14 Comments

Great column.

I would like to cheer for Stormy Daniels for her courage and for standing up to all the attempted intimidation.

Trump will blame his lawyers but he is the one (I imagine) who insisted he didn’t know Stormy and never had sex with her. It’s on him, his lawyers only secondarily for going along with him.

Expand full comment

I love Jamie Raskin. It is worth looking up his speech on C-Span to read the rest of it.

Expand full comment

Jaime Raskin has more brains than all the dweebs, dopes, morons, idiots, hayshakers and shitkickers that are the "House Republicans." Taking on one of those dumbasses on any topic is definitely "shooting fish in a barrel."

Expand full comment

How tRump could have expected his legal team to get any mileage out of the "She's lying, I never had sex with her" argument, when putting Stormy Daniels in the witness box opened up all matter of damaging testimony to his defense. I mean, they lost BIGLY in the E Jean Carroll defamation suit - "I don't know this woman, never met her in my life" - and all that I can postulate for dragging tRump's easily disproven denials into the courtroom is that this has been his public line for years, where PROOF is readily dismissed and DENIAL sets the framing. That mindset has apparently been drilled into tRump's legal team, despite surely their reservations - at least by the competent members - and tRump once again is finding out that what works in the public sphere utterly fails in a court of law.

He lost the defamation suit, he'll be found guilty in this case, and it's down to his reckless arrogance.

Expand full comment

Well said!

Not sure if the legal team has a choice, he doesn’t do well with the word no. You would think they would care about their professional reputation though. I know nothing about legal ethics of going against the client versus leaving the client if your client won’t get on board at least a less humiliating/embarrassingly bad strategy.

Expand full comment

It's Friday, thankfully. After

another week of scheming,

criming and more lying by

the usual suspects, I'm ready

for another mental health

weekend. These are

becoming more frequent.

Expand full comment

The next Trial Witness is likely the CFO, ALAN WEISSELBERG of Trump Org who is currently in Prison at Rikers' Island.

After the Jury was excused for the Weekend there was sidebar about how to handle the ALAN WEISSELBERG issues of which there are many. Tomorrow, Saturday, we should have a Transcript of the Sidebar but, apparently dear ALAN signed an NDA not to assist anyone making claims on Fort Trump. CFO ALAN is being paid to keep his mouth shut. We will have to wait for the money details on how much when he he has been paid -- sort of a Retirement Package.

Judge Merchan may Order a Trial Deposition of ALAN videotaped. That way he can parse the relevance & admissiblity & make sure exceptions on New York's bar on Character Evidence. have been met. I am not a NY Lawyer but, the exception are detailed at Section 4.07.01 subdivisions (a) evidence is an element of the case & (b) acted in conformity without character on a particular occasion. The Former Guy is the micromanager & paymaster at Fort Trump.

More likely in my view, we will have three (3) more witnesses, ALAN the Prisoner, the Fixer, Michael Cohen under the watchful eye of Judge Merchan & what I call a "Summary Witness" to put the chronology of the sordid mess in chronological order before Closing Argument. The jury got the details on the 34 fraudulent business records today.

All yours Judge.

Expand full comment

I read, I think in NYTimes,

Weisselberg got a cool million

as his "retirement" package

to Rikers. He's on his 2nd trip

there, right?

Expand full comment

That is the amount I understand as well, $1M. Thank You Victoria.

The New Your Court system produces the day-after Court Transcripts. I just signed up for WAPO's Daily Transcript Link. I will likely have the Friday May 10 "Sidebar Transcript" by noon tomorrow, Saturday.

Just 3 days of Court next week, Monday, Tuesday & Thursday only.

Expand full comment

I'm curious. Can't Biden just do his application to get on the Ohio ballot as a simple, non-partisan citizen (like RFK Jr ) --or make up a party if he needs one--and then change his political "affiliation" once he's nominated? Or sign up as the representative of the small d democratic party and then just start capitalizing the term. I kind of like the idea of the use ads could make of "Biden, the democratic AND Democrat's candidate. "

I've never understood what all the harping is about a "Republic." To the extent that it means that the structure is a bunch of states with certain rights and a central government with certain rights, isn't that exactly what is set up BY the constitution? Since the whole idea behind having a House and Senate, rather than a humungous Town Hall means we are a representative democracy, why isn't the US BOTH a democracy and a republic?

And YES, Brian Beutler. Thanks for pointing out my Substack commenter mantra: Elise Stefanik is the Outside Agitator in chief. America, you are being played! There is zippo evidence that all those 2000+ arrested protestors are pro Hamas or pro-terrorist. There are PICTURES of the ones screaming actual hate speech--why not arrest THEM and not everyone else? Why aren't the Dems POUNDING on the point that being anti-Netanyahu or antiwar isn't being Anti-Israel, much less antisemitic.

Expand full comment

Is Josh in the courthouse today? Link didn’t provide his current blow by blow 🥲

Expand full comment

Josh is there, but no liveblog today unless we get any surprising developments. Looks like a cavalcade of minor witnesses is on tap for the rest of the day, but he'll have a story for us on this week's trial testimony later in the day. Thanks for reading!

Expand full comment

Thank you - my days go great with his love blogs and your TPM!

Expand full comment

Live 🤣

Expand full comment