"The court transcript shows that Necheles objected multiple times as Daniels walked jurors through her alleged encounter with Trump, including just before she was asked about condom use. Necheles, however, did not object to that specific question." https://thehill.com/regulation/court...els-testimony/

I don't understand the concern with whether or not "the encounter" was alleged or real. For one thing in a court of law there is no solid way to determine either absent corroborating evidence. There IS however a paper trail of hush money that IS corroborated and that's what the trial is about. That it is utterly commonplace for guilty people to point fingers at others hoping to distract focus from themselves is, while anecdotal, as solid a generality as "white men can't jump". It's another brick in the wall.

Had the defense not wanted that testimony they could have stipulated acceptance of the civil case outcome that it was reasonable to believe. The event, and evidence of the event, was not a requirement for the prosecution case or the defense, it was only important that Trump and his believed that outing the story would affect the election. The defense effectively FORCED the prosecution to present evidence of the event by repeatedly denials that it ever happened.
As such, they needed stronger grounds than usual to object to any parts of that testimony.

Lay interpretation of the comments of legal experts on the case. I have no training in law so take this for no more than my lay opinion.

The title of the link you posted in post 119 is titled "New York judge scolds Trump attorney over not objecting to Stormy Daniels testimony" in which Mechan suggests more objections could have been made regarding details and specifically stated “We don’t need to know the details of the intercourse”. Trump's attorney did make several objections which were sustained by the judge including a statement about Daniels living in a trailer court, a statement made by Trump. Why would she object to that and not other statements? Ms. Daniels also made a comment that she was not drugged and Trump's attorney objected to that, they felt it was leading so she specifically repeated that she was not drugged.

Reading through the transcripts, there seem to be a number of times when the defense could have and should have objected and did not. Mechan felt and said directly that there was too much detail such as this quote from him when speaking to the prosecutor: "Ms. Hoffinger, I think the degree of detail that we're going into here is just unnecessary". The judge also told Daniels to just answer questions and not to elaborate which is something the defense should have objected to.

The judge sustained several objections by the defense which were on very minor points. These include Daniels objection to a Trump comment about her living in a trailer court (she never did), when she said she was NOT druged, and she did NOT feel threatened and the sexual position. Mechan also stated specifically to the prosecutor that she was getting into too much detail which was not necessary. The judge also stated specifically to Ms. Daniels that she should not elaborate but simply answer questions. That is something any competent attorney would be cognizant of and responsible for.

The reason for Ms. Daniels testimony is the fact that Trump denies the event occurred. Mechan did more to prevent 'salacious' details in the case than Trump's attorneys.

The page in the link of post 119 is titled "New York judge scolds Trump attorney over not objecting to Stormy Daniels testimony" and details Mechan's criticism of the defense attorneys. They had numerous opportunities to object which they did not. There was a lot of testimony which was very irrelevant and not necessary as stated by the judge. Makes for very boring reading.

So the intent of the payments is the question. Perhaps Trump just coincidentally recalled this nice lady and wanted to contribute financially to support her career. Admittedly, a bit of a stretch.

Several hundreds of pages of testimony here If anyone wants to form their own opinion: https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.D...3/transcripts/

The former president's legal team rests their case. Their one witness did nothing to benefit the former president after he was cross examined by the prosecution. I suspect a decision/verdict will be coming soon. Did Trump's team do enough to discredit Cohen?

Nobody's opinion matters, apart from the members of the jury. They heard the testimony of both sides, with the tone, verbal/non-verbal cues and body language of everyone else present in the court room... The sort of thing isn't conveyed well by written words. It's up to them. Good or bad, right or wrong, we have to accept their conclusion.

It's noteworthy that Mr. Trump chose to take the 5th. "If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" Donald Trump 2016.

I may or may not agree with their verdict, but, I'll accept it. That's justice in a democracy.

Everything that the former president says is election spin, lies; he's a conman. He was wise to not take the stand.

And it is important to note that a jury CANNOT take a 5th amendment defense into account, it is NOT ad admission of guilt but a constitutional right. (they CAN consider it suggestive in a CIVIL trial, just not in a criminal trial)

Had Trump never spoken a word or put a word into social media since he cut that check he would be VERY difficult to convict. Almost every time a legal team has attempted to defend him his own words have negated their efforts as he openly admitted to crimes. In all of this trial, in all of MOST of his trials, the smartest thing he ever did were the times he could shut up.

Had he testified, there is every reason to expect he would have convicted himself.

You & I can see that from the outside looking in.

We can only hope that the majority of American voters see it too.

I think that anyone who's not part of the MAGA cult can see it. Will a guilty verdict penetrate the Truth silo of the MAGA voters? If he's found to be guilty will he be locked up?
Interesting days ahead.

Good for one but not the other? Things that makes some wonder and go "Hmmmm".

Attached Thumbnails

 

How is that different?

Oh yeah, after months of relentless investigation and trial by media Clinton was found guilty of being a sleaze and apparently also a cheapskate since apparently no hush money payments were discovered. So if Clinton did actually pay her off, and with no pending election concerns just bad publicity affecting mostly just Hillary, Clinton at worst speculation was successful and effective. Trump did pay hush money for elections reasons, failed to cover it up, and lacked trust in his base that they would forgive him anything and deflect.

Well said! We will learn Trumps' fate shortly. I doubt he'll be acquitted. I think the two likely outcomes are a guilty verdict or a hung jury.