It's gettin' real stormy ... From #CNN ... The defense lawyer didn't say "alleged" sex acts:
*****
#Trump attorney Susan Necheles is renewing the defense team's objection to Stormy Daniels testifying.
"We want to renew our objection to her testifying, particularly about any details of any sexual acts," she says ...
"The details of the accounts are important," prosecutor Susan Hoffinger argues, adding the team Is being careful to omit some details that are "too salacious."
The defense counsel made a motion to declare a mistrial because Stormy Daniels allegedly went into too much detail about her dalliance with Trump. The judge denied it, of course.
I think it's important to remember that the prosecution doesn't have to prove the sex act occurred. The charge is that Trump illegally paid her off because he was afraid the story would come out just before the election. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant.
From #CNN:
*****
Daniels says: "I was a much braver person in 2016 than I was in 2011."
Necheles retorts that her story was worth a lot more in 2016 than 2011.
*****
I still maintain that's irrelevant. Let's say Daniels made it up to extort Trump for money. The fact remains that he orchestrated a scheme to pay Daniels bribes to keep it quiet until after the election.
I'm waiting to see if the prosecution makes that point on redirect, or in summation later in the trial.
What is interesting is it doesn't really matter if "the sex story" was made up or not. That would only affect Ms Daniels credibility. Team Trump was willing to pay to keep it quiet, so it had value to them
and if it was True, it would be hard for Ms Daniels to prove it was Rape. with Security at the door, being trapped, and offered a spot on the apprentice. it was not 100 consensual. She did not make the same mistake again.
@Kinnison I think the defense is trying to erode her credibility with the jury, but it doesn't really matter. The evidence is abundant that her representatives asked for money for her to remain quiet, whether or not it was true.
I just hope the jury is sharp enough to realize this. If I were the prosecution, I'd argue in summation that her erratic behavior only reinforces how nervous #Trump was. She was an unstable explosive about to blow.
By the way ... (1/2)
@Kinnison ... it would be easy enough to corroborate part of her story. Just have Keith Schiller testify to confirm he arranged the liaison. He didn't witness the alleged coitus but he did arrange the liaison in a private suite. (2/2)
@Kinnison Y'know, I was just thinking that perhaps the best way to do this is to call Michael Cohen as the next witness. He can testify that, whether or not it happened, the scheme was to keep Stormy from going public after the Access Hollywood tape came out so it wouldn't sabotage his election campaign -- which coincidentally would have been when James Comey said he was reopening his investigation into Hillary Clinton.
@Kinnison Lying under oath results in jail time. I'm sure the prosecution has ways of proving what happened. There are plenty of Trump loyalists who have gone to jail for him. I wouldn't lie for him, that's fer shur.
@WordsmithFL
from what I am feeling is the prosecution are spreading out the boring summary Witnesses with documents submissions between spicy witnesses so the Jury doesn't get too bored. 2 weeks more. and I would expect Cohen week 3 and Karen McDougal week 4 (or reverse)
and Keith Schiller would get a Trump lawyer who would not be a friendly witness for Prosecutors and might be willing to lie to discredit Ms Daniels.