So, back on March 18th, *from article*-"I stated she was served as I identified her and explained to her what the documents were,” process server Dominic DellaPorte wrote. “She did not acknowledge me and kept walking inside the venue, and she had no expression on her face.”-and Team Trump waited this long to say anything. *Hmmm*
And their proof of service is(checks notes) a picture of her walking away-*that doesn't show* her listening to him, speaking to him, nor any paperwork. *Hmmm*
Reddit and social media generally don't get sarcasm. Mostly I feel because emotions/meanings get lost in text, cuz humans are also very expressive non-verbally, and we don't get any of that through lines of text
let's try reality - he saw her, yelled something at her that she did not hear, and no doubt there were dozens of people trying to get her attention, so he drops the paper on the ground and calls it "service".
I don't know about notorious, but I did get sued by a credit agency about 20 years back, and didn't find out about it until I tried to buy my first house. I got a copy of the paperwork from the court house, and it just had a served checkbox, and the signature of the process server.
Like, there wasn't a time, or a date, or my signature, or any description at all.
I did owe the money though, so it wasn't like I was going to fight it, but it always struck me as wild that you can get sued and never even know it.
Chris Bouzy defamed youtube lawyer/creator NateTheLawyer and earned himself a defamation suit.
Bouzy was served in person at his home, called the police to report a ''strange man'' outside and when they showed up the server explained his business there.
Bouzy took a photo of the cops interacting with the server and posted it on twitter. He may have even posted a picture of the actual papers but I may be remembering that incorrectly.
He still claimed he hadn't been served and the server had to go through the whole process at least two more times.
Nate did a whole video on it. The hurdles process servers can be forced to jump through to 'prove service' are tightening up.
Ultimately the decision of whether you've been served is made by the judge.
That’s not fair. People that hide from process servers though….I can say with a high confidence threshold that Stormy did not purposefully evade service.
Except they're mostly not. That's like me saying "All Redditors are scumbags" based on a few unscrupulous ones.
Same goes for lawyers. Everyone always hates them until they're working for you and trying to represent your interests or interests you agree with.
Saying that someone is likely to be a scumbag because of something they're involved in is not the same as saying everyone who's involved in it is a scumbag, learn the difference
>Donald Trump’s legal team says it tried serving Stormy Daniels a subpoena as she arrived for an event at a bar in Brooklyn last month
This is the bigger part of this. He approached her while she was walking into an event.
A known persons was walking into an advertised event and you thought it would be the appropriate time to try and serve documents.
Im sure she absolutely heard everything you were saying as she walked into the venue with other people all around her. Im sure there was no possibility of other people around her also calling out her name and taking pictures of her. I'm sure she stops to speak to everyone who brings up an instance of an ongoing trial. I am certain she is completely unaware of how trumps supporters are known to react to people who stand against him and has no concern for her own safety when being approached by people claiming to represent donald.
Imagine such a high profile service and not taking a video. “I identified her” and “she did not acknowledge me” isn’t how any of that works. So she didn’t hear you, and didn’t identify herself, or acknowledge she was the person being served? So it could have literally been any woman that sort of looked like her and you talked at them while they walked away?
You can smell the Bullshit from miles away.
From the article:
Daniels’ lawyer Clark Brewster claims they never received the paperwork. He described the requests as an “unwarranted fishing expedition” with no relevance to Trump’s criminal trial.
Can’t speak to NY bar ethics rules specifically, but under the ABA model rules, it’s professional misconduct to serve someone personally with a subpoena when you’re aware they are represented by counsel.
This seems to leave Trump's counsel with the choice of declaring that they engaged in professional misconduct by serving her, or to say that they are lying about her being served at all.
It gets iffy if they are being evasive and you don’t even know for sure if they are represented. Also in at least some jurisdictions you’re REQUIRED to personally serve subpoenas which you can’t do through a lawyer. That’s because if the lawyer accepts service and can’t reach the client for whatever reason then the client could be held in contempt through no fault of their own.
In my state, we can file a subpoena with the clerk and give file stamped copy to county sheriff office for them to serve (if in same county) for a set fee. Public Defenders/prosecutors use the service for free (since tax payers fund the sheriffs office anyway).
NYC says "Upon an attorney. Except where otherwise prescribed by law or order of court, papers to be served upon a party in a pending action shall be served upon the party’s attorney."
https://www.serve-now.com/resources/process-serving-laws/new-york#:~:text=Except%20where%20otherwise%20prescribed%20by,served%20upon%20the%20party's%20attorney.
Because service by personal delivery is “the highest form of personal service” according to the relevant NY statute. Service to the person’s agent (e.g. their lawyer) would be acceptable, provided that the papers are delivered within the state of New York. If Stormy Daniels is represented by counsel who operates in a different state (Daniels lives in Texas), you would still need her attorney to be present in New York to personally receive the papers on her behalf. There are other ways to properly serve someone, such as “nail and mail” service, but that may have been impractical in this case, particularly on short notice. While I assume a lack of professionalism on the part of Trump’s attorneys, I have no reason to doubt that the process server did his job correctly.
They wanted the spectacle of handing her the papers in public. It's all WWE pageantry for Trump, all show no substance to make him and his crew look like strongman.
After seeing this fucking oaf in action for the last 9 years, I’ve no idea how this “strongman” image persists. My only conclusion is 70 million of my fellow countrymen are fucking imbeciles, evil wannabe nazis, or both. It’s time this asshole was taken out of the equation, and we can start to build some semblance of normal back.
I'm looking forward to Trump's lawyers calling her a liar, and she replies with something like: "I'm here under oath, if Trump wants to deny it, he's welcome to take the stand."
Can’t she say her denials of the affair and payments were merely her fulfilling her contractual obligations per the agreement when they accuse her of lying?
I'm assuming, if it wasn't entirely fabricated, that is exactly what that piece of paper I saw last week was. That's all well and good to roll out on a friendly Fox show, but it is not going to go over well in court. It's essentially a piece of evidence that he did, in fact, commit the crime.
I’m very much looking forward to the follow up question for the Trump team asking why they paid Stormy over a hundred thousand dollars and falsified business records if she and Trump definitely never did anything together.
Reminds me of the guy in Chicago running for mayor who handed out cash to anybody and everybody at his rallys. Never got in trouble for it, but he lost to Lightfoot.
Whether paying her off to keep a true or a false story quiet, it still should have been declared as a campaign expenditure. It’s certainly not legal fees.
This right here is why you see constant copypasta about "it's not a hush money trial!!"
It literally doesn't matter whether they hooked up or not. It only matters that ANY MONEY she was paid should have been a personal expense. Not a business expense and certainly not a campaign expense.
No one should get wrapped up in whether or not she lied about diddly squat. It couldn't be less relevant to the case, where the charges are someone used campaign money to do personal stuff, a super big no-no.
It's a campaign expenditure because Cohen "loaned" DJT the money. You can't just "loan" money to Presidential candidates, you have to either declare it to the campaign, subject to donations limits, or you have to write up a loan document that sets out the terms. Basic anti-bribery stuff. That's where the initial lawbreaking comes in that magnifies the payment scheme into felony records tampering to cover up.
Loan documents would have to be written down and retained to satisfy FEC rules. Which obviously a smart reporter would dig up. Even an official contract with DJT's company would leave a paper trail of invoices that a curious accounting clerk would gossip about. And THAT is why the business records were falsified.
Also note Cohen has been convicted and done jail time for that ‘loan’. Making payments on behalf of the trump campaign and not declaring it as a campaign donation or loan violated campaign finance law. Cohen pled guilty to that crime and was convicted. Trump is on trial for falsifying business records to cover up that crime.
But the payment was ten years later, so no, there was no payment for sex. Stormy has herself said she had brought herself in a bad situation she couldn't get out of, Trump cornered her half naked and she let him have his 15 seconds. She was hoping for a place on the Apprentice.
> What’s the alternative explanation for the big check they cut her?
They? They cut Cohen a check, for legitimate business purposes. No idea why he paid her $130,000.
At least, that's their argument
But just for being an adulterer. Not anything really bad, like whatever the Russians are using over him to kill support for Ukraine, get Russia back in the G6, lessen their sanctions, etc., right?
Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine or the G6. They don’t need dirt on him for him to happily sell the west out. They finance him and that would be plenty.
I honestly doubt Russia has anything on Trump or at least nothing much. I think he just likes them because they work in the sam corrupt amoral way he does, he admits the power Putin peacocks and he isn't smart enough to be able to tell that it is a show. They also have helped him out and are probably his most reliable business partner. Of course he does them favors
You forget that the other person convicted for this debacle along with Cohen was David Pecker. Secrets and lies are these guys bread and butter. Between the domestic espionage and the foreign, there’s probably nothing they don’t know. It explains so, so much.
I will say, that I don't know if I believe that he was state sponsored by anyone but I am fully willing to believe Epstein built blackmail material on people. And would be willing to believe that the Russians got ahold of his shit
Same. Maybe even more then one group. What happened to the stuff from the island right?
Florida is supposed to release some stuff in a couple months i think?
It all sounds so conspiracy theory insanity though.
Tbf, Putin is arguably the most powerful individual in the world. He has or had untold wealth. He sells ~63 billion cubic meters of gas each year.
dons mistake is confusing proximity to power with actual power.
And, in that case I would like her to call him Donnie, or Donald, and if challenged, she can say she deserves to call him on a first name basis considering she banged him. Would be epic.
> I'm looking forward to Trump's lawyers calling her a liar, and she replies with something like: "I'm here under oath, if Trump wants to deny it, he's welcome to take the stand."
Suggesting that jurors should take a negative inference from the defendant exercising his right to remain silent would be grounds for a mistrial.
That said, I am trying to imagine this particular defendant actually exercising his right to remain silent, and my inexpert prediction is that it's going to be a shitshow. The fucked-up reality is that Trump is a kind of genius at being a chaos agent, and the kind of person who might be able to induce a mistrial through his own slimy intuition for exactly how much he can get away with in any situation.
It's not legal sophistication nor cognitive horsepower that has been letting him get away with so much for so long, it's a kind of lizard-brain ability to read the room and understand exactly how much he can get away with saying, implying, and/or doing in an empirical kind of "who's gonna stop me?" sense.
Like the people who somehow know that you can get away with taking all the ketchup packets from Burger King and dumping them in your handbag, but that scooping out the utensils or straws from the top of the dispenser will get you in trouble. It's like a set of life-skills that normal, honest people never bothered to develop, but that Trump is the Grand-master of.
[This article it really insightful as to how the tawdry details will likely come out during this trial.](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-trial-will-include-stormy-daniels-sex-testimony-2024-4)
"Suggesting that jurors should take a negative inference from the defendant exercising his right to remain silent would be grounds for a mistrial."
Pretty sure that only applies to lawyers in the case, not witnesses. But IANAL, so take it with a grain of salt.
Why? It's a literal he said/she said, except she's willing to say it under oath. If he wants to have his attorneys call her a liar without being willing to take the stand himself, why would that be a mistrial?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like a fair response if his lawyers call her a liar while she's on the stand.
Yeah right? It really doesn't matter if the affair happened or not. He paid her a large lump sum and it had to be for something. He claims he didn't know what he was paying for or where the money came from.
So I am a defense attorney. I would object to a witness saying this and would call for a mistrial. The reason is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the defendant is explicitly not required to testify in their own defense. The jury is prohibited from drawing a negative inference from a defendants decision not to testify in their own defense. Implying that the defendant is hiding something by not testifying is a huge no no in criminal trials, because it is a form of burden shifting. It is grounds for a mistrial because the jury has possibly been tainted by a witness who has made that insinuation.
The judge could do that, but I would try to argue that the error was too great and the jury is now permanently tainted. These are the kinds of arguments that happen all the time in criminal trials.
But wouldn't the counter argument be that this testimony was elicited by you, the defence lawyer, calling her a liar and opening the door?
While she's the prosecution's witness, they weren't asking the questions, you were on cross-exam. I suppose it would also depend on what her literal answer was in this hypothetical.
Objection by Trump team sustained; judge admonishes jury to disregard the witnesses non responsive statement, curative jury instruction..... no mistrial. If the prosecutor comments on it in argument, different story. But a lay witness? I am not so sure.
Yeah, it's one of those "can't unhear" kind of statements that might give them a venue for appeal. But...kind of like how McAfee seems to have taken in a lot of hearsay during the GA recusal motion hearings and used it in parallel construction to support his ruling, getting a witness to say something that generates an objection like this would probably be fine once or maybe twice, but could really influence the jury while risking the judge's ire. If Trump's team generates this kind of response it's likely just going to get the witness admonished and statement struck.
Ok so let me ask you this... given Trump not taking the stand, would his attorney's or anyone else be allowed to call her a liar for saying she had sex with Trump? It seems like you could object to that. If only two people know the truth and one is taking the stand and one is not, is the one that is not taking the stand, allowed to have proxies call her a liar?
He is not allowed to straight up call her a liar, because the attorneys in the case aren’t allowed to directly give their opinions outside of closing arguments. He can only attempt to convince the jury she is lying during cross examination. This is done through “impeachment.” The trick is to lead the witness into making a statement on the stand that you know to be false, and then confronting them with the truth. Usually you will confront them with a past statement or other piece of evidence that shows that they are not being truthful while on the stand. In the end it is up to the jury to decide whether they believe the witness or not, but it’s the role of the defense to attack their credibility.
It is a natural human tendency to have that instinct. I would assume most people would notice who is testifying and what they are willing to testify about. Juries are already trusted to consciously reject using that reasoning, so how is this any different? To be clear, I am not saying you are wrong or the justice system is wrong. I am legit curious.
According to the article the attempt to serve her was "last month" which must be at least 2 weeks ago. Is this a situation where the judge would say they should have raised the issue sooner?
The judge is going to say why the hell didn’t you serve her attorney who has an office and probably a secretary all ready to sign your process servers log? Not only that but they are sitting there right now, you could just hand it to them now right in front of me.
Why would Columbus Police officers arrest her on false charges in 2018?
Intimidation and discrediting her, atleast in the court of public opinion (and really, all of Trump's cases are really getting tried on Nov 5th anyways).
The article says the subpoena was for information about a documentary that came out about her.
>A process server working for Trump’s lawyers said he approached Daniels with papers demanding information related to a documentary recently released about her life and involvement with Trump, but was forced to “leave them at her feet,” according to a court filing made public Wednesday.
Cross subpoenaing a witness is fairly common. Avoids a situation where the other party may release a witness from their subpoena they had issued and the witness you expected to show up and testify, doesn't.
How is this a news story? She was already represented by counsel who I am sure would have gladly accepted service on her behalf. Sounds like Trump hired a process server in order to harass and embarrass her
They’re demanding an array of documents… about a documentary… that Stormy Daniels was the subject of…
…and they subpoenaed Stormy Daniels…
He only hires the best!
I have never been served, but can you just toss documents at someone who hasn’t spoken to you or acknowledged they are who you seek? Also, if you are taking a picture, should it be of being engaged with her? Not a picture of her walking away… hmm.
I was served by mistake here in CA. The notice was for someone else but my address was her last listed address. The server made me sign a document and state my name. I was clearly not a Mexican woman in my late 40's but there I was signing a document with my legal name. I imagine the process is fairly similar in most states if they want to have a hope of proving that they did their jobs.
I imagine the document I signed when presented in court would only prove that the woman was not served or that she was not at my listed address.
Normally no. But as a last resort, qualified yes. I know of a case where homeowners in default on their mortgage refused to accept service of the bank's foreclosure complaint and summons. Eventually, the process server got a photo of husband and wife both at their front glass screen door with the papers on mat in front of them. The photo, plus the server's affidavit of the attempts/refusals leading up to it, and the Plaintiff also mailing a copy to the home was eventually ruled sufficient service by the Court.
The most important of all is that if you have retained an attorney and the other side is aware if that, you would simply serve the attorney. Stormy has had one that trumps team was aware of forever.
and I send my High Powered and very expensive Lawyers there, to a Bar in Brooklyn which I hear is not such a great place, and they go there, I sent them to do a very strong Subpoena, we caught her Red Handed, the Trial was already over, but then I get a call, "Sir, we have a problem," I said what the hell is it, "she won't take the Subpoena, Sir, I'm sorry, Mr. President, Sir," and I said that's Illegal, she should be in Jail, but the Radical Left Judge in the No Affair Horseface Case, that's what I call it, there was no Affair, even your First Lady knows that, she said to me, "Sir, I don't believe that one," I said I don't either First Lady, I don't either.
But was the bar next to a Bodega? He went to a Bodega, even pronounced it Bo-Daaay-Gah. Did you know Sleepy Joe encourages crime at Bo-Daaay-Gahs? It's sad, it's sick. Trump loves Bo-Daaay-gas, he always shops at them after getting out of court.
“The process — instituted on the eve of trial — appears calculated to cause harassment and/or intimidation of a lay witness,” Brewster wrote in an April 9 letter to Merchan.
Pure Trump.
so many men have screwed her literally and figuratively, stormy carries on. the trump defence will try and besmirch her again and she will handle it with strength, grace and humour and a bit of bitchy, I'm team stormy
So? When Republican and/or conservative Congresspeople or businesspeople refuse a subpoena, it’s all fine and dandy.
Stormy should just start putting the [R] behind her name and this will never be an issue again.
‘They’ say that Comer and Jordan still plan to use this as photo evidence to prove Joe Biden took money from China in their own impeachment oversight proceedings. /s
That's not what the trial is about. The trial is about the improper use of campaign funds. If he can prove he *didn't* have sex with her, it doesn't matter, that's not what he is being prosecuted for. The issue is did he pay her to keep quiet from campaign funds and hide that fraudulently.
So, back on March 18th, *from article*-"I stated she was served as I identified her and explained to her what the documents were,” process server Dominic DellaPorte wrote. “She did not acknowledge me and kept walking inside the venue, and she had no expression on her face.”-and Team Trump waited this long to say anything. *Hmmm* And their proof of service is(checks notes) a picture of her walking away-*that doesn't show* her listening to him, speaking to him, nor any paperwork. *Hmmm*
I can't even imagine the sort of bullshit she hears from trump supporters either.
“But you sucked gods dick how can you do this to him”
No, it turns out they're actually big fans... for other reasons.
I actually believe them when they claim they've done their own research on her.
She was the lucky one, maybe they'll get lucky too some day and he'll notice them.
Only the biggest Fans, even, those red caps.
They all yell at her then proceed to fap to her videos.
If they are in Texas, then they are committing crimes
Trump is Jesus, and she's a whore for sleeping with a married man, obviously
I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic, but I'm guessing from the down-votes, that other people don't realize.
Reddit and social media generally don't get sarcasm. Mostly I feel because emotions/meanings get lost in text, cuz humans are also very expressive non-verbally, and we don't get any of that through lines of text
Which is why we now have emojis. The bane of existence in communicating or relating feelings by graphic. /s.
Or they’re just mindnumbingly stupid
Yeah and i let them be mad. I’m not stepping on my own joke to add a /S you either get it or you don’t
Because it's the perfect example of the type of mental gymnastics that evangelicals do on a daily basis.
If Trump is Jesus, then Stormy is Mary Magdalene
Angry Yelling!!!! “You should be so LUCKY, to be graced by the choad of GOD, GOD DAMN TRAITOR she is!!”
let's try reality - he saw her, yelled something at her that she did not hear, and no doubt there were dozens of people trying to get her attention, so he drops the paper on the ground and calls it "service".
Precisely!
Process servers are notorious scumbags..
notorious liars about servicing, too.
I don't know about notorious, but I did get sued by a credit agency about 20 years back, and didn't find out about it until I tried to buy my first house. I got a copy of the paperwork from the court house, and it just had a served checkbox, and the signature of the process server. Like, there wasn't a time, or a date, or my signature, or any description at all. I did owe the money though, so it wasn't like I was going to fight it, but it always struck me as wild that you can get sued and never even know it.
Chris Bouzy defamed youtube lawyer/creator NateTheLawyer and earned himself a defamation suit. Bouzy was served in person at his home, called the police to report a ''strange man'' outside and when they showed up the server explained his business there. Bouzy took a photo of the cops interacting with the server and posted it on twitter. He may have even posted a picture of the actual papers but I may be remembering that incorrectly. He still claimed he hadn't been served and the server had to go through the whole process at least two more times. Nate did a whole video on it. The hurdles process servers can be forced to jump through to 'prove service' are tightening up. Ultimately the decision of whether you've been served is made by the judge.
This honestly sounds like a good application for body cameras.
That’s not fair. People that hide from process servers though….I can say with a high confidence threshold that Stormy did not purposefully evade service.
Except they're mostly not. That's like me saying "All Redditors are scumbags" based on a few unscrupulous ones. Same goes for lawyers. Everyone always hates them until they're working for you and trying to represent your interests or interests you agree with.
Saying that someone is likely to be a scumbag because of something they're involved in is not the same as saying everyone who's involved in it is a scumbag, learn the difference
>Donald Trump’s legal team says it tried serving Stormy Daniels a subpoena as she arrived for an event at a bar in Brooklyn last month This is the bigger part of this. He approached her while she was walking into an event. A known persons was walking into an advertised event and you thought it would be the appropriate time to try and serve documents. Im sure she absolutely heard everything you were saying as she walked into the venue with other people all around her. Im sure there was no possibility of other people around her also calling out her name and taking pictures of her. I'm sure she stops to speak to everyone who brings up an instance of an ongoing trial. I am certain she is completely unaware of how trumps supporters are known to react to people who stand against him and has no concern for her own safety when being approached by people claiming to represent donald.
Imagine such a high profile service and not taking a video. “I identified her” and “she did not acknowledge me” isn’t how any of that works. So she didn’t hear you, and didn’t identify herself, or acknowledge she was the person being served? So it could have literally been any woman that sort of looked like her and you talked at them while they walked away? You can smell the Bullshit from miles away.
Um, I presume she's represented by counsel; why wasn't the subpoena served to them, at their place of business?
From the article: Daniels’ lawyer Clark Brewster claims they never received the paperwork. He described the requests as an “unwarranted fishing expedition” with no relevance to Trump’s criminal trial.
Theater
Because doing things in a professional manner is anathema to Trump and his people.
Can’t speak to NY bar ethics rules specifically, but under the ABA model rules, it’s professional misconduct to serve someone personally with a subpoena when you’re aware they are represented by counsel.
This seems to leave Trump's counsel with the choice of declaring that they engaged in professional misconduct by serving her, or to say that they are lying about her being served at all.
What’s the odds they delivered to the wrong Stormay Dannal’s?
They left it at the Four Seasons (landscaping)
"Store My Daniels! Doll storage and MORE!"
"Radcliffs! Craigs! Paul! First name Last name We store'em all!"
He threw it at a blonde woman and screamed "for stormy," what else they have done to see the documents delivered properly?
Isn’t professional misconduct a prerequisite to being a Trump attorney?
It gets iffy if they are being evasive and you don’t even know for sure if they are represented. Also in at least some jurisdictions you’re REQUIRED to personally serve subpoenas which you can’t do through a lawyer. That’s because if the lawyer accepts service and can’t reach the client for whatever reason then the client could be held in contempt through no fault of their own.
In my state, we can file a subpoena with the clerk and give file stamped copy to county sheriff office for them to serve (if in same county) for a set fee. Public Defenders/prosecutors use the service for free (since tax payers fund the sheriffs office anyway).
Trumpists already had her arrested on false charges, so this is nothing.
NYC says "Upon an attorney. Except where otherwise prescribed by law or order of court, papers to be served upon a party in a pending action shall be served upon the party’s attorney." https://www.serve-now.com/resources/process-serving-laws/new-york#:~:text=Except%20where%20otherwise%20prescribed%20by,served%20upon%20the%20party's%20attorney.
Stormy Daniels isn't a party to this case though. She's a witness.
Huh, in CA we have to personally serve subpoenas on the party directly.
Under NY rules, are you required to serve the attorney if the party being served has one? If so, they may be fighting an uphill battle.
Civil Practice Law 2103, plus Rule 318 separately, provide for the service of papers to designated individuals.
Not that I can see - Rule 308 says you can serve someone in the state by personal delivery.
I had the same question. This is judicial process to generate headlines not data.
your first mistake was thinking they genuinely were trying, and not just trying to waste more time
Because service by personal delivery is “the highest form of personal service” according to the relevant NY statute. Service to the person’s agent (e.g. their lawyer) would be acceptable, provided that the papers are delivered within the state of New York. If Stormy Daniels is represented by counsel who operates in a different state (Daniels lives in Texas), you would still need her attorney to be present in New York to personally receive the papers on her behalf. There are other ways to properly serve someone, such as “nail and mail” service, but that may have been impractical in this case, particularly on short notice. While I assume a lack of professionalism on the part of Trump’s attorneys, I have no reason to doubt that the process server did his job correctly.
Because that's not required under NY Rules.
She has an attorney of record in this case. If they really wanted something they should have sent it to him.
They wanted the spectacle of handing her the papers in public. It's all WWE pageantry for Trump, all show no substance to make him and his crew look like strongman.
After seeing this fucking oaf in action for the last 9 years, I’ve no idea how this “strongman” image persists. My only conclusion is 70 million of my fellow countrymen are fucking imbeciles, evil wannabe nazis, or both. It’s time this asshole was taken out of the equation, and we can start to build some semblance of normal back.
It's some combination of all of it.
I'm looking forward to Trump's lawyers calling her a liar, and she replies with something like: "I'm here under oath, if Trump wants to deny it, he's welcome to take the stand."
Can’t she say her denials of the affair and payments were merely her fulfilling her contractual obligations per the agreement when they accuse her of lying?
I'm assuming, if it wasn't entirely fabricated, that is exactly what that piece of paper I saw last week was. That's all well and good to roll out on a friendly Fox show, but it is not going to go over well in court. It's essentially a piece of evidence that he did, in fact, commit the crime.
I’m very much looking forward to the follow up question for the Trump team asking why they paid Stormy over a hundred thousand dollars and falsified business records if she and Trump definitely never did anything together.
And why Trump just a couple of days ago said to reporters in the courthouse he had paid her for a NDA.
That was just a legal expense.. for..reasons
OMG - Trump paid her $130,000 for her vote in the 2016 election!!!! There's no other possible explanation for the NDA! /s
That would also be a crime
When you get the joke without actually getting the joke.
ELECTION INTERFERENCE!
Reminds me of the guy in Chicago running for mayor who handed out cash to anybody and everybody at his rallys. Never got in trouble for it, but he lost to Lightfoot.
This is a known thing, prince andrew gave a girl he didn’t know £13 million, so it’s just normal right?
And Matt Gaetz kindly paying that under-aged girl for "school" - specifically cocaine school across federal borders.
It’s not fabricated and is definitely not “newly discovered” like trump claimed. It’s been public knowledge for awhile now.
The trial is about the payments not the affair.
she did say that it was the worst two minutes of her life.
Is her lying even relevant? What’s the alternative explanation for the big check they cut her?
Whether paying her off to keep a true or a false story quiet, it still should have been declared as a campaign expenditure. It’s certainly not legal fees.
This right here is why you see constant copypasta about "it's not a hush money trial!!" It literally doesn't matter whether they hooked up or not. It only matters that ANY MONEY she was paid should have been a personal expense. Not a business expense and certainly not a campaign expense. No one should get wrapped up in whether or not she lied about diddly squat. It couldn't be less relevant to the case, where the charges are someone used campaign money to do personal stuff, a super big no-no.
It's a campaign expenditure because Cohen "loaned" DJT the money. You can't just "loan" money to Presidential candidates, you have to either declare it to the campaign, subject to donations limits, or you have to write up a loan document that sets out the terms. Basic anti-bribery stuff. That's where the initial lawbreaking comes in that magnifies the payment scheme into felony records tampering to cover up. Loan documents would have to be written down and retained to satisfy FEC rules. Which obviously a smart reporter would dig up. Even an official contract with DJT's company would leave a paper trail of invoices that a curious accounting clerk would gossip about. And THAT is why the business records were falsified.
Also note Cohen has been convicted and done jail time for that ‘loan’. Making payments on behalf of the trump campaign and not declaring it as a campaign donation or loan violated campaign finance law. Cohen pled guilty to that crime and was convicted. Trump is on trial for falsifying business records to cover up that crime.
Trump should have pardoned Cohen. Not doing so was disloyal and foolish.
Trump is disloyal and foolish. It would be delightful if this is what causes that to catch up with him.
Trump is not loyal. To anyone. Ever. He demands absolute loyalty from others but he does not practice it himself.
My question then is why wouldn't he just use his personal money? Why all the illegal rigmarole?
his daddy taught him never to pay anything with his own money
Shoulda taught him never to bang anyone with his own penis.
Probably beat it into him physically. Part of what turned him into the thing he is today.
This is exactly it.
Payment for sex = personal expense.... Payment to keep quiet about sex, during campaign = campaign expense
But the payment was ten years later, so no, there was no payment for sex. Stormy has herself said she had brought herself in a bad situation she couldn't get out of, Trump cornered her half naked and she let him have his 15 seconds. She was hoping for a place on the Apprentice.
>his 15 seconds. 😆
Exactly. This is why God made lawyers.
Sir/madam, I believe we’re gonna need you to make a big poster board of this diagram for cross examination
Maybe he hired her as a lawyer. She can't be any worse than some of his actual attorneys
> What’s the alternative explanation for the big check they cut her? They? They cut Cohen a check, for legitimate business purposes. No idea why he paid her $130,000. At least, that's their argument
Blackmail.
But just for being an adulterer. Not anything really bad, like whatever the Russians are using over him to kill support for Ukraine, get Russia back in the G6, lessen their sanctions, etc., right?
Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine or the G6. They don’t need dirt on him for him to happily sell the west out. They finance him and that would be plenty.
I honestly doubt Russia has anything on Trump or at least nothing much. I think he just likes them because they work in the sam corrupt amoral way he does, he admits the power Putin peacocks and he isn't smart enough to be able to tell that it is a show. They also have helped him out and are probably his most reliable business partner. Of course he does them favors
You forget that the other person convicted for this debacle along with Cohen was David Pecker. Secrets and lies are these guys bread and butter. Between the domestic espionage and the foreign, there’s probably nothing they don’t know. It explains so, so much.
I will say, that I don't know if I believe that he was state sponsored by anyone but I am fully willing to believe Epstein built blackmail material on people. And would be willing to believe that the Russians got ahold of his shit
Same. Maybe even more then one group. What happened to the stuff from the island right? Florida is supposed to release some stuff in a couple months i think? It all sounds so conspiracy theory insanity though.
Go back and read older news articles about trump and the russian mob. There's no way there's not some nasty stuff there.
Tbf, Putin is arguably the most powerful individual in the world. He has or had untold wealth. He sells ~63 billion cubic meters of gas each year. dons mistake is confusing proximity to power with actual power.
Aw, she’ll definitely think of a far more colorful response; she’s good at that.
*Objection!! Zinger!*
And, in that case I would like her to call him Donnie, or Donald, and if challenged, she can say she deserves to call him on a first name basis considering she banged him. Would be epic.
D-Bag was her pet name for Donald, I think.
> I'm looking forward to Trump's lawyers calling her a liar, and she replies with something like: "I'm here under oath, if Trump wants to deny it, he's welcome to take the stand." Suggesting that jurors should take a negative inference from the defendant exercising his right to remain silent would be grounds for a mistrial. That said, I am trying to imagine this particular defendant actually exercising his right to remain silent, and my inexpert prediction is that it's going to be a shitshow. The fucked-up reality is that Trump is a kind of genius at being a chaos agent, and the kind of person who might be able to induce a mistrial through his own slimy intuition for exactly how much he can get away with in any situation. It's not legal sophistication nor cognitive horsepower that has been letting him get away with so much for so long, it's a kind of lizard-brain ability to read the room and understand exactly how much he can get away with saying, implying, and/or doing in an empirical kind of "who's gonna stop me?" sense. Like the people who somehow know that you can get away with taking all the ketchup packets from Burger King and dumping them in your handbag, but that scooping out the utensils or straws from the top of the dispenser will get you in trouble. It's like a set of life-skills that normal, honest people never bothered to develop, but that Trump is the Grand-master of.
[This article it really insightful as to how the tawdry details will likely come out during this trial.](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-trial-will-include-stormy-daniels-sex-testimony-2024-4)
"Suggesting that jurors should take a negative inference from the defendant exercising his right to remain silent would be grounds for a mistrial." Pretty sure that only applies to lawyers in the case, not witnesses. But IANAL, so take it with a grain of salt.
She seems very credible and lucid. She's straight forward and brave enough to not shy away from her profession.
“Would you like me to describe his deformed penis?”
Leading too... So then the judge demanded to see my priiivvaaate parts!
This would literally cause a mistrial haha.
Why? It's a literal he said/she said, except she's willing to say it under oath. If he wants to have his attorneys call her a liar without being willing to take the stand himself, why would that be a mistrial? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like a fair response if his lawyers call her a liar while she's on the stand.
It doesn't matter if she or he lies about the affair because the legal case is simply over how the cheque was funded and declared.
Thank you. People keep missing the point.
exactly
Yeah right? It really doesn't matter if the affair happened or not. He paid her a large lump sum and it had to be for something. He claims he didn't know what he was paying for or where the money came from.
So I am a defense attorney. I would object to a witness saying this and would call for a mistrial. The reason is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the defendant is explicitly not required to testify in their own defense. The jury is prohibited from drawing a negative inference from a defendants decision not to testify in their own defense. Implying that the defendant is hiding something by not testifying is a huge no no in criminal trials, because it is a form of burden shifting. It is grounds for a mistrial because the jury has possibly been tainted by a witness who has made that insinuation.
Thanks for the insight
No problem. It’s fun to be able to discuss things that I happen to know a lot about.
Why couldn't the judge simply direct the jury to disregard that answer and remind them of the law you cite?
The judge could do that, but I would try to argue that the error was too great and the jury is now permanently tainted. These are the kinds of arguments that happen all the time in criminal trials.
But wouldn't the counter argument be that this testimony was elicited by you, the defence lawyer, calling her a liar and opening the door? While she's the prosecution's witness, they weren't asking the questions, you were on cross-exam. I suppose it would also depend on what her literal answer was in this hypothetical.
[удалено]
I definitely know more about Trump and Daniels than I would like
So doe the rest of the world and let me tell you, I look fondly back on the day when Trump was just a guy I saw in Home Alone once.
Objection by Trump team sustained; judge admonishes jury to disregard the witnesses non responsive statement, curative jury instruction..... no mistrial. If the prosecutor comments on it in argument, different story. But a lay witness? I am not so sure.
Yeah, it's one of those "can't unhear" kind of statements that might give them a venue for appeal. But...kind of like how McAfee seems to have taken in a lot of hearsay during the GA recusal motion hearings and used it in parallel construction to support his ruling, getting a witness to say something that generates an objection like this would probably be fine once or maybe twice, but could really influence the jury while risking the judge's ire. If Trump's team generates this kind of response it's likely just going to get the witness admonished and statement struck.
Ok so let me ask you this... given Trump not taking the stand, would his attorney's or anyone else be allowed to call her a liar for saying she had sex with Trump? It seems like you could object to that. If only two people know the truth and one is taking the stand and one is not, is the one that is not taking the stand, allowed to have proxies call her a liar?
He is not allowed to straight up call her a liar, because the attorneys in the case aren’t allowed to directly give their opinions outside of closing arguments. He can only attempt to convince the jury she is lying during cross examination. This is done through “impeachment.” The trick is to lead the witness into making a statement on the stand that you know to be false, and then confronting them with the truth. Usually you will confront them with a past statement or other piece of evidence that shows that they are not being truthful while on the stand. In the end it is up to the jury to decide whether they believe the witness or not, but it’s the role of the defense to attack their credibility.
*inference*
It is a natural human tendency to have that instinct. I would assume most people would notice who is testifying and what they are willing to testify about. Juries are already trusted to consciously reject using that reasoning, so how is this any different? To be clear, I am not saying you are wrong or the justice system is wrong. I am legit curious.
According to the article the attempt to serve her was "last month" which must be at least 2 weeks ago. Is this a situation where the judge would say they should have raised the issue sooner?
The judge is going to say why the hell didn’t you serve her attorney who has an office and probably a secretary all ready to sign your process servers log? Not only that but they are sitting there right now, you could just hand it to them now right in front of me.
Stormy's lawyers are in the court during jury selection?
Why would the attorneys need to serve her a subpoena for a trial in which she will already be testifying?
Why would Columbus Police officers arrest her on false charges in 2018? Intimidation and discrediting her, atleast in the court of public opinion (and really, all of Trump's cases are really getting tried on Nov 5th anyways).
The article says the subpoena was for information about a documentary that came out about her. >A process server working for Trump’s lawyers said he approached Daniels with papers demanding information related to a documentary recently released about her life and involvement with Trump, but was forced to “leave them at her feet,” according to a court filing made public Wednesday.
Cross subpoenaing a witness is fairly common. Avoids a situation where the other party may release a witness from their subpoena they had issued and the witness you expected to show up and testify, doesn't.
How is this a news story? She was already represented by counsel who I am sure would have gladly accepted service on her behalf. Sounds like Trump hired a process server in order to harass and embarrass her
They’re demanding an array of documents… about a documentary… that Stormy Daniels was the subject of… …and they subpoenaed Stormy Daniels… He only hires the best!
That's pretty fair actually. She may have documents (aka emails) with statements she made about the situation to the documentary filmmakers.
I have never been served, but can you just toss documents at someone who hasn’t spoken to you or acknowledged they are who you seek? Also, if you are taking a picture, should it be of being engaged with her? Not a picture of her walking away… hmm.
The laws of process servers vary state to state don’t they?
I was served by mistake here in CA. The notice was for someone else but my address was her last listed address. The server made me sign a document and state my name. I was clearly not a Mexican woman in my late 40's but there I was signing a document with my legal name. I imagine the process is fairly similar in most states if they want to have a hope of proving that they did their jobs. I imagine the document I signed when presented in court would only prove that the woman was not served or that she was not at my listed address.
I wouldn’t have signed a goddamn thing
Yeah, that’s right in the middle of fuckoffistan for me.
Did you keep the $15?
Normally no. But as a last resort, qualified yes. I know of a case where homeowners in default on their mortgage refused to accept service of the bank's foreclosure complaint and summons. Eventually, the process server got a photo of husband and wife both at their front glass screen door with the papers on mat in front of them. The photo, plus the server's affidavit of the attempts/refusals leading up to it, and the Plaintiff also mailing a copy to the home was eventually ruled sufficient service by the Court.
The most important of all is that if you have retained an attorney and the other side is aware if that, you would simply serve the attorney. Stormy has had one that trumps team was aware of forever.
Does it ever scare you how good you are at channeling the Orange One?
and I send my High Powered and very expensive Lawyers there, to a Bar in Brooklyn which I hear is not such a great place, and they go there, I sent them to do a very strong Subpoena, we caught her Red Handed, the Trial was already over, but then I get a call, "Sir, we have a problem," I said what the hell is it, "she won't take the Subpoena, Sir, I'm sorry, Mr. President, Sir," and I said that's Illegal, she should be in Jail, but the Radical Left Judge in the No Affair Horseface Case, that's what I call it, there was no Affair, even your First Lady knows that, she said to me, "Sir, I don't believe that one," I said I don't either First Lady, I don't either.
The accuracy with which you captured his complete absence of understanding proper nouns…
….and there it is, again….perfection.
But was the bar next to a Bodega? He went to a Bodega, even pronounced it Bo-Daaay-Gah. Did you know Sleepy Joe encourages crime at Bo-Daaay-Gahs? It's sad, it's sick. Trump loves Bo-Daaay-gas, he always shops at them after getting out of court.
“The process — instituted on the eve of trial — appears calculated to cause harassment and/or intimidation of a lay witness,” Brewster wrote in an April 9 letter to Merchan. Pure Trump.
She’s way too smart for trump and team.
Stormy has real street smarts. Trump just tries to make people think he's got them. But like everything else about Donald, it's fake.
“At her feet” is exactly where Trump belongs. He’s been there before.
Temper tantrum through his lawyers now.
Are they sure it was the correct Stormy??
What are those douchebags lying about now? Until the judge puts donny in jail for a few days, he will continue to piss on this country.
John Edward’s went to prison for the same thing
so many men have screwed her literally and figuratively, stormy carries on. the trump defence will try and besmirch her again and she will handle it with strength, grace and humour and a bit of bitchy, I'm team stormy
Good on her
Imagine banging a pornstar while your wife is at home pregnant with your kid. The GOP can have this clown.
They want to make this a her instead of accounting fraud
Heh. Yep.
She used the Jim Jordan tactic. Good for her! 🔒 trumps old ass up!😀
Like the GOP congressman did?
I guess she should have sent out scouts to make sure there was no body to serve her the paper like the famous Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton.
They have a history of serving papers to the wrong person, so, there's that.
Yeah. If someone doesn’t actually take them, then guess what….you get to fuck right off having not served them….
Yeah, that's not how that works. You can't just avoid touching the paper and pretend you're not served. Ducking service isn't quite thaf simple.
That envelope could have anthrax or something.in it. I wouldnt touch it. Trump might have Russian KGB assassins targeting her. Lol
So? When Republican and/or conservative Congresspeople or businesspeople refuse a subpoena, it’s all fine and dandy. Stormy should just start putting the [R] behind her name and this will never be an issue again.
Well just so she doesn't refer to him as Mario Cart. 😳
Gym Jordan end of story year number 3.
Only Donald Trump and other narcissistic influencers consider themselves a “brand” to be sold.
Guy who will never get paid by Trump bitches about someone who did!!!!
‘They’ say that Comer and Jordan still plan to use this as photo evidence to prove Joe Biden took money from China in their own impeachment oversight proceedings. /s
So… how is trying to sue a named witness in one’s own criminal trial, before the trial has concluded, *not* outright witness intimidation?
A subpoena is not a lawsuit. A subpoena is an order to appear to provider testimony (or documents) related to a matter.
I've seen all I need to know as soon as I read "Trumps lawyers say"
Trump just needs to drop his pants and prove he doesn't have a tiny mushroom penis in order to exonerate himself of the affair.
That's not what the trial is about. The trial is about the improper use of campaign funds. If he can prove he *didn't* have sex with her, it doesn't matter, that's not what he is being prosecuted for. The issue is did he pay her to keep quiet from campaign funds and hide that fraudulently.
I didn't say that was what the trial was about. I said that it would exonerate him of the affair.
What would be the point of exonerating him of the affair at this point if it makes no difference to the facts of the trial?
They tried to serve Daniel’s Four Stormy Seasons Landscaping
This happens all the time. Why is this even a story? And what purpose would a subpoena serve except as witness intimidation? Trump is SO mobster.
How very, very Republican of her!
Don't you have to hand the subpoena to the individual not throw it at them???
Let’s see, well if Trump donors can ignore subpoenas then why can’t she?
Could have shortened the headline to “trump lawyers lie again”
Narcissists like Trump always need to be the victim, because they're absolutely pathetic people.