Opinion: All Signs Point to Trump Debate Meltdown

Considering how Trump got his clock cleaned at their 2020 debates, we'll believe this one will happen when we actually see it.                                                                                                                                                                                             

Opinion by David Rothkopf

The Daily Beast

The news that President Joe Biden and Donald Trump have agreed to two debates, one in just a few weeks’ time, in late June, and another in September, has naturally got the punditverse buzzing.

Some commentators have focused on Biden’s sharp early morning announcement that he would welcome a debate with Trump. It was just the Egg McBiden the president’s fans—like the folks on “Morning Joe”—needed to start their day, served as it was with a side order of feistiness. Between the “Make my day, pal” opening and the “Let’s pick a date, Donald, I hear you’re free on Wednesdays” (a reference to his current court schedule) it got sharply to the point, did so with a humorous edge and obligated Trump to respond.

Trump replied in character with his own statement, using his day off from his criminal election interference trial to offer an irony-deaf reference to Biden being “crooked” and to criticize the president’s debating skills. And of course there were some strangely capitalized words for emphasis.

There were, of course, commentators who offered instant speculation about Biden’s motives—like Chris Cillizza, who concluded Biden was doing this because “he knows he’s behind” and because “he knows age/competence issues aren’t going away.”

Of course, Biden actually isn’t behind Trump in the polls, with most showing the race essentially tied—and several including the most recent NYT Ipsos poll showing Biden up by 3. Further, the idea that “age” is an issue for two guys who are essentially the same age, is one that does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. But never mind all that.

No, after talking to a number of Biden administration officials, it is clear that the primary reason Joe Biden chose to debate Donald Trump is… because he could.

The contest is so lopsided that even Trump’s pals at the WWE could not sell a ticket to it. (I know, I know. We’ve got to manage expectations. But, do we? Really? Each time Trump debated Biden in 2020 he lost..) And ever since then, as Biden pointed out in his debate announcement, Trump has avoided debating opponents.

So, he’s bad at it and out of practice. Not a good combination.

The Biden team calculus has to be based in part on the fact that it’s Trump who is actually losing his marbles. How else do you explain his recent praise for Hannibal Lecter and his noticeably slurred words during speeches?

Furthermore, in the view of those close to Biden, Trump’s got a serious problem on the issues. He’s on the wrong side of the American public on many of the policy questions most important to them. For example, Trump keeps proclaiming he is the one responsible for the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Almost two-thirds of all women and over six out of ten men support legal abortion according to a recent Pew report. That translates into 63 percent of all Americans. That’s not a winning issue for Trump and the GOP, and recent special election results even in red states like Kansas and Ohio have shown that.

Trump does badly on other signature issues. He loves Vladimir Putin, for example. In a Pew poll last year 91 percent of Americans indicated they have an unfavorable view of Russia with 62 percent having views that are very unfavorable. Trump’s one big legislative accomplishment was a tax cut that helped balloon the federal deficit and that tax cuts for those in the top five percent of earners were triple those received by the bottom 60 percent of us. Extending the cuts, as Trump has promised he would do, would add, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office,almost $5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.

Take Trump’s stance on another signature issue, immigration. Even though many Americans say they share his views, the reality is that when polled on his specific policies, according to a recent Washington Post study, they actually oppose them.

But set aside for a moment the fact that Trump is a lousy debater who is clearly addled and losing his ability to speak in public. And the fact that his policy positions are broadly unpopular.

And that historians consider him the worst president ever. And that Biden has a great record and has a demonstrated mastery over its details. There are other compelling issues for Biden’s team to be enthusiastic about the prospect of debating Trump.

In all likelihood, the first debate will follow by just a few weeks the conclusion of Trump’s New York election interference trial. There’s a pretty good chance Trump could emerge from the trial a convicted felon. That’s probably not a debate plus.

Even if Trump escapes a conviction, the trial has shown him in a very unflattering light and reminded the world of the sleaziest aspects of his past.

What’s more, by the time the debate takes place it is very likely the Supreme Court will have offered what will be a net unfavorable ruling on Trump’s immunity claims, thus tee-ing up his next dates before the bar—in Washington, D.C., Florida and Georgia. And if the court rules on Trump’s behalf—against all precedent and the very spirit on which the country was founded—it will produce an outcry about corruption on the Supreme Court that will not redound in Trump’s favor.

Further, reflecting on the New York Trial in its aftermath can’t help Trump—from its ick-tastic revelations about his attempts to seduce a porn star by comparing her to his daughter, to his daily sideshow at the courthouse, complete with a sycophantic chorus of back-up singers dressed exactly like him.

Indeed, the New York trial has been a revealing episode that could not be a worse prelude for a debate. It has shown once again that although Trump has virtually no deeply held political beliefs, the core of his philosophy of life is that everything is corrupt—and that money and lies are what make the world go around.

This, in turn, reveals him to be a kind of reverse neutron bomb—designed to destroy our institutions while leaving those people within it who are loyal to him still standing, or kneeling before him.

It is that Trump the world has seen in the New York trial. It is that Trump that they saw on Jan. 6. It is that Trump revealed in each of the 91 indictments against him. It is that Trump that is the clear and present danger America faces.

Biden is eager for the chance to stand toe-to-toe with his predecessor for these exact reasons. Trump’s defective character is so clear, and the danger he presents is so great, that the current president will have a hard time looking worse in comparison.

The contrasts between the two men and their beliefs could not be starker.

Remember this moment from their last presidential debate?  Expect more of the same this time around.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

 

 

 

COLORADO AND TENNESSEE: Stark difference between how Democrats and Republicans run states

Democratic Governor Jared Polis of Colorado signed into law bills granting two free years of college for students from families earning under $90,000 and creating a fee on oil and gas production that goes to transit, conservation and renewable energy.

Republican Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee signed into law bills to arm teachers, to require teachers to out trans students, and age appropriate firearms training for pre-kindergarteners.

By Mark Sumner

Daily Kos Staff

Monday, May 13, 2024 at 9:30:25a MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

At the start of 2024, there were 28 state legislatures entirely under Republican control and 20 under Democratic control. Of these, many have majorities where one party has overwhelming control, like West Virginia where there are 88 Republicans and only 10 Democrats, or Massachusetts with 134 Democrats to 25 Republicans.

When voters elect such lopsided majorities, they give one party the power to enact their own platform. That’s especially true in states where the governor is of the same party as the legislative majority. In these situations, more than any other, parties express themselves to the detriment of constituents’ lives.

With many state legislatures wrapping up their 2023-2024 sessions, here are two examples of what voters get for their partisan investment. One state got guns and a culture war; the other got education, transportation, and housing.

In Colorado, the 74th General Assembly contains 69 Democrats (23 in the Senate, 46 in the House) and 31 Republicans (12 in the Senate, 19 in the House). Together with Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, this session gave Democrats an opportunity to execute on issues they had campaigned on in this cycle, as well as follow up on Democratic victories from the previous session.

As Colorado Politics reports, the result was one very successful year in Colorado politics. Democrats were able to pass:

• A program that gives students from families earning under $90,000 two free years of college. That’s not just at technical schools or community colleges, but it includes state-run universities.

• Property tax reform that provides relief for homeowners and more equitable funding for schools to make them less dependent on property taxes and the wealth of their local communities.

• A tax credit program for low income families that provides $1.4 billion that’s expected to drastically reduce child poverty.

• A bill that doubles the earned income credit for families.

• Changes to zoning policy to spur sustainable, affordable housing, especially in resort communities where housing costs far exceeded the incomes of many workers.

• A fee on oil and gas production that goes to promoting transit, conservation, and renewable energy.

As the session draws to a close, lawmakers are still looking at a collection of bills, including a plan to improve transportation for low-income areas and gun reform measures.

At the other end of the spectrum, Tennessee’s 113th General Assembly has 102 Republicans (27 in the Senate, 75 in the House) and only 30 Democrats (6 in the Senate, 30 in the House).

What does Tennessee have to show for their session?

• More guns in the classroom with a bill to arm teachers after a shooter killed students and staff at a private Christian school in Nashville.

• A law requiring teachers to out trans students with fines to teachers and schools who don’t comply.

• Gun reforms were shot down in favor of “fortifying” campuses by adding alarms that can be sounded to indicate an active shooter situation.

• Required “age appropriate firearms training” for children starting in pre-kindergarten.

The governor’s pet program, a bill to destroy public education and replace it with education vouchers, didn’t make it through this session, but $114 million in funding was set aside for the next session, just in case it does pass. 

Colorado and Tennessee are just two states, but they showcase the difference between Democratic and Republican policies. Colorado voters got education, housing, tax reform, and more funding for transportation, energy, and the environment; Tennessee voters got a legislature that concentrated on “culture war” issues and guns. Lots of guns.

Polis talks to constituents.  He says it's important to take into account what matters to voters.

Pregnant? The GOP wants to track you and any decisions you make

Alabama Sen. "Kitchen" Katie Britt

By Dartagnan for Community Contributors Team

Community

Daily Kos

Monday, May 13, 2024 at 4:03:28p MDT 

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog

Last week, three Republican senators gave Americans—and women, in particular—a clear, chilling, and unmistakable taste of how their lives would be altered if Donald Trump is put back into office. 

Republicans do not currently hold the presidency or a majority in the U.S. Senate, but they expect to after the 2024 election. The plans for governance, should Americans place them back in charge, are explicitly set forth in the Heritage Foundation’s 920-page manifesto known as Project 2025, a document that proposes to institutionalize the Christian nationalist ambitions of the anti-abortion lobby at nearly every level of the federal government. These plans are intended to be implemented almost instantaneously upon inauguration of Trump as president.

What that means in real-world terms is that Americans would experience an immediate, radical, and highly unsettling transformation of their relationship to their government. Federal agencies would, almost overnight, become playpens for the hard right, their functions converted and  weaponized to implement social engineering strategies intended to constrain and regulate behaviors that Evangelical Christians disapprove of. One of their primary targets will be the behavior of women and others who become pregnant.

To that end, Republican senators are carefully laying the legislative groundwork that will enable these strategies at the federal agency level. Last week, Alabama’s Republican Sen. Katie Britt, together with Marco Rubio of Florida and Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, introduced an Orwellian bill that would establish a federal website, Pregnancy.gov. The website would enable the Department of Health and Human Services to solicit and collect personal identifying information on pregnant women and others, ostensibly for the purpose of providing them with prenatal advice on how to proceed with their pregnancies. The bill parallels an effort by Rubio in January to create a similar website called Life.gov. 

Innocently termed the MOMS Act, the explicit purpose of the legislation is to “support, encourage and assist” women in “carry[ing] their pregnancies to term,” by directing them to so-called pregnancy crisis centers whose purpose is to discourage—and often intimidate—women and others from terminating their pregnancies. The proposed law provides for direct, personal contact to be initiated by a cadre of newly installed, theocratic government employees toward pregnant patients who register their contact information with the site in order to pressure them in their reproductive decisions. It also implements a federalized regimen for child support payments that commences at the moment of pregnancy, laying the groundwork for governmental regulation that treats “fetal personhood” as a recognized status under U.S. law.

This legislation is being touted by Republicans—stung by recent electoral defeats by voters who abhor their forced-birth policies—as an example of their compassion toward women and others who become pregnant. What it  reveals, however, is not compassion, but coercion, harassment, and ultimately, control.

RELATED STORY: ‘If Roe can fall, anything can’: Which rights will the GOP come for next?

Four years ago this week: Trump claimed that COVID-19 would just ‘go away’

Former President Donald Trump appears to be sleeping through a roundtable discussion on donating plasma at the American Red Cross National Headquarters on July 30, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

By Mark Sumner

Daily Kos Staff

Saturday, May 11, 2024 at 7:00:28a MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Four years ago this week, Donald Trump claimed that the U.S. had "met the moment and … prevailed," not over COVID-19, but over the test shortage that had hobbled the nation's response for over four months as the virus spread around the world and across the country. As with most things Trump said about the pandemic, that was a lie. 

The reason for that lie is almost as foolish as Trump’s statement—the U.S. had simply failed to stockpile enough nose swabs to go with the tests that were being made. Without those swabs, the tests were left sitting unused on shelves. And there were no swabs because Trump left the supply planning up to his son-in-law Jared Kushner who had no concept how to handle a medical crisis.

In May 2020, the U.S. passed a horrific physical and spiritual milestone as COVID-19 deaths reached 100,000. Job losses were off the charts. Trump was working with Saudi Arabia and Russia to keep oil prices high. And the United States was a nation in mass trauma with freezer trucks full of bodies in New York City and consumers hoarding toilet paper.

And now Trump is actually running on claims that America was better off four years ago.

When people look back at the tragedies of the Great Depression or the ravages of World War II, it’s understandable that information may be lost over generations. Younger Americans may not understand the fear, hardship, and disruption of a national crisis decades in the past. 

But according to some polls, most Americans seem to have forgotten what life was like just four years ago. By May of 2020, Trump had already started racking up a body count with hydroxychloroquine and pondered the possibility of injecting bleach. But Trump’s biggest contribution to America’s mishandling of the pandemic was just misinformation. To put it simply, Trump pretended that the pandemic wouldn’t happen until it did, and when it did, he promised it would go away like “a miracle.”

CNN has a nice graphic illustrating the relationship between the growing number of COVID-19 cases in the United States, and one simple phrase from Trump: “It’s going to go away.”

The Washington Post captured just how many times he’s said that very phrase:

In February, Trump insisted that the virus would just go away in April as the weather warmed. He would keep making this claim into the spring, even though outbreaks in the southern hemisphere showed that heat was not a magic bullet against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. When April arrived, the U.S. was seeing over 30,000 new cases a day, and Trump’s advice was still that “It’s going to go. It’s going to leave. It’s going to be gone.” 

Only COVID-19 refused to pack its suitcase and depart. 

Even in May 2020, with over 20,000 new cases being reported each day, Trump insisted that COVID would "go away" even without a vaccine. Instead, the rate of both new cases and new deaths would triple in the next month.

The country that Trump left behind was a hot mess. The week of Nov. 7 when President Joe Biden was elected, almost 9,000 Americans were dying of COVID-19 each week, but before he could take office that number would reach 26,000 deaths per week. The rate of deaths would never again reach that level, even during spikes generated by new and more contagious variants. 

The unemployment rate when Biden was sworn in was 6.4%. It would never be that high under Biden. 

It’s hard to understand how anyone can feel they were better off four years ago than they are today. But then again, maybe brain worms are more common than we knew.

It Is That Simple; It Is That Important

An act of raw courage:  On this Mothers Day, I can think of no better role model than Liz Cheney, a mother of five and a staunch conservative, who looked deep inside and said this is bigger than labels, than parties, than doctrine.  This is about humanity.  This is about me, about who I am.

By James Keyworth

Gazette Blog Editor

Many years ago, Henry David Thoreau told us to “simplify, simplify.”  His message is even more vital today than it was then.

With all the noise around us, it’s important to not over complicate the decision that is now before us.

It really comes down to whether we choose to engage our best instincts or our worst instincts.

Our best instincts are compassion, tolerance, acceptance, a willingness to engage in life as a positive experience where we can learn more about ourselves and about those with whom we share this existence.

Our worst instincts are selfishness, fear, anger, intolerance, isolation, a desire to withdraw into ourselves and into those who feel the same as we do.

Our best instincts lead to new experiences, to wider horizons, to engagement and friendship.

Our worst instincts lead to vitriol, violence, isolation, even mob mentality.

It really is a simple choice.  Each of us needs to look inside and choose between what’s best in us or what’s worst in us.  This time, there is no middle ground.

And it’s not just a personal choice.  Whichever prevails will shape the future, not only for our country but for our world.  Our choice will set the example for the course our children and future generations will embrace and nourish.

It is that simple.  It is that important.

 

 

What Everyone is Missing About Kristi Noem Murdering an Innocent Creature Without Remorse

By DoctorBeast68

Community

Daily Kos

Saturday, May 11, 2024 at 11:23:14a MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

There is a certain schadenfreude in watching a MAGA humper destroy their own political career, and every person with a shred of compassion is rightfully outraged at Governor Noem’s story about killing her dog, Cricket. It was an act of wanton cruelty against an innocent creature. But what everyone seems to be missing is that was the point of the story. 

Kristi Noem is a lot of things, a calculating opportunist, a corrupt politician, a liar, and a bigot, among many others. But she is not dumb. You don’t get to where she is by being dumb, and though all the pundits and rational thinkers are making the assumption that including in her book the story of killing an innocent creature was a dumb move, I think they are missing the point. 

Donald Trump and the GOP and Project 25 have all made it clear their goal is to end American democracy in favor of an Orban style theocratic autocracy. The GOP has embraced bigotry and isolationism and white supremacy. They have promised to round up 11 million immigrants and put them in detention camps on the way to deportation (if they make it that far). They have promised vengeance against their political enemies, and the recent sweep up of peaceful protestors shows they have an army of police on their side. 

Anyone who thinks they’re going to treat any of these prisoners with basic human dignity or support their human rights is fooling themselves. You know what they’re going to do. They know what they’re going to do. And Kristi Noem is angling to be Trump’s VP pick because she knows he will need a strong running mate who will have no problem with his plans for rounding up innocent people, reporters, immigrants, professors, and anyone else who speaks out publicly against them. Choosing to include in her book a story of her willingness to slaughter an innocent creature without remorse was not a dumb move or a mistake on her part. It was an audition.

Maybe she only shoots dogs named Cricket.  No, Duke.  Don't trust her!

 

Adult Film Actress Out Crosses Trump Counsel.

 

There they are, Miss Buxom America and Mr. Blubber Butt!  What if Melania finally decides she's had enough?  Wouldn't this duo make a great First Couple?  Two big busts.

By KeithDB

Community

Daily Kos

Thursday, May 09, 2024 at 11:44:49a MDT

 

REPUBLISHED BY:

Blue Country Gazette Blog

Rim Country Gazette Blog 

Primum non nocere (first, or above all, do no harm) is a Latin expression generally applied to the medical profession. However, I viewed it as equally applicable to the practice of law and often reminded myself of it in my own practice. Trump’s attorneys failed to abide by that primary principle in the cross examination of adult film star Stormy Daniels. 

To understand Trump’s defense counsel failure, let me first discuss how they should have treated her testimony before this jury. In a word, they should have treated her testimony as irrelevant. Trump is not charged with having sex with her, or anything to do with the sex with her.

Instead of acting like nothing she said mattered to the case, Trump’s attorneys treated her as if this were a rape case and the central question was whether they had sex. Instead of minimizing that question, they amplified it to super-nova proportions. They actually kept her on the stand for cross examination longer than the prosecution did for direct, which was just stupid. 

In attempting to nitpick at supposed inconsistencies (of which they did not really find any) in the sordid details of her story they invited her to go over those sordid details. The defense came across as clumsy, blunt and bullying in trying to get her to directly admit she lied. 

Daniels came across as honest and clever in her responses that insisted she was the honest one and Trump the liar. Then the defense left out details supporting Daniels’ testimony that the prosecution exposed on redirect. 

The entire defense strategy was grossly misplaced, and clearly directed by Trump. He wanted them to attack her as a blackmailing extortionist liar, so they did. In this, Trump’s counsel followed their client’s wishes rather than sound trial practice. 

Here’s how things went today. 

-Stormy Daniels resumed testimony under cross examination from Trump’s attorneys. 

-Trump’s attorneys continued trying to portray her as trying to extort Trump for money. Daniels testified that is not true, that she went into the process wanting to be paid for telling her story. She claims that in that context the offer to pay her to not tell her story, the offer for a non-disclosure agreement, first came from Trump’s side, from Michael Cohen.

-Daniels testified that she accepted the NDA because they were running out of time to sell the story and because she realized it was actually the best option to protect her family. She realized the NDA “was a perfect solution.”

-Defense plays a recording (recorded by Cohen) of a phone conversation of him and Daniels’ attorney, Keith Davidson. In it Davidson told Cohen, that his client, Stormy Daniels, said about Trump: “He’s going to lose the election. If he loses this election, we lose all fucking leverage. ... Settle this fucking case.” Daniels denied she ever said that, stating, “I never yelled at Keith Davidson on the phone. ... I didn’t do this.”

-Some interesting parsing of words by Daniels regarding the January 2018 statement she released denying any affair with Trump. Trump’s attorney reads the statement, saying: "Rumors that I had received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false." Daniels says, "Correct, because it wasn’t a rumor, it was the truth."

-Daniels claimed she never wanted to make public that she had sex with Trump. "No. Nobody would ever want to publicly say that. I wanted to publicly defend myself.” Trump’s attorney asks “You wanted to make more money, right?” Daniels denies that, saying she didn’t want to make more money and did the 60 Minutes interview for free.

-When Trump’s attorney argues she got a lot of publicity from the 60 Minutes interview, Daniels responds that she did, but that it was “bad publicity.” 

-Trump’s attorney points out Daniels got a $800,000 book deal, which she confirms. 

-Trump’s attorneys confront Daniels with clubs where she was scheduled to perform, using the photo of her with Trump and pushing their connection for publicity to suggest Daniels was using this to make more money. Daniels angrily responded, "False, I have no control over how the club advertises."

-As Trump’s attorney pushed Daniels about money she made from an NBC documentary, Daniels stated, "You're trying to trick me into saying something that's not entirely true."

-Daniels admits to drinking champagne to celebrate Trump’s indictment. Asked if she celebrated on Twitter by pushing her merchandise, she stated, "I tweeted about him being indicted, yes. People asked how they could support me so I tweeted the link to my store.”

[PERSONAL NOTE: I too celebrated Trump’s indictments. My wife and I, over dinner, toasted “to justice.”]

[HYPOCRISY/HUTZPAH NOTE: Defense is trying to undermine Daniels by saying she tried to make money off Trump’s indictment. Yet Trump exploited his indictments for fundraising with merchandise from t-shirts to the coffee  mug featuring his mugshot].

[LEGAL NOTE: By doing this, defense counsel opens the door for Trump to be cross examined about all his promotion of merchandise from his indictment. Another reason he really can’t testify.]

-Defense again with clumsy attempts to directly call Daniels a liar that backfire . . .

Defense Counsel: “You have a lot of experience of making phony stories about sex appear to be real.” 

Daniels: "Wow, that’s not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real, just like what happened to me in that room."

Defense Counsel: Suggests Daniels made up the story.

Daniels: “If that story were untrue, I would have written it a lot better.”

-Defense continued to just amplify bad facts, to include harping on Daniels’ testimony that she didn’t get dinner.

Defense Counsel: “It was a big deal that you didn't get dinner?””

Daniels: “I went to dinner, and didn't get dinner."

Defense Counsel: “You told Jimmy Kimmel you are very food motivated?”

Daniels: “Yes.”

[NOTE: This is baffling. All defense counsel did is bring more attention to the bad fact that Trump invited her to dinner and there was no dinner, while making Stormy Daniels more relatable to the jury. How many of us are not motivated by food?]

-The insane cross continued as defense counsel suggested that since Daniels is used to seeing naked men in her work, that seeing Trump in his underwear as she came out of the bathroom shouldn’t have shocked her. Daniels responds, "If I came out of my bathroom and saw an older man in his underwear that I wasn't expecting to see there, yeah."

-Trump’s attorney asks, "This wasn’t the first time in your life someone made a pass at you.” Daniels responds, "No, but it is the first time they had a bodyguard standing outside the door.”  Daniels also added that Trump was twice her age  and size. They kept inviting her to restate the very worst facts for Trump. 

-Yet again with the stupid counsel directly asking her if she’s a liar.

Defense Counsel: “You made this all up, right?”

Daniels: “No.” 

Later...

Defense Counsel: "Your story has completely changed."

Daniels: "No!" You're trying to make me say that it changed but it hasn't changed.”

-Defense Counsel pressed Daniels about her claim she got lightheaded when she saw Trump in his underwear and “blacked out” during the act. All that accomplished was to invite Daniels to rehash some of the worst stuff and again humanize herself to the jury: 

Daniels: “I got lightheaded. I never hit the floor. The worst thing that he did was lie about that night. ... He did not put his hands on me. He did not give me any sort of drugs or alcohol. He did not hold a weapon or threaten me with any sort of item, and I maintain that. My own insecurities in that moment kept me from saying no.”

-In another cross examination blunder, defense allowed Daniels to talk about all of Trump’s other indictments. 

Defense Counsel: “So even though you celebrated the indictment you don't know what he's charged with in this case?”

Daniels: “There’s a lot of indictments.” [Note: Journalist Anna Bowers described this response as “Daniels deadpans.”]

-Final question on cross again sought to compel Daniels to confess to being a liar. “You never had an affair with President Trump but realized you could earn money and you’ve been doing that for 12 years?” Prosecution objected, the judge sustained.

-The prosecution on redirect pointed to half truths told by the defense. For example, defense counsel showed a text exchange between the National Enquirer editor and Daniels’ publicist where the National Enquirer texted, “I thought she denounced it previously.” What defense did not show the jury was that the the publicist texted back, “She never did.”

-On redirect, Daniels stated she never testified to the grand jury and thus had nothing to do with the charges in this case. The Prosecutor notes  that Defense Counsel suggested to the jury that Daniels was responsible for the indictment. 

-Defense tried a brief re-cross suggesting that Daniels enjoyed being a clever poster on Twitter, going back and forth with people on these issues. It again backfired as Daniels answered, "I was defending myself. I never attack anybody first. Same with Mr. Trump. I didn’t say anything negative about him until he said it about me.”

-With that, the defense finally gave up their failed efforts to outsmart the adult film actress and Stormy Daniels stepped down from the stand. 

The cross examination of Daniels was 30 minutes longer than her direct examination. Further, it did more harm than good. I’ll say again, at some point defense counsel’s best course is to cut your losses, get a bad witness off the stand, out of the room, and hopefully out of the jury’s mind. Trump’s counsel went way past that point and served his defense poorly.

A cartoon by Jeff Danziger.

Daily Kos