Posted on 05/02/2024 8:13:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Former President Donald Trump was back in New York City Thursday for his criminal trial, and it's been a pretty good day for him. During Thursday's proceedings, Keith Davidson, the lawyer representing adult film actress Stormy Daniels, gave revealing testimony that completely undermines Bragg's charges against Trump.
For starters, Davidson argued that the $130,000 payment to Daniels should not be construed as "hush money" but rather as a legitimate "consideration" payment.
Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Johsua Steinglass pressed Davidson on the witness stand about Daniels’ statement in January 2018, which Davidson prepared for his client, that denied any relationship with Trump and said that her only interaction with Trump was “a few public appearances and nothing more.”
“Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false,” the statement says.“I don’t believe that Stormy ever alleged that any interaction with Trump was ‘romantic,‘” Davidson testified Thursday. But it is his understanding that Daniels had a sexual encounter with Trump.
He also said the payment “wasn’t a payoff.”“It wasn’t a payoff. And it wasn’t hush money. It was consideration,” Davidson said. Davidson added that he would never use “hush money” to describe the money exchange.
He would only refer to it as “consideration.” “Consideration” is a contractual legal term for what someone gives in return for the promise to abide by a contract; in this case, money. The payment was labeled "legal fees" in Trump's accounting, which prosecutors allege amounted to fraud.
Steinglass asked about the truthfulness of the Daniels’ statement. Davidson replied, “I think it’s technically true.”
If that wasn't bad enough, Davidson also testified that Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was "despondent" when he didn't get a White House job after Trump won the presidency in 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Bfl
Their issue is , all the cases are equally as weak.
But the juries those kangaroo courts approved (or the dem judges in case Trump wanted to leave it to them) are capable of convictions.
What other explanation? To keep him from campaigning.
for later
There *will* still be a guilty verdict on each and every charge. And the judge *will* sentence DJT to 5 years at Attica.
Luckily the kangaroo court is only one stop on the cases lifecycle. These cases will go on forever. So many issues for grounds for appeal. Its embarrassing to watch and I suspect Trump is loving every minute of it. Every day these case look weaker and weaker and even folks that dont like Trump see something wrong here.
None of this matters. It’s a soviet-style show trial. The judge and jury decided DJT was ‘guilty’ before he even walked into the courthouse. Of course any ‘conviction’ will be laughed out of appeals court. That’s not the point of all this. The point is to keep him from campaining and being elected.
Weaponizers of the law have forfeited all rights to life, liberty and happiness.
Thank you.
haps Alvin bragged a bit too soon.
“Weird lawyer, helped her with her statement which said she didn’t have a relationship with Trump, but “understands” that she did. Doesn’t that mean he helped her commit perjury?”
Which is the type contradiction allowing either side’s attorney to destroy a witness’ credibility by asking “were you lying then or are you lying now?”.
I keep seeing “So and so destroys Braggs case” over an over.
I really think folks, this case can fall apart in every way covncievable, and there still wil be a conviction.
We are looking at this as if it is a legitimate trial and analyzing the merits and the evidence therein.
...we should NOT be looking at it that way.
The make up of this Manhattan jury reminds me of the jury in the novel: TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
RE: Good news is always welcome.
The problem is NOT in the merits of the case, the problem is THE JUDGE and THE JURY.
If one initially votes not guilty, Merchan will tell the jury to go back and get a unanimous verdict. And that non-unanimous juror is unlikely to be as persuasive as Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men. And that juror might have a job and family who want him/her back. A guilty vote would do the trick.
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.