General Discussion

Raven123

(5,822 posts)

5. I have heard that elsewhere

Thu May 9, 2024, 08:15 AM

May 2024

I have mixed feelings about Daniels’ testimony. On the other hand, every one knows TFG has been an adulterer. Why would he pay the sum he did just to silence an accuser? His defense team claimed in opening that he is a good family man.

Also, he could simply testify that she lied and go on with whatever argument they plan to use about the payment. It’s unclear to me where the defense will land on this. Some level of detail lends credibility to the Daniels’ claim. Unfortunately she went too far.

I just hope the prosecutors can keep Cohen from doing the same thing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

My wife (a Lawyer) is not thrilled with Stormy Daniels' testimony... [View all] brooklynite May 2024 OP

Apparently defense didn't object though. emulatorloo May 2024 #1

But the Judge did. brooklynite May 2024 #2

Then the issue of waiver would come into play. Tommy Carcetti May 2024 #4

Yes. The very fact the defense(apparently) chose not to object is an issue. Their strategy may hlthe2b May 2024 #20

Judge called them out for not objecting. That's in the record. emulatorloo May 2024 #21

Wasn't tRump poking his attorney to object to stuff being said, was that about the details??? a kennedy May 2024 #17

poking? poozwah May 2024 #30

Oh my, too funny. 😂 🤣 😂 a kennedy May 2024 #61

I think it helps to establish motive. Tommy Carcetti May 2024 #3

I agree. He's cheated so many times that "we had sex" would barely raise an eyebrow * Oopsie Daisy May 2024 #7

Wrong... brooklynite May 2024 #9

but at the same time... getagrip_already May 2024 #18

Testimony can be offered for more than one reason. Tommy Carcetti May 2024 #44

Isn't that for the jury to decide? MorbidButterflyTat May 2024 #62

I have heard that elsewhere Raven123 May 2024 #5

She said it was consensual. Never said rape or sexual assault. spanone May 2024 #6

But people here have. brooklynite May 2024 #12

Irrelevant. spanone May 2024 #19

Speculation from anonymous DU'ers doesn't matter in the court AFAIK emulatorloo May 2024 #23

This is the only chance of getting some of MOMFUDSKI May 2024 #8

It's not the job of the prosecution to "get the goods out" before the election. Its to get a conviction. brooklynite May 2024 #11

Quite so, and they are doing just that. Happy Hoosier May 2024 #25

BUT, if the conviction gets tossed on appeal... brooklynite May 2024 #26

On what grounds? Happy Hoosier May 2024 #29

On the grounds of tainting the Jury by brining up unrelated character issues about Trump. brooklynite May 2024 #31

Did you read my posts at all? Happy Hoosier May 2024 #35

Yes. We discuss this upstream. Any & all due respect to Brooklynite's attorney wife but... hlthe2b May 2024 #39

Difference is, might be unrelated but TRUE? bluestarone May 2024 #37

You can't bring up evidence that's true but irrelevant. brooklynite May 2024 #38

Was evidence brought up by the Defense? bluestarone May 2024 #52

The Defense doesn't bring up evidence until the Prosecution rests. brooklynite May 2024 #56

Which is when the defense can and should object. Happy Hoosier May 2024 #57

They can and will appeal, but... Happy Hoosier May 2024 #54

It could be both. MOMFUDSKI May 2024 #41

I think this is why the judge asked Trump's lawyers why they did not object more. mackdaddy May 2024 #10

"this will be used in the appeal and it might be why Trumps lawyers did allow it to go as far as it did." Happy Hoosier May 2024 #27

Jesus H..... PCIntern May 2024 #13

And yet the Judge felt the need to tell her to stick to the relevant facts. brooklynite May 2024 #16

That's his job. And he did it. emulatorloo May 2024 #22

And the facts include the fact that they had sex and it is vitally PCIntern May 2024 #50

and if she didn't give all those details you can bet the ranch Jersey Devil May 2024 #14

It doesn't match his macho image SARose May 2024 #15

Heard a lawyer saying why that detail is okay... Happy Hoosier May 2024 #24

Sexist much? NanaCat May 2024 #28

No shit. MorbidButterflyTat May 2024 #64

Andrea Marcotte at Slate has a very different view. niyad May 2024 #32

No, all she NEEDED to do is tell HER TRUTH SunsetDreams2 May 2024 #33

I've heard a fair number of legal observers express that opinion. Patton French May 2024 #34

It was explained that the judge will likely instruct the jury what can be considered. LiberalFighter May 2024 #36

And the defense will appeal that..... brooklynite May 2024 #43

Donald Trump's going to appeal if he gets convicted? Prairie Gates May 2024 #47

Just a reminder to the jury that it's not a rape trial intheflow May 2024 #58

Very silly dpibel May 2024 #63

this is flat out incorrect. there's no rationale to limit her story to the fact that they had sex unblock May 2024 #40

When Jodi Arias was on trial for murder... Orrex May 2024 #42

... Prairie Gates May 2024 #45

Cheer Up, Fella, One Day There'll Be Blue Skies Once More.... The Magistrate May 2024 #46

Other legal experts have a different view than your wife. Elessar Zappa May 2024 #48

It wasn't encouraging when even the judge said it was TMI. JohnnyRingo May 2024 #49

Trump will appeal regardless. walkingman May 2024 #51

Well, she's back on the stand today Barry Markson May 2024 #53

I was not thrilled myself Tickle May 2024 #55

With her profession and personality, she was simply going to go there, no matter what. bucolic_frolic May 2024 #59

What is your wife basing her opinion on? MorbidButterflyTat May 2024 #60

And? BannonsLiver May 2024 #65

Snort XanaDUer2 May 2024 #66