Fogbow

Give me a break. Good grief.

https://x.com/MrJonCryer/status/1795937171263648248

Jon Cryer
@MrJonCryer

The guy who could have called those witnesses is Todd Blanche.

THE GUY STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.

Acyn
@Acyn


Trump: A lot key witnessers were not called

Transcript 5/28 (Closing Arguments) via WaPo.

maybe just the intro, Habba on Faux News ...

neonzx wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 9:12 pm Where did tfg have these women imported from to mourn?

It. Is. A. Cult.

Can’t check for what now but just saw a blip that the jury has sent a note asking for certain parts of the jury instructions read to them

realist wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 11:01 am Can’t check for what now but just saw a blip that the jury has sent a note asking for certain parts of the jury instructions read to them

Yes, they narrowed it down to fewer than 20 pages. The reading by Justice Mercham has concluded and now the clerks are reading back the testimony they requested from Pecker and Cohen. The jury also request headphones and speakers for use with the two laptops.

Edit: They are now to the last of the read backs, Cohen's version of the TT meeting.

I have spent the morning engaging in hyper intensive tantric galactic psychomeditational pseudoemotional yard work exercises, and I am now psychologically completely unraveled, and thus ready for a verdict. More ready than I was yesterday. Or even a few minutes ago.

I think maybe they wanted the testimony and instructions read back because they're having trouble persuading the Trumper holdout that the evidence is certainly there to support a conviction, and they wanted to make sure that the holdout heard it straight.

'Course, I would be irresponsible not to speculate ...

Rachel Scharf
@rscharf_
The readback just finished. My analysis: it could be quite powerful that the jury just heard Pecker and Cohen's accounts of the 2015 Trump Tower meeting back to back, even though these two witnesses testified weeks apart. It's almost like real-time corroboration.

Appears the jury is zeroing in on corroboration for Cohen's testimony on the scheme(s).

Or on the initial agreement that definitively links fuckhead to the conspiracy and to the fact that it was to affect the campaign.

For one of their requests, they were wanting the part of the instructions that explained what they could use to make criminal inferences.

Only a holdout would need to hear that instruction again, IMHO.

I'se skeered of a hung jury. But if so, let's have a retrial before the election.

I might if I can’t see a bloody copy in print.

Hopefully, the jury ends up as hung as the defendant

Oh, that's what you meant...

Train was a mite slow pulling into ole Cottonwood today.

I think it's good for the prosecution that they wanted the Pecker and the Cohen testimony. Their appearance was weeks apart, but what they said backs the other up, what-happened-wise. They confirm each other, from different sides of the same events and from the McDougal situation, it's clear that turnip told Pecker that Cohen would be his go-to for these "troublesome women" situations (payoffs).

I can't remember if the DA pointed out that Pecker traded immunity from campaign finance charges for his testimony (that's right, isn't it?) - and that's a direct line to trump doctoring records to conceal those campaign law violations.

I did not pay close attention to the whole trial; I know the judge ruled no Access Hollywood tape in court - just the transcript - but did they actually read the transcript in court/introduce into evidence? Because the timing of the flurry of activity around paying off Daniels directly lines up with that. It would have been a one-two punch to the campaign. They knew about Daniels years before, but her story coming on top of the AH tape would have been really bad - the cult wasn't as strongly entrenched back then. [forget about that asshole Comey coming out with the Hillary "investigation: bullshit at the same time but I'm not bitter or anything]

Maybe I missed it, but was it ever addressed, if trump did not have sex with Daniels, why didn’t he go to the police and have her arrested for extortion?

Just saying.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 2:16 pm Maybe I missed it, but was it ever addressed, if trump did not have sex with Daniels, why didn’t he go to the police and have her arrested for extortion?

Just saying.

Right?

Who was he married to when he was carrying on with her?

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 2:16 pm Maybe I missed it, but was it ever addressed, if trump did not have sex with Daniels, why didn’t he go to the police and have her arrested for extortion?

Even if the sex didn't happen, it could still be extortion.

* * *

Rolodex wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 2:21 pmWho was he married to when he was carrying on with her?

Foggy wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 12:40 pm Only a holdout would need to hear that instruction again, IMHO.

I'se skeered of a hung jury. But if so, let's have a retrial before the election.

I agree with that. Also I don't think it's necessarily good for the prosecution that they wanted a readback of the testimony that is worst for Trump. All that means is that probably at least one juror is trying to convince at least one other juror and wants the most relevant testimony read back as a reminder.

Remember the OJ trial? The only thing the jury ever asked for was a readback of the limo driver's testimony. IMO that was the worst testimony against OJ as it was coming from a person that had no axe to grind, no reason to dislike OJ, no reason to lie. And his testimony was damning against OJ as it showed that he was not outside chipping golf balls like he claimed and that he entered through his front door by coming around from the back of the house, not from the front yard, again, where he was supposedly chipping golf balls. So, the jury heard very damning testimony read back and an hour later came back with a full acquittal.

So, I would not be thinking that conviction is more likely, I would be absolutely thinking that if the testimony that gets to the meat of the matter has to be read back, that someone on the jury has reason to believe someone else on the jury didn't quite get it the first time and they are wanting it read back so they can argue what it means to the portion of the jury that is "not getting it". You don't need the meat of the case read back when they are all in agreement about it. Part of Pecker's testimony that was read back went to WHY he decided to not get involved with Daniels' payment after he spoke with his lawyer about the possible criminal liability he had as a result of getting involved in the payment to Karen McDougal. It wasn't just because Trump failed to pay him back, it was after speaking to his lawyer Pecker became concerned that he had broken campaign finance laws already with the McDougal catch and kill conspiracy.

There is a verdict.

Jury has reached a verdict.

Requested half an hour to fill out forms.