Donald Trump - GUILTY!

Just read this, a quote from Blanche: "You said you had a recollection of a phone call on Oct. 24 at 8:02 p.m., and you called Schiller and he gave the phone to President Trump and you gave Trump an update and he said, 'OK, good.' That was a lie! You did not talk to President Trump on that night. You talked to Keith Schiller about what we just went through,".

If that's all it was then a 90sec call time shouldn't be an issue at all.
 
Zlaatan said:
Does it matter what the original intention of the call was though? If he corroborated with Trump about the payment in passing or if they did it after flying to the other end of the world for a 5 hour face-to-face meeting surely doesn't matter.

I agree with the rest though, you'd think they would've waterproofed this 10x over but apparently not.
Click to expand...

Yes, it matters. Because this is supposed to be a key call. So, if his memory of this critical call has suddenly changed, then it brings a lot of doubt about whether it happened at all.
Or, if you misremembered this, what else are you misremembering ?

The implication is that Cohen has looked at this records and used this call as the one build a story around.

Maybe because it was the only one close to the time of the payment? im not sure.

But as you say, this story has to be watertight. It is not.
 
Zlaatan said:
Just read this, a quote from Blanche: "You said you had a recollection of a phone call on Oct. 24 at 8:02 p.m., and you called Schiller and he gave the phone to President Trump and you gave Trump an update and he said, 'OK, good.' That was a lie! You did not talk to President Trump on that night. You talked to Keith Schiller about what we just went through,".

If that's all it was then a 90sec call time shouldn't be an issue at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was what Cohen said during direct examination from the prosecution.

He said he called Schiller to speak to Trump.

The problem is, he didn't mention that the call was also regarding the texts from a 14 year old.
He had been texting Schiller on this topic before and immediately after the call.

Im not sure if it was discussed, but how did Cohen know Schiller was with Trump? The texts were not made public, i dont believe.

From CNN...

Michael Cohen's testimony about an October 2016 call with Keith Schiller and Donald Trump gets at the core of the case and could potentially be problematic for prosecutors, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said.

"Michael Cohen on his direct testimony said, 'I had this phone call in late October of 2016, I called Keith Schiller and he patched me through to Trump, I don't remember if he put me on speaker but I was speaking to the two of them and I told them then that Stormy Daniels had been paid and the matter was resolved.' Right? We've been asking, 'When are they going to go with the core?' This is the core of the case," Honig explained.

He added that Trump's attorney Todd Blanche then raised two points regarding this testimony.

First, the texts leading up to the call that day show that Cohen texted Schiller nothing about Daniels, but about instead about a 14-year-old who was harassing him.

Second, Cohen never mentioned in previous testimony that this call was about Daniels, including a prior grand jury testimony and extensive statements he's given to the district attorney.

"If that's a the case, it's a big problem," Honig said.
 
gaffs said:
You say those "capable of impartiality will convict". It is the other way round. Those "capable of impartiality" would say there is enough reasonable doubt.

There isnt a smoking gun in this case. Trump is like a mob boss. He doesn't use email or text, does not specifically say what he wants done. It is always a "just get it done" type of instruction. Therefore, it leaves enough ambiguity in the minds of jurors.

There is no proof that Trump hatched this scheme. No proof he knew Cohen was going to take a home loan out to pay Stormy. Yes, he signed the checks, but he will say he thought it was just for "legal fees".
Click to expand...

Guilty as a puppy next to a pile of steaming poo. 100% guilty as charged and it is hugely naive to think otherwise. The idea that any of his flunkys would spend so much money that they expected back without him telling them to do so or at least agreeing to the scheme is unbelievable in the extreme. But that isn't the point. The point is that all it takes is 2 MAGA inclined types and he won't be found guilty no matter what.

Which would be a shame of course.
 
Last edited:
Wibble said:
Guilty as a puppy next to a pile of steaming poo. 100% guilty as charged and it is hugely naive to think otherwise. The idea that any of his flunkys would spend so much money that they expected back without him telling them to do so or at least agreeing to the scheme is unbelievable in the extreme. But that isn't the point. The point is that all it takes is 2 MAGA inclined types and he won't be found guilty no matter what.

Which would be a shame of course.
Click to expand...

1. All it takes is one MAGA type.
 
Wibble said:
2 apparently (Raoul, 2024).
Click to expand...

:lol: thanks for the APA format. But this isn't some normal trial where people are deciding if some grainy security footage is enough to identify Joe from Fontana.

If there is one MAGA type on the jury, 11 other jurors (or 1100) aren't going to convince them to vote guilty on Trump.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
:lol: thanks for the APA format. But this isn't some normal trial where people are deciding if some grainy security footage is enough to identify Joe from Fontana.

If there is one MAGA type on the jury, 11 other jurors (or 1100) aren't going to convince them to vote guilty on Trump.
Click to expand...

I've been doing final reviews on my son's Masters assignments all week. Can you tell?

I assumed that a majority verdict wouldn't be allowed. Maybe Raoul was saying 1 or 2 holdouts would get talked round.
 
Wibble said:
I've been doing final reviews on my son's Masters assignments all week. Can you tell?

I assumed that a majority verdict wouldn't be allowed. Maybe Raoul was saying 1 or 2 holdouts would get talked round.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he means in a normal trial one holdout will usually get convinced to switch but that wouldn't happen with MAGA here.

And good luck to your son! Maybe you'll also start a trend with APA style on the Caf.
 
gaffs said:
I agree - both could happen in 90 seconds. But the issue is that Cohen did not describe the original intention of the call, which was to first speak to the bodyguard re the prank calls. His text pre and prior are all about the prank calls.

Had he given the full context either to the grand jury in his original testomony, or during direct in the courtroom days prior, it would have been beleivable.

But it was only during cross that this came out.

As i said before, if the defence has been able to link up the texts and the call times, then why could the prosecution have not got ahead of this?

Major feck up.
Click to expand...

I think they'll try to clean all of that up on the 2nd direct next week. The call could've been for both topics and Cohen could easily claim he left the prank caller bit out because it was irrelevant to the central reason he spoke to Trump. After all, why would Trump care if some kid prank called Cohen. The call would've had to have a more important purpose to justify calling Trump.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
And good luck to your son! Maybe you'll also start a trend with APA style on the Caf.
Click to expand...

Thanks. He is passing with flying colours but has very little motivation as he is only studying again so soon after he finished his degree in CA so that he can easily get a work visa to return (or has the option to do so if he decides not to do another Olympic cycle). So referencing is often a mess and needs me to point out the details that need to be changed before submission. I'm sure he would prefer that I cleaned it up for him but that isn't happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oneniltothearsenal
gaffs said:
Yes, it matters. Because this is supposed to be a key call. So, if his memory of this critical call has suddenly changed, then it brings a lot of doubt about whether it happened at all.
Or, if you misremembered this, what else are you misremembering ?

The implication is that Cohen has looked at this records and used this call as the one build a story around.

Maybe because it was the only one close to the time of the payment? im not sure.

But as you say, this story has to be watertight. It is not.
Click to expand...

But the payment happened, there's no disputing that. How or when Cohen confirmed to Trump that he had paid Stormy isn't going to change all that much about the case, if it could then the defense would've called the bodyguard as a witness so he could confirm he never gave the phone to Trump, but they didn't. Instead they've gone with the classic "we think you're lying but we can't be bothered to get to the bottom of it".

This whole prank call business is an oversight from the prosecution but it's not a disaster, especially since Cohen isn't the only witness that has pointed to Trump's knowledge about the payment. Both Stormy and Parker's testimonies were pretty devastating to Trump's plea that he never did or knew anything.
 
Zlaatan said:
But the payment happened, there's no disputing that. How or when Cohen confirmed to Trump that he had paid Stormy isn't going to change all that much about the case, if it could then the defense would've called the bodyguard as a witness so he could confirm he never gave the phone to Trump, but they didn't. Instead they've gone with the classic "we think you're lying but we can't be bothered to get to the bottom of it".

This whole prank call business is an oversight from the prosecution but it's not a disaster, especially since Cohen isn't the only witness that has pointed to Trump's knowledge about the payment. Both Stormy and Parker's testimonies were pretty devastating to Trump's plea that he never did or knew anything.
Click to expand...

It's bad because it looks like Cohen has used the call to Schiller re the prank calls, and shoehorned in having the phone passed to Trump.
Cohen is a poor witness because he has lied to congress, investigators, on tv shows - you name it. The prosecutors accept this and hope the jury believe that his lies are in the past. But it now looks like he is lying to them - or at very best has misremembered.
If he lies about the call, what else is a lie. This brings in reasonable doubt.

Good point re Schiller. He may still be brought as a defence witness.
We know his is loyal to Trump, but maybe he won't lie under.

The burdon of proof is with the prosecution, so really, it should be them who brings him. But obvisoulsy his side of the story does not fit the narative, or they cant trust him. That brings another issue in because the defence can point out to the jury that the prosecution has selectively not brought in people key to the case - like Schiller or Weisselberg.

Stormy's testimony is largely irrelevant. It damages Trumps character ,but sleeping with her or paying her is not a crime.
 
Raoul said:
I think they'll try to clean all of that up on the 2nd direct next week. The call could've been for both topics and Cohen could easily claim he left the prank caller bit out because it was irrelevant to the central reason he spoke to Trump. After all, why would Trump care if some kid prank called Cohen. The call would've had to have a more important purpose to justify calling Trump.
Click to expand...

I think it may be too late to clean up. It should have come out in direct. The prosecution got infront of most things, but dropped the ball on this.

It looks like a lie because the initial intention of the call was not to inform Trump of the payment, it was to address the prank calls.

How the prosecution have not married up the calls and texts is beyond me.
 
gaffs said:
I think it may be too late to clean up. It should have come out in direct. The prosecution got infront of most things, but dropped the ball on this.

It looks like a lie because the initial intention of the call was not to inform Trump of the payment, it was to address the prank calls.

How the prosecution have not married up the calls and texts is beyond me.
Click to expand...

They definitely missed taking it into consideration, but there is also other circumstantial evidence beyond Cohen's testimony that will point towards Trump's guilt.
 
Wibble said:
Guilty as a puppy next to a pile of steaming poo. 100% guilty as charged and it is hugely naive to think otherwise. The idea that any of his flunkys would spend so much money that they expected back without him telling them to do so or at least agreeing to the scheme is unbelievable in the extreme. But that isn't the point. The point is that all it takes is 2 MAGA inclined types and he won't be found guilty no matter what.

Which would be a shame of course.
Click to expand...

I dont know. The way the defence are spinning it is that Cohen took care of the payment to Stormy, then overinflated the cost that he charged Trump. One last chance to extract more money out of Trump before he was no longer required as Trump was potentially no longer going to need Cohen if/when he took the presidency.

Is that BS, of course. Trump was all over it. But they don't have his fingerprints on it - certainly not in a way that can prove he orchestrated the scheme or had direct knowledge that the misreporting was being done to bypass campaign finance laws.

If this was a regular business crime, not campaign finance violation performed by the an extremely polarizing politician and former president, it would have never gone to court. And there would be no doubt that there would be enough jurors who would have a reasonable doubt about his guilt.

No Trump fan, but the deck is already stacked against him because a Manhattan jury already know he is a pathological liar. But as you say, you only need one hold out for a hung jury.
 
gaffs said:
A friendly $5 bet that he gets off with it.

A bet that i would love to lose!
Click to expand...

He could very well not be convicted. Its hard to say given the case isn't over yet and more people are going to be called next week.
 
gaffs said:
It's bad because it looks like Cohen has used the call to Schiller re the prank calls, and shoehorned in having the phone passed to Trump.
Cohen is a poor witness because he has lied to congress, investigators, on tv shows - you name it. The prosecutors accept this and hope the jury believe that his lies are in the past. But it now looks like he is lying to them - or at very best has misremembered.
If he lies about the call, what else is a lie. This brings in reasonable doubt.

Good point re Schiller. He may still be brought as a defence witness.
We know his is loyal to Trump, but maybe he won't lie under.

The burdon of proof is with the prosecution, so really, it should be them who brings him. But obvisoulsy his side of the story does not fit the narative, or they cant trust him. That brings another issue in because the defence can point out to the jury that the prosecution has selectively not brought in people key to the case - like Schiller or Weisselberg.

Stormy's testimony is largely irrelevant. It damages Trumps character ,but sleeping with her or paying her is not a crime.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't look like Cohen is lying or misremembered, the defense simply stated that he was to which he calmly said that he wasn't. They haven't caught him red handed here or proven anything, it's just a he said - they said. I hope the jurors do some sort of recreation of the call because Cohen's version of it is far from as impossible as the defense is making it out to be.

I also don't agree that Schiller is one of the key people when it's so blatantly obvious that Cohen would never do what we know he did without Trump's knowledge, especially when we already know through other witnesses that Trump has a history of getting other people to take care of paying hush money to women he had affairs with and then reimburse them later. That the prosecution hasn't proven when Cohen told Trump the payment was done doesn't really weigh that heavily against everything else that we know for a fact.
 
Raoul said:
He could very well not be convicted. Its hard to say given the case isn't over yet and more people are going to be called next week.
Click to expand...

And even if the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt all it takes is a stubborn MAGA who wouldn't convict even if video of Trump personally ordering the payment and the cover up existed.
 
Zlaatan said:
But it doesn't look like Cohen is lying or misremembered, the defense simply stated that he was to which he calmly said that he wasn't. They haven't caught him red handed here or proven anything, it's just a he said - they said. I hope the jurors do some sort of recreation of the call because Cohen's version of it is far from as impossible as the defense is making it out to be.

I also don't agree that Schiller is one of the key people when it's so blatantly obvious that Cohen would never do what we know he did without Trump's knowledge, especially when we already know through other witnesses that Trump has a history of getting other people to take care of paying hush money to women he had affairs with and then reimburse them later. That the prosecution hasn't proven when Cohen told Trump the payment was done doesn't really weigh that heavily against everything else that we know for a fact.
Click to expand...

I do think Cohen lied here. His responses to Blance started changing under questioning. He said "i believe" this is what happened.

“We are not asking for your belief,” Mr Blanche fired back. “This jury does not want to hear what you think happened.”

If somehow the defence call Schiller and refute Cohens claims, it looks really bad.

I know it is only one piece of evidence, but if they show that Cohan has lied in front of this jury, then is brings into question everything he has told them.

Lets see what happens.
 
Wibble said:
And even if the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt all it takes is a stubborn MAGA who wouldn't convict even if video of Trump personally ordering the payment and the cover up existed.
Click to expand...

The chance of there being a real red hat wearing MAGA supporter in this jury is slim to none. We are in Manhattan. Biden won Manhattan by 84.5%-14.5%.

You would hope even if there was any MAGA nuts in the jury pool, they would have been eliminated during jury selection.
 
gaffs said:
The chance of there being a real red hat wearing MAGA supporter in this jury is slim to none. We are in Manhattan. Biden won Manhattan by 84.5%-14.5%.

You would hope even if there was any MAGA nuts in the jury pool, they would have been eliminated during jury selection.
Click to expand...

Still a significant possibility.
 
Wibble said:
Still a significant possibility.
Click to expand...

Far more of a chance that a fair minded democratic finds Trump not guilty.

Especially now Cohen has admitted to stealing over $60k from Trump org, further staining Cohens reputation. And Robert Costello, Cohens former advisor, is now on the stand, sticking it to Cohen.
 
Cohen stealing from Trump



As I said re the call made to Trump, which stemmed from Cohen calling Schiller on another matter. How was the prosecution not aware that Cohen was stealing ?

You’re trying to prosecute a former president and have a felon as your star witness on the stand. Yet the prosecution has not done the homework to find out where every penny of that money went to.

It’s over. Trump will walk.
 
gaffs said:
Cohen stealing from Trump



As I said re the call made to Trump, which stemmed from Cohen calling Schiller on another matter. How was the prosecution not aware that Cohen was stealing ?

You’re trying to prosecute a former president and have a felon as your star witness on the stand. Yet the prosecution has not done the homework to find out where every penny of that money went to.

It’s over. Trump will walk.
Click to expand...


He always does and he always will. It had been for decades
 
gaffs said:
Cohen stealing from Trump



As I said re the call made to Trump, which stemmed from Cohen calling Schiller on another matter. How was the prosecution not aware that Cohen was stealing ?

You’re trying to prosecute a former president and have a felon as your star witness on the stand. Yet the prosecution has not done the homework to find out where every penny of that money went to.

It’s over. Trump will walk.
Click to expand...

Get outta here! Felons are used to put other ( worse felons) away all the time.
Who do you think is going to have the goods on someone like Trump?
A Nun? A Sunday School teacher? A Boy Scout?
No. Another slimeball that's who.
Unless he has a juror in the bag Trump is toast.His defence witness, Costello, backfired so badly it was unreal by the way.And he didn't testify himself.
 
I guess we should be glad that he's not more competent. Prolly killed enough older Americans with his handing of COVID to cost him the election he lost.
 
The Brown Bull said:
Get outta here! Felons are used to put other ( worse felons) away all the time.
Who do you think is going to have the goods on someone like Trump?
A Nun? A Sunday School teacher? A Boy Scout?
No. Another slimeball that's who.
Unless he has a juror in the bag Trump is toast.His defence witness, Costello, backfired so badly it was unreal by the way.And he didn't testify himself.
Click to expand...

Of course, Trump surrounded himself with crooks, just like him.
But when you have one that lies on the stand, or is shown to have stolen from his boss, it may cast just enough doubt in a couple of jurors minds.
You are right about Costello - an absolute trainwreck who showed that he, Giuliani and Trump were running a pressure campaign to keep Cohen silent. It would seem that Trump wanted him to testify against his attorney's advice.

We will see that happens in a week or so.
 
Beans said:
I guess we should be glad that he's not more competent. Prolly killed enough older Americans with his handing of COVID to cost him the election he lost.
Click to expand...

He is dangerous enough, but if he was actually competent and focused he would be really, really dangerous. The only thing he thinks about is his ego.

Though the worry is that if he gets back in, the guardrails will be off. No longer will he staff his cabinet with respectable, experienced people. It will be loyalists who will gut the institutions who, he believes, have been out to get him.

Expect to see the My Pillow guy, Kyle Rittenhouse, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon and they guy with the fur and horned hat who stormed the capital, being put into key roles.
 
gaffs said:
Of course, Trump surrounded himself with crooks, just like him.
But when you have one that lies on the stand, or is shown to have stolen from his boss, it may cast just enough doubt in a couple of jurors minds.
You are right about Costello - an absolute trainwreck who showed that he, Giuliani and Trump were running a pressure campaign to keep Cohen silent. It would seem that Trump wanted him to testify against his attorney's advice.

We will see that happens in a week or so.
Click to expand...
How do we know Cohen took money from Trump Org. (sorry but I have trouble saying stole from Trump Org.!)
Because Cohen admitted to it. So Trump's lawyers can't very well say " Disregard what Cohen says cos he's a liar apart from the bit that suits us".
 
Maagge said:
It's like GB News. It was never meant to make money outright. It's just a propaganda platform.
Click to expand...
Not very well up on high finance.Can someone explain to me how a company that loses 330 million in 3 months and has revenue of 770000 in the same period is valued at 7 Billion!
My mind is boggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.