David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
attorney’s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
Trump’s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen’s testimony.

David French: Let’s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
pleased with the course of the trial so far — the prosecution or the defense?

Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.

Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
Team Trump is happy that he’s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
he’s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn’t seem to have had much of
an impact on his polling numbers.

If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.

French: Stormy Daniels’s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump’s lawyer moved for a
mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
asking her to describe the details of the encounter?

White: This is all on Trump. He’s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn’t a
great witness — she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
directly — but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.

Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
real point of the testimony, and it’s possible that the jury did as well. But I
don’t think it will ultimately undermine the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html

Heh heh heh...

In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
says...
>
> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>
> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>
> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>
> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
> an impact on his polling numbers.
>
> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>
> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>
> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>
> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>
> Heh heh heh...

A whore and a convicted liar is the only ammo they have.

On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
> says...
>>
>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>
>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>>
>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>>
>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>
>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>
>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>
>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>
>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>
>> Heh heh heh...
>
> A whore

No.

> and a convicted liar

who lied on Trump's behalf.

Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" — your fucked
up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
quotes, you cocksucker.

On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>
>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>>>
>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>>>>
>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>>>>
>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>>>
>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>>>
>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>>>
>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>>>
>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>>>
>>>> Heh heh heh...
>>>
>>> A whore
>>
>> No.
>
> She's a porn star whore.

She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.

>>> and a convicted liar
>>
>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
>
> Doesn't matter.

It matters.

He's looking *great* in court today.

>>
>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ? your fucked
>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
>> quotes, you cocksucker.
>
> Yet you change the groups and

Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject line.

On 5/14/2024 11:49 AM, Michael A Terrell wrote:
> On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted
> child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
>> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>
>>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell,
>>> convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>
>>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online
>>>>> conversation with
>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the
>>>>> Manhattan district
>>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to
>>>>> discuss Donald
>>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>>>>
>>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less
>>>>> trial
>>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always
>>>>> had a sense
>>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing.
>>>>> Who is more
>>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or
>>>>> the defense?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how
>>>>> things are
>>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the
>>>>> case, which is
>>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of
>>>>> circumstantial
>>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his
>>>>> intent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the
>>>>> trial,
>>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and
>>>>> political
>>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense,
>>>>> I suspect
>>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his
>>>>> narrative that
>>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have
>>>>> had much of
>>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A.
>>>>> is doing a
>>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in
>>>>> a way likely
>>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>>>>
>>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and
>>>>> disturbing than I
>>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was
>>>>> fundamentally exploitive
>>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer
>>>>> moved for a
>>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could
>>>>> prejudice the jury.
>>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make
>>>>> a mistake in
>>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>>>>
>>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego
>>>>> reasons, to make
>>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could
>>>>> have rendered
>>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to
>>>>> call her a liar.
>>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She
>>>>> wasn?t a
>>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering
>>>>> questions
>>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to
>>>>> establish that
>>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would
>>>>> find it
>>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to
>>>>> bring out too
>>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the
>>>>> expense of the
>>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as
>>>>> well. But I
>>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh heh heh...
>>>>
>>>> A whore
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> She's a porn star whore.
>
> She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.

She takes money to screw so she's just a whore like Kamala Harris.

>>>> and a convicted liar
>>>
>>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
>>
>> Doesn't matter.
>
> It matters.

Cohen is not credible.

> He's looking *great* in court today.

He's been coached.

>>>
>>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt?  "Re: ?They Have
>>> Established
>>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ?
>>> your fucked
>>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks
>>> were single
>>> quotes, you cocksucker.
>>
>> Yet you change the groups and
>
> Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject
> line.

It has nothing to do with the reader you HTML/MIME illiterate.

On 5/14/2024 1:22 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <dnO0O.70442$iMKd.33605@fx12.iad>,
> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>
>> On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
>>>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
>>>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
>>>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
>>>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
>>>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
>>>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
>>>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
>>>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
>>>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
>>>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
>>>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
>>>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
>>>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
>>>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
>>>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
>>>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
>>>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
>>>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
>>>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
>>>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
>>>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
>>>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
>>>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
>>>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
>>>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
>>>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
>>>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
>>>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
>>>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
>>>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heh heh heh...
>>>>>
>>>>> A whore
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> She's a porn star whore.
>>
>> She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.
>>
>>>>> and a convicted liar
>>>>
>>>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter.
>>
>> It matters.
>>
>> He's looking *great* in court today.
>
> Nope and

Yes, and you know it. Trump's shitty lawyers haven't laid a finger on him.

>>>>
>>>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
>>>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ? your fucked
>>>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
>>>> quotes, you cocksucker.
>>>
>>> Yet you change the groups and
>>
>> Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject line.
>
> I'm a fucking coward.

With a fucked-up newsreader. Get a proper one, shitbag.

On 5/14/2024 2:25 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <CmQ0O.4823$ba_5.4462@fx46.iad>,
> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>
>> On 5/14/2024 1:22 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <dnO0O.70442$iMKd.33605@fx12.iad>,
>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
>>>>>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
>>>>>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
>>>>>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
>>>>>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
>>>>>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
>>>>>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
>>>>>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
>>>>>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
>>>>>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
>>>>>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
>>>>>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
>>>>>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
>>>>>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
>>>>>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
>>>>>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
>>>>>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
>>>>>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
>>>>>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
>>>>>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
>>>>>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
>>>>>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
>>>>>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
>>>>>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
>>>>>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
>>>>>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
>>>>>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
>>>>>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
>>>>>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
>>>>>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
>>>>>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Heh heh heh...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A whore
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>
>>>>> She's a porn star whore.
>>>>
>>>> She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.
>>>>
>>>>>>> and a convicted liar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>> It matters.
>>>>
>>>> He's looking *great* in court today.
>>>
>>> Nope and
>>
>> Yes, and you know it. Trump's shitty lawyers haven't laid a finger on him.
>
> He looked almost as bad as

He looked terrific, and Trump looked scared shitless, as he should be.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
>>>>>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ? your fucked
>>>>>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
>>>>>> quotes, you cocksucker.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you change the groups and
>>>>
>>>> Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject line.
>>>
>>> I'm a fucking coward.
>>
>> We already know that.
>
> Yes, you do.

Yes, we do. YTIW

>>
>> With a fucked-up newsreader. Get a proper one, shitbag.
>
> You kicked my ass hours ago.

*Months*, you stupid cocksucker.

On 5/14/2024 5:47 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <bDS0O.9896$mH39.4013@fx04.iad>,
> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>
>> On 5/14/2024 2:25 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <CmQ0O.4823$ba_5.4462@fx46.iad>,
>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2024 1:22 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <dnO0O.70442$iMKd.33605@fx12.iad>,
>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
>>>>>>>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
>>>>>>>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
>>>>>>>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
>>>>>>>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
>>>>>>>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
>>>>>>>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
>>>>>>>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
>>>>>>>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
>>>>>>>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
>>>>>>>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
>>>>>>>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
>>>>>>>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
>>>>>>>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
>>>>>>>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
>>>>>>>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
>>>>>>>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
>>>>>>>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
>>>>>>>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
>>>>>>>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
>>>>>>>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
>>>>>>>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
>>>>>>>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
>>>>>>>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
>>>>>>>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
>>>>>>>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
>>>>>>>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
>>>>>>>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
>>>>>>>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
>>>>>>>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Heh heh heh...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A whore
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> She's a porn star whore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and a convicted liar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He's looking *great* in court today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope and
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and you know it. Trump's shitty lawyers haven't laid a finger on him.
>>>
>>> He looked almost as bad as
>>
>> He looked terrific, and Trump looked scared shitless, as he should be.
>
> You didn't see any pics or videos.

I did. I also read reporting of reliable news. Trump was scared shitless. He
knows he's losing. It's great!

> Neither did I.

We know.

Cohen kicked the asses of Trump's ham-hock lawyers.

>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
>>>>>>>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ? your fucked
>>>>>>>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
>>>>>>>> quotes, you cocksucker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you change the groups and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject line.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a fucking coward.
>>>>
>>>> We already know that.
>>>
>>> Yes, you do.
>>
>> Yes, we do. YTIW
>
> NW

YTIW

>>>>
>>>> With a fucked-up newsreader. Get a proper one, shitbag.
>>>
>>> You kicked my ass hours ago.
>>
>> *Months*, you stupid cocksucker.

<crickets>

On 5/15/2024 1:49 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <5MW0O.121793$lwqa.103700@fx18.iad>,
> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>
>> On 5/14/2024 5:47 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <bDS0O.9896$mH39.4013@fx04.iad>,
>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2024 2:25 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <CmQ0O.4823$ba_5.4462@fx46.iad>,
>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 1:22 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <dnO0O.70442$iMKd.33605@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
>>>>>>>>>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
>>>>>>>>>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
>>>>>>>>>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
>>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
>>>>>>>>>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
>>>>>>>>>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
>>>>>>>>>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
>>>>>>>>>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
>>>>>>>>>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
>>>>>>>>>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
>>>>>>>>>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
>>>>>>>>>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
>>>>>>>>>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
>>>>>>>>>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
>>>>>>>>>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
>>>>>>>>>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
>>>>>>>>>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
>>>>>>>>>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh heh heh...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A whore
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> She's a porn star whore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and a convicted liar
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It matters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's looking *great* in court today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and you know it. Trump's shitty lawyers haven't laid a finger on him.
>>>>>
>>>>> He looked almost as bad as
>>>>
>>>> He looked terrific, and Trump looked scared shitless, as he should be.
>>>
>>> You didn't see any pics or videos.
>>
>> I did. I also read reporting of reliable news. Trump was scared shitless. He
>> knows he's losing. It's great!
>
> The polls say otherwise. I saw and heard and you are wrong. I see I ran
> you off of the other posts about this.
>>
>>> Neither did I.
>>
>> We know.
>
> Edit...you lose
>>
>> Cohen kicked the asses of Trump's ham-hock lawyers.
>
> He lied. There is nothing that shows Trump guilty of any crime.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
>>>>>>>>>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ? your fucked
>>>>>>>>>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
>>>>>>>>>> quotes, you cocksucker.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet you change the groups and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm a fucking coward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We already know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you do.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, we do. YTIW
>>>
>>> NW
>>
>> YTIW
>
> Nope.

In article <m4p1O.680$29Ia.142@fx13.iad>, mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut
says...
>
> On 5/15/2024 1:49 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
> molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>
> > In article <5MW0O.121793$lwqa.103700@fx18.iad>,
> > mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
> >>
> >> On 5/14/2024 5:47 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>
> >>> In article <bDS0O.9896$mH39.4013@fx04.iad>,
> >>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/14/2024 2:25 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <CmQ0O.4823$ba_5.4462@fx46.iad>,
> >>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/14/2024 1:22 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <dnO0O.70442$iMKd.33605@fx12.iad>,
> >>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
> >>>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
> >>>>>>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
> >>>>>>>>>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
> >>>>>>>>>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
> >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
> >>>>>>>>>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
> >>>>>>>>>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
> >>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
> >>>>>>>>>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Heh heh heh...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> A whore
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> No.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> She's a porn star whore.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and a convicted liar
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It matters.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He's looking *great* in court today.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nope and
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, and you know it. Trump's shitty lawyers haven't laid a finger on him.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He looked almost as bad as
> >>>>
> >>>> He looked terrific, and Trump looked scared shitless, as he should be.
> >>>
> >>> You didn't see any pics or videos.
> >>
> >> I did. I also read reporting of reliable news. Trump was scared shitless. He
> >> knows he's losing. It's great!
> >
> > The polls say otherwise. I saw and heard and you are wrong. I see I ran
> > you off of the other posts about this.
> >>
> >>> Neither did I.
> >>
> >> We know.
> >
> > Edit...you lose
> >>
> >> Cohen kicked the asses of Trump's ham-hock lawyers.
> >
> > He lied. There is nothing that shows Trump guilty of any crime.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
> >>>>>>>>>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ? your fucked
> >>>>>>>>>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
> >>>>>>>>>> quotes, you cocksucker.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yet you change the groups and
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject line.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm a fucking coward.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We already know that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, you do.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, we do. YTIW
> >>>
> >>> NW
> >>
> >> YTIW
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With a fucked-up newsreader. Get a proper one, shitbag.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You kicked my ass hours ago.
> >>>>
> >>>> *Months*, you stupid cocksucker.
> >>
> >> <crickets>
> >
> > What is there to respond to?
>
> My humiliation of you, of course.

On 5/16/2024 12:23 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child
molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:

> In article <m4p1O.680$29Ia.142@fx13.iad>, mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut
> says...
>>
>> On 5/15/2024 1:49 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>
>>> In article <5MW0O.121793$lwqa.103700@fx18.iad>,
>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/2024 5:47 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <bDS0O.9896$mH39.4013@fx04.iad>,
>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 2:25 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <CmQ0O.4823$ba_5.4462@fx46.iad>,
>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 1:22 PM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <dnO0O.70442$iMKd.33605@fx12.iad>,
>>>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 11:02 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <YDM0O.35574$iFZ2.26318@fx36.iad>,
>>>>>>>>>>> mike.am.surreal@earthlink.nut says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2024 9:48 AM, Skeeter-Shit Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell, convicted child molester and another fucking do-nothing, lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <QtM0O.90445$Fmd1.1062@fx13.iad>, max.boot@lathymes.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David French, a Times columnist, hosted a written online conversation with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe, a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attorney?s office, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, to discuss Donald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump?s Manhattan trial and Michael Cohen?s testimony.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> David French: Let?s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pleased with the course of the trial so far ? the prosecution or the defense?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Team Trump is happy that he?s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he?s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn?t seem to have had much of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an impact on his polling numbers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French: Stormy Daniels?s testimony was far more riveting and disturbing than I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anticipated. She described a sexual encounter that was fundamentally exploitive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and potentially even predatory. In the aftermath, Trump?s lawyer moved for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistrial, claiming that the details of that testimony could prejudice the jury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What was your assessment of her testimony? Did the prosecution make a mistake in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> asking her to describe the details of the encounter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> White: This is all on Trump. He?s the one who decided, for ego reasons, to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeated claims that the sexual encounter never happened. He could have rendered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the details irrelevant by keeping his mouth shut, but he had to call her a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That makes it relevant. Yes, her description was skin-crawling. She wasn?t a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great witness ? she was argumentative and had trouble answering questions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly ? but she did what the prosecution needed her to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roiphe: The prosecution was in a difficult position. It needed to establish that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this story would have been disturbing, so much so that Trump would find it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary to suppress it. But the judge had admonished them not to bring out too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many details. The media got caught up in the sex scene at the expense of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real point of the testimony, and it?s possible that the jury did as well. But I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don?t think it will ultimately undermine the case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/opinion/trump-trial-michael-cohen.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heh heh heh...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A whore
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> She's a porn star whore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> She's a porn starlet, but not a whore.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a convicted liar
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> who lied on Trump's behalf.My reader is top line. Yours is trash.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It matters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He's looking *great* in court today.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and you know it. Trump's shitty lawyers haven't laid a finger on him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He looked almost as bad as
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He looked terrific, and Trump looked scared shitless, as he should be.
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't see any pics or videos.
>>>>
>>>> I did. I also read reporting of reliable news. Trump was scared shitless. He
>>>> knows he's losing. It's great!
>>>
>>> The polls say otherwise. I saw and heard and you are wrong. I see I ran
>>> you off of the other posts about this.
>>>>
>>>>> Neither did I.
>>>>
>>>> We know.
>>>
>>> Edit...you lose
>>>>
>>>> Cohen kicked the asses of Trump's ham-hock lawyers.
>>>
>>> He lied. There is nothing that shows Trump guilty of any crime.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why can't you get a decent newsreader, you cunt? "Re: ?They Have Established
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Backbone of the Case?: Three Writers Dissect the Trump Trial" ? your fucked
>>>>>>>>>>>> up homo newsreader fucks up the subject line. Those question marks were single
>>>>>>>>>>>> quotes, you cocksucker.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yet you change the groups and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Get a proper newsreader, cocksucker, so it doesn't fuck up the subject line.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm a fucking coward.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We already know that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, we do. YTIW
>>>>>
>>>>> NW
>>>>
>>>> YTIW
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>
>> Yep.