, it should be stopped now. This is an ongoing crime that is happening in real time and it is election interference.
Judge Ito Redux.
The NY Post. I wouldn’t line a bird cage with that rag.
your are correct the NY Times is much better at absorbing poop
Wally, I know how you feel, Just like when you got caught screwing the nieghbor girls with video taken with an android phone. We all know pictures are meaningless unless taken by an IPhone
Iowan, that is two excellent analogies you have made already today. Very clever!!
At least I like girls.
“At least I like girls.”
Wally, you are a typical braindead leftist who knows nothing. “At least” demeans those males who have an alternate preference. Antifa might now protest you and subject you and your family to threats. You don’t seem to have the ability to think before you speak.
S. Meyer,
It is the likes of Wally who gives me insight to their mentality.
That of a third grader.
If it were not for him and others like him, I would have never known of their simply childish thinking. Makes one wonder what they are like in person.
Upstate, the problem is we assume most people have a reasonably developed mind, but then we start thinking that 100 is the center of the IQ scale. That means half the people are below 100. Then, look at the curve, and you will notice that many people are below your level. Then look at people like Wally who don’t exercise their brains. Add the two together, and you will get dopes and Wallies.