politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It depends.
Let's be realistic -- nobody on that jury cared about testimony from anyone other than Cohen and Stormy Daniels. The rest were just bureaucratic filler that most of the jury probably couldn't care less about.
Their attempts to discredit Stormy Daniels was considered by most to be a huge miss, as she seemed to hold up better on cross-examination than she was on direct. Most believe this is a result of Trump demanding the lawyers try to make her say that the sex never happened at all, rather than focusing on details that actually matter to the case or simply trying to get her testimony tossed on relevance grounds. In fact, they failed twice here: Had the defense just conceded that the sex act occured, her testimony may not have been allowed at all since she had little to nothing to contribute to the actual allegations. And after that, the judge likely would have declared a mistrial due to the prejudicial nature of her testimony if Trump hadn't put it in play in the first place by denying the sex happened.
They scored a pretty huge win when they got Cohen to admit that he stole money. And in the end, that still may save Trump if it creates enough doubt in even one juror's mind. But that was pretty much the only win they got, and even that was more of a "even blind squirrels occasionally find nuts" kind of way. The rest of their defense ranged from largely ineffective to incompetent, and their one and only defense witness seemed to do more harm than good if reports are to be believed.
So no, they didn't really defend him very well, but that's largely a result of them listening to Trump's demands instead of putting on a coherent defense. But they did get one really good shot in, and that shot alone may have been just enough to get the job done.
Thank you for the concise summary
Which was itself part of the defense strategy. In similar cases, the two sides would agree on the validity of certain pieces of evidence, making those technical witnesses unnecessary. But Trump probably told his lawyers not to admit to anything, which probably drew the trial out for a week or two, and forced the prosecution to have to cover every detail, in the hopes the jury would find it all too overwhelming.
There's no probably about it. There were a couple of reports out there that said Trump did exactly this just to drag out the trial and get the jury bogged down in all the red tape.
The ironic part is that they could have avoided much of the most damning testimony if they had just conceded that the sex had occurred. At that point, Stormy Daniels' testimony would probably have been disallowed entirely because it wouldn't be relevant, and the jury would not have the image of an orange man in a T-shirt and boxers getting spanked by a pornstar with a magazine seared into their brains.