Posted on 05/08/2024 6:22:41 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said Tuesday on “The Source” that during the New York business record case, adult film star Stormy Daniels’ cross-examination by former President Donald Trump’s lawyers was “disastrous.”
Honig said, “It’s hard for me to believe that a juror heard that and thought, this is entirely made up. There may well be some embellishments…but I think it’s quite clear they had sex in 2006 in that hotel room. But the cross-exam, boy, her responses were disastrous. I mean, ‘Do you hate Donald Trump?’ Yes. Of course, she does. That’s a big deal. When the witness hates the person whose liberty is at stake, that’s a big damn deal. And she’s putting out tweets, fantasizing about him being in jail. That really undermines the credibility.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Any info on when his cologne products became available?
So the headline should be. “Stormy’s responses to cross examination were disastrous”
2004. Oh no way he had or used Old Spice.
The supposed encounter occurred in 2006, when Trump was a big-time celebrity and TV host, but still a decade away from being involved in politics.
The NDA came about in October 2016, just prior to the election and was orchestrated by Cohen, probably without Trump's knowledge. It was only until after the election that the payments started to reimburse Cohen.
The premise of the entire prosecution is absurd, as trying to control stories about political candidates is not illegal, and Cohen asking to be reimbursed while calling it legal expenses is the most accurate description. Cohen was his lawyer, and he reached a settlement with Daniels. Turns out that having any connection with Cohen has worked out poorly for Trump, which seems to be a common thread with him. To be fair, it's hard to find good people who aren't turned by fame, fortune, and a fawning press.
Yeah, it's all lies and there is no legal case here. But Trump is a crooked SOB and I want him in jail. So, I'm voting to convict.
That's why they have packed the jury with Trump haters like my BIL. Doesn't matter how fake the case is. Top it off with a judge that should be barred from the bench and any sort of practice of the law. Watching this is like being immersed in The Looking Glass with Alice.
As a witness, claiming it happened when it didn’t is perjury ...
I’m 80...so Trump’s age...Old Spice was pretty much out of use by 2000. My husband used it in the 60s and 70’s but in the 80s, he was into the Musks.
Agreed especially since he had his own line of cologne by then.
"Were you lieing then, Ms Clifford, or are you lieing, now?"
The crimes, here, are extortion, libel and slander, I would think.
The signatures were different. But I do believe they were by the same person....if you analyze letter by letter.
I have different ways of signing.
Kimmel asked her if she signed one of them...and she would not answer...which to me is like a big....duh...
Honig is clearly saying that Stormy Daniels blew it under cross-examination, not the defense team
The problem with that is that the prosecution will try the case over again just to keep President Trump tied down and off the campaign trail.
That's what Stormy said.
she said deoderant specifically...my hubby used after ols spice after shave....never the deoderant.
I went through some old ads....Speed Stick was the deoderant in the 70s...and Old Spice was his after shave.
They only had about 40 minutes to cross so far. Will continue on Thursday.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
since she’ll be under oath, and the case may be based on a questionable payment made to her by michael cohen, will the defense be asking story about the relationship she had with cohen?
what positions did they engage in?
did cohen wear a condom?
at the time of her relationship with cohen did she think the money he paid her was coming from him or trump?
was cohen working with stormy to shake trump down for some money?
“this case cannot withstand appeal if there is a conviction.”
Of course it can. The same way it became a case in the first place. We absolutely cannot assume that an appeal will be cleaner or more fair that what’s going on now.
You’re right. This has the feel of going the OJ way... Wrong verdict in the face of clear evidence, by a biased jury.
I’ve seen that one, oooops did I say that out loud
I guess Honig didn’t know about the 5 times she said it never happened. 🙄
I noticed that too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.