Much like Donald Trump is a poor person's idea of a rich person, this cross-examination by Susan Necheles (a very good criminal defense attorney) is a dumb person's idea of effective cross-examination.
I strongly suspect that FPOTUS insisted that Ms. Necheles do this.
At any point did the defense put forward the idea that the sex never took place?
I mean wasn't that one of Trump's claims at one time — that it was all a lie.
Yes, the basis for “extortion” cross-examination is that the sex never happened so the demand for $ not to talk about the sex is “extortion”.
If the sex happened (which I completely believe) demanding $ to keep quiet is capitalism, not extortion.
caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd...
Thank you — for helping me to understand.
So, in some respects, how the jury 'views' Stormy or Karen (I assume she might be called) could play a role in how they decide? i.e. if they believe the sex happened.
Is that an accurate assessment/possibility?
No need to apologize. Because National Enquirer paid McDougal and David Pecker would not accept Michael Cohen’s convoluted manner to reimburse AMI, there are no charges tied to that payoff.
Not yet. I'm planning on writing something over this weekend.
Very brief synopsis: Prosecution case is going in as smoothly as they could have expected. No defense moments to date.
Nevertheless, it's hard to say anything until Michael Cohen testifies.
Then, if Trump testifies, that's everything.
