Damning evidence in Trump trial could be gleaned from previous Stormy Daniels lawsuit
Former top prosecutor and law school professor Andrew Weissmann pointed to another case in which Donald Trump gave a deposition confessing to reimbursing hush money payments paid to cover up an affair — and argued it could be damning evidence in his latest trial Trump sat in a New York courtroom for the 13th day of trial Tuesday, accused of creating false business records to hide the payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. He has pleaded not guilty to 34 charges.
Among the things that the prosecutors have "hinted at," said Weissmann, is a previous case in California in which Daniels successfully sued to be released from her non-disclosure agreement with Trump. Daniels testified that there was no interest in her story before the "Access Hollywood" tape was released, and then everyone was interested, Weissmann pointed out.
"All the efforts to dirty it up, saying she's a liar, and the story changed, is belied to where she enters an NDA and lives by it," Weissmann explained. "What's fascinating, and I'll be interested to see if it comes out on redirect, she lives by it, and ultimately, when this story is released and says this is what happens, she doesn't just go out and talk about it."
He recalls that Daniels brought a lawsuit in California, saying that she shouldn't have to abide by the NDA anymore, and she won the case. "And you know what happens in that lawsuit that is relevant to this case?" Weissmann continues. "Donald Trump submits a brief where he says over and over again, I reimbursed Michael Cohen for the hush money payments."
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-stormy-daniels-da/
= new reply since forum marked as read
When Trump says:
I didn't say that, I didn't do that!
could a prosecution lawyer take the tack of accusing him of significant memory loss, considering the massive amount of evidence and testimony that he most certainly did say and do what he is denying!!
Could a case then be made that his memory appears to be impaired and perhaps a court ordered mental/neurological evaluation is needed to ensure he has normal cognition to participate in this legal procedure?
You know, he isn't lying, the poor man is too demented to remember?
Or could that only be done after he is found guilty?
I'm thinking that a real neuro exam just might push him to the wished-for stroke. 
