45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)

[shed driver]

BBC News - Trump trial live: Judge warns the former president risks jail over gag order violations - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68...

Oh please let him see the inside of a cell!

SD.

[fly by wire]

shed driver said:

BBC News - Trump trial live: Judge warns the former president risks jail over gag order violations - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68...

Oh please let him see the inside of a cell!

SD.

Thats exactly what he wants.

Playing the martyr whilst appealing to his fans.

[Blackpuddin]

fly by wire said:

shed driver said:

BBC News - Trump trial live: Judge warns the former president risks jail over gag order violations - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68...

Oh please let him see the inside of a cell!

SD.

Thats exactly what he wants.

Yes but it's also exactly what he doesn't want in the real world.

[Byker28i]

shed driver said:

BBC News - Trump trial live: Judge warns the former president risks jail over gag order violations - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68...

Oh please let him see the inside of a cell!

SD.

Judge Merchan, finding Trump violated his gag order a 10th time: "It appears that the $1,000 fines are not serving as a deterrent."

"The last thing I want to do is to put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States, and possibly the next president as well. There are many reasons why incarceration is truly a last resort for you."

"At the end of the day, I have a job to do. As much as I do not want to propose a jail sanction, I will, if necessary."

[Byker28i]

trump back to lying about his gag order, now claiming he can't even answer if he's going to testify because of it
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787473481342542059


He's also unhappy they are calling up the trump org financial conreollers who know all about the payments
trump: The witnesses they want to bring up, they have nothing to do with the case. Not fair! Not fair!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787474039315038642

[Blackpuddin]

Byker28i said:

He's also unhappy they are calling up the trump org financial controllers who know all about the payments
trump: The witnesses they want to bring up, they have nothing to do with the case. Not fair! Not fair!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787474039315038642

Hey look, a squirrel etc. I wonder how long it will be before they reach the point at which the judge feels he can put it to the jury. Or is it not down to him? I am not a legal expert.

[DanL]

Blackpuddin said:

Byker28i said:

He's also unhappy they are calling up the trump org financial controllers who know all about the payments
trump: The witnesses they want to bring up, they have nothing to do with the case. Not fair! Not fair!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787474039315038642

Hey look, a squirrel etc. I wonder how long it will be before they reach the point at which the judge feels he can put it to the jury. Or is it not down to him? I am not a legal expert.

How the trial process works is nicely outlined here.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/trial

It’s not up to the judge is the short answer. Opening arguments for prosecution and defence, prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and closing arguments all have to be gone through before we get to a jury.

[Blackpuddin]

DanL said:

Blackpuddin said:

Byker28i said:

He's also unhappy they are calling up the trump org financial controllers who know all about the payments
trump: The witnesses they want to bring up, they have nothing to do with the case. Not fair! Not fair!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787474039315038642

Hey look, a squirrel etc. I wonder how long it will be before they reach the point at which the judge feels he can put it to the jury. Or is it not down to him? I am not a legal expert.

How the trial process works is nicely outlined here.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/trial

It’s not up to the judge is the short answer. Opening arguments for prosecution and defence, prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and closing arguments all have to be gone through before we get to a jury.

Presumably the defence will have plenty of very long arguments to go through.

[DanL]

Blackpuddin said:

DanL said:

Blackpuddin said:

Byker28i said:

He's also unhappy they are calling up the trump org financial controllers who know all about the payments
trump: The witnesses they want to bring up, they have nothing to do with the case. Not fair! Not fair!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787474039315038642

Hey look, a squirrel etc. I wonder how long it will be before they reach the point at which the judge feels he can put it to the jury. Or is it not down to him? I am not a legal expert.

How the trial process works is nicely outlined here.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/trial

It’s not up to the judge is the short answer. Opening arguments for prosecution and defence, prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and closing arguments all have to be gone through before we get to a jury.

Presumably the defence will have plenty of very long arguments to go through.

Who can say? However;

link above said:

In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury. A judge is similar to a referee in a game, they are not there to play for one side or the other but to make sure the entire process is played fairly.

So, presumably there’s a limit to what they can present, or how long they could spin it out for.

[Blackpuddin]

DanL said:

Blackpuddin said:

DanL said:

Blackpuddin said:

Byker28i said:

He's also unhappy they are calling up the trump org financial controllers who know all about the payments
trump: The witnesses they want to bring up, they have nothing to do with the case. Not fair! Not fair!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787474039315038642

Hey look, a squirrel etc. I wonder how long it will be before they reach the point at which the judge feels he can put it to the jury. Or is it not down to him? I am not a legal expert.

How the trial process works is nicely outlined here.

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/trial

It’s not up to the judge is the short answer. Opening arguments for prosecution and defence, prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and closing arguments all have to be gone through before we get to a jury.

Presumably the defence will have plenty of very long arguments to go through.

Who can say? However;

link above said:

In a trial, the judge — the impartial person in charge of the trial — decides what evidence can be shown to the jury. A judge is similar to a referee in a game, they are not there to play for one side or the other but to make sure the entire process is played fairly.

So, presumably there’s a limit to what they can present, or how long they could spin it out for.

Thanks for the info. Yes, that's the point I was wondering about really, whether the judge has the power to call a halt to proceedings. I imagine in this particular case any attempt by him to say 'righto lads, we've heard more than enough now, let's send the jury out' will be greeted by cacophonous bleating by trump and his motley legal crew. Merchan will have to play it canny, but on his showing so far it looks like he can do that.

[Byker28i]

Blackpuddin said:

Byker28i said:

He's also unhappy they are calling up the trump org financial controllers who know all about the payments
trump: The witnesses they want to bring up, they have nothing to do with the case. Not fair! Not fair!
https://twitter.com/i/status/1787474039315038642

Hey look, a squirrel etc. I wonder how long it will be before they reach the point at which the judge feels he can put it to the jury. Or is it not down to him? I am not a legal expert.

Up next is Jeff McConney, the former Trump Org. controller and who was one of the defendants found to have been liable in trumps last civil fraud trial... who was one who claimed trump misused charity money
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-mcconney-test...

Who helped pay the money to Cohen...

Was asked by prosecutors if it's true Michael Cohen was paid $360,000 back on a $180,000 expense and wasn't aware of another instance where an expense reimbursement was doubled to account for taxes.

problem for trump here is that his 2016 financial disclosure claimed he “fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017” for a sume between between “$100,001 - $250,000”.

Jurors have also been shown the bank statement with Allen Weisselberg's writing as well as a documents with the notes he took.

[Byker28i]

They were sending trump org checks to trump in the WH for him to sign off, as known he never divested

One of the repayment checks to Michael Cohen had got lost while being sent between the trump Org. and the White House for trumps signature.
Checks had to be sent from the company to the White House for trump to sign each of them before they were issued.

He knew about everything, another witness demolishing trumps claim that Cohen went rogue (same excuse as he used in lots of other trials - that an employee went rogue)

[DanL]

Blackpuddin said:

Thanks for the info. Yes, that's the point I was wondering about really, whether the judge has the power to call a halt to proceedings. I imagine in this particular case any attempt by him to say 'righto lads, we've heard more than enough now, let's send the jury out' will be greeted by cacophonous bleating by trump and his motley legal crew. Merchan will have to play it canny, but on his showing so far it looks like he can do that.

I don’t know if he can or not, but I believe both sides have to state who their witnesses are - Trump can’t spend the next six months calling all and sundry to testify. Similarly (on the link above) the prosecution can object on the grounds of relevancy to questions being asked, so any witnesses on the stand for Trump can’t spend a year giving their life story in response to any old question from Trumps lawyers.

[Blackpuddin]

DanL said:

Blackpuddin said:

Thanks for the info. Yes, that's the point I was wondering about really, whether the judge has the power to call a halt to proceedings. I imagine in this particular case any attempt by him to say 'righto lads, we've heard more than enough now, let's send the jury out' will be greeted by cacophonous bleating by trump and his motley legal crew. Merchan will have to play it canny, but on his showing so far it looks like he can do that.

I don’t know if he can or not, but I believe both sides have to state who their witnesses are - Trump can’t spend the next six months calling all and sundry to testify. Similarly (on the link above) the prosecution can object on the grounds of relevancy to questions being asked, so any witnesses on the stand for Trump can’t spend a year giving their life story in response to any old question from Trumps lawyers.

That sounds like the normal and reasonable process that you would expect the law to follow but as we've already seen there's been very little normal or reasonable stuff so far.

[Byker28i]

Former Georgias GOP Lt Gov Geoff Duncan has said he's voting for Biden and otjer republicans should do the same.
“The GOP will never rebuild until we move on from the trump era, leaving conservative (but not angry) Republicans like me no choice but to pull the lever for Biden,”

Edited by Byker28i on Monday 6th May 20:18

[Byker28i]

Is trumps defence team forgetting what trump was claiming?

trumps lawyer has just got McConney to say that Weisselberg told him the money was for some sort of reimbursement, and that the paperwork disguised it as legal fees. This is the defence proving the charges against trump

trump was claiming the payments to Cohen were legal fees and not a reimbursement.

Whoops

[Byker28i]

The falseness of the invoices is made crystal clear by the fact that if it were just a reimbursement is would be paid 1 for 1 and recorded as such, trump wouldd owe Cohen $130,000.

But the reimbursement had to be doubled because it was disguised as income on which Cohen would have to pay taxes. Weisselberg and McConney both took notes that reflect that scheme and the prosecution have them entered as evidence.

[Byker28i]

Deborah Tarasoff testified yesterday, trump org.'s accounts payable supervisor, who said that any legal expenses above $10,000 at the company could only be approved by trump, Don Jr. or Eric.

trump spun out repaying Cohen at monthly payments of $35k.

They have all the invoices paid, the cheques...
In July, there wasn't an amount on the invoice for Cohen and Deborah Tarasoff testified she asked to confirm the amount was $35,000.

"Pay same amount per Jeff + Allen," is written in pen on the invoice, and the cheque for the amount to pay it dated Aug 2017 was signed by trump

Blanche tried hard to void her testimony, pointing out she wasn't present for conversations between trump and weisselberg, tried to suggest trump was distracted getting ready to be potus, which she said was correct, but then added that she sent the cheques to trump at the WH every month in 2017 and they came back signed by him.

Another bad day for trump. They left a complete paper trail


Edit:
Tristian Snell makes the point they had an " in-house salaried employee but then also pay him an extra $35,000/mo for 11 months and say it's legal fees when it's really to reimburse that lawyer for creating a shell company and paying off a pornstar to save your presidential campaign"

https://twitter.com/TristanSnell/status/1787591324...

Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 7th May 07:10

[Byker28i]

Fox Host Jesse Watters has a strange obsession with trump, trying desperately to be the next Carlson...

Claimed if trump went to prison he'd spend the time working out and come out ripped with a prison body
[youtube]https://twitter.com/i/status/1787644480100749544[/youtube]


LOL as if trump would do any exercise, be able to do his hair...

Internet response was brilliant

"Will he pay someone to do his push ups?"
"Why is Watters obsessed with trumps body"
and of course
"I thought trump already had a prison body, based on the image of him that his cultists put on their pickup trucks... You're telling me that isn't real???"

[Byker28i]

Newsweek are reporting that Nauta has images on his phone, photos of classified documents, one of which he sent to someone.

Remember Nauta has claimed he didn't know they had classified docs in, that it was newspaper clippings and hair shamppo
https://www.newsweek.com/photo-evidence-trump-clas...