All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2024 - Lionel Nation
26:19
Here's How Stormy Daniels Just Handed Trump An Acquittal

Here's How Stormy Daniels Just Handed Trump An Acquittal

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Disaster can strike when least expected.
Wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes.
They can instantly turn your world upside down.
Dirty Man Underground Safes is a safeguard against chaos.
Hidden below, your valuables remain protected no matter what.
Prepare for the unexpected.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off and secure peace of mind for you and your family.
Dirty Man Safe.
When disaster hits, security isn't optional.
When uncertainty strikes, peace of mind is priceless.
Dirty Man Underground Safes protects what matters most.
Discreetly designed, these safes are where innovation meets reliability, keeping your valuables close yet secure.
Be ready for anything.
Use code DIRTY10 for 10% off today and take the first step towards safeguarding your future.
Dirty Man Safe.
Because protecting your family starts with protecting what you treasure.
The storm is coming.
Markets are crashing.
Banks are closing.
When the economy collapses, how will you survive?
You need a plan.
Cash, gold, bitcoin.
Dirty Man Safes keep your assets hidden underground at a secret location ready for any crisis.
Don't wait for disaster to strike.
Get your dirty man safe today.
Use promo code DIRTY10 for 10% off your order.
The Stormy Daniels trial.
We've got to discuss it whether we want to or not because a former president is on trial and possibly a future president too.
Is this going to take him down out of the race?
Is it going to turn the voters against him?
Is there really a case here?
Well, we have Lionel Media here to discuss.
Lionel Nation is his great YouTube channel.
He is a former prosecutor, so he knows that which he speaks.
Now, let's start here.
Trump's lawyers opposed Stormy Daniels' testimony to begin with, and then the judge said, well, we have a witness who has credibility issues, so we're going to let her testify.
That defies all logic.
So then she proceeds to give R-rated details, such as the position and who was in what undergarments.
So can you give me your legal opinion of this?
Was the Stormy Daniels the steamer that we expected, and does it have merit?
Steamer?
Yeah.
Well, it fogged up the mirror, that's for sure.
Let's go back to some rudiment.
I'm not going to bore you with a lot of legal stuff, but I think people kind of like this.
You know, we just celebrated the...
We talked about O.J. Simpson, and people then showed me that people can really handle this.
The rule is very simply this.
In 2017, it was alleged that Donald Trump committed a business records fraud.
I'm not trying to bore you, but this is what the case is about.
When he gave the money to Michael Cohen to give to Stormy Daniels or Dusty Saddles or whatever the hell her name is this week, when he gave him the money, was that legal fees or was that reimbursement?
That's it.
That's the case.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
That's it.
The first argument is that that's BS, it's nonsense, it's a waste of time, and that is in no way even a crime, much less worth the court's time.
Okay, the next issue is, you have to ask this Judge Mershon, what is the relevance, the admissibility of Stormy Daniels?
Now, a little bit of background in this.
2017 was when this happened.
2016 was this agreement.
2011 was this, she claims also, she was threatened.
Now that came out, and the jurors might be thinking, wait a minute, threatened?
Trump did that.
If the judge let this in, there must be something to this.
That's the reason, that's what you worry about.
And then in 2006 is when this happened at a hotel.
2006.
Five years later, she's threatened.
After this, what does a 2006 hotel trist have to do with a 2017 entry regarding a business?
And let me ask you this.
I don't want to be...
I'm not trying to be hyper-moralistic, but she is a prostitute.
Look, I'm sorry.
I know we're all adults.
She basically had sex with people for money.
What do you call that?
She's not an actress.
She's a prostitute.
She is a prostitute, a slatter, a meritrix, whatever you want to call it.
Did anybody ever think about giving her the Fifth Amendment by saying, Miss Daniels, you do realize that you're admitting to a crime, right?
You do.
Prostitution is illegal in New York.
I'm sorry.
You can call it performance art or whatever.
So this woman who comes in there, and she is, by virtue of who she is, she has, since the time she was a child, she has basically lied and used Sex as a means to make a living, to distort.
Now, this is what the jury of seven men and five women are going to be listening to.
And everybody knows who she is.
I'm sorry, I don't want to interrupt.
Oh, no.
Go ahead, please.
So the question is, the judge has to ask the question.
Under this rule, in federal rules, we call it 403, the judge has to say, if probative evidence, evidence that is...
Relevant, admissible.
If the probative value is outweighed by its tendency to confuse and mislead and prejudice, the judge has got to say, listen, we've got to keep this out.
Because very frankly, Judge Mershon, what does this have to do with whether an NDA was signed, whether it was misallocated or misdescribed as a reimbursement versus a legal fee?
What does this tryst, what does this sexual liaison in 2006, which is not necessarily the reason for this.
Yes, right.
Because, you know, when you sign, recently there was an ABC News exec who was basically bounced.
I guarantee you when she left and got her severance, she signed a non-disparagement.
Stormy Daniels signed an NDA as well.
And by the way, let's make sure we do this.
It's not called hush money.
That's a street version of this.
It's called a non-disclosure agreement.
It's done all the time.
Completely legal.
If after we get done with this incredibly fascinating and scintillating interview, you say to me, listen, would you do me a favor yet?
Don't ever tell anybody I spoke with you.
And here's $10.
And I say, okay, that's legal.
Anywhere.
It's done.
All the time.
It's done in settlements.
It's done...
So anyway, so as you know, the leftist media, who by themselves, by the way, use this as well, CNN, when Don Lemon was bounced, there was an NDA.
Go down the list.
Okay?
So anyway, so the question is, what is the purpose of this?
What is the purpose of her doing this?
Now, the question that we have to ask is two things.
What effect does this have on the jury?
Yes.
She's also made, I'm sorry to say this, but mushroom references to genitalia.
How does that, I don't think that came out here, because I think one of the stipulations, thankfully.
No, I believe that was on 60 Minutes.
Yes.
Yeah, but also, but this has become a part of her act, and if you know who she is, how does that, how do men deal with that?
By the way, number one.
And number two, when you see a woman who goes, and I'm sorry to say this, but you have to ask this, when a woman goes to a man's, But her story changed during this very testimony because she even said, I felt drugged.
And the lawyer said, wait a minute, are you saying that you were drugged?
And she's like, no, no.
But it was a power imbalance that left me feeling drugged.
That's a new one.
So if you've listened to what she said over the last 15 years, she's denied having sex.
She said she had sex.
She said she always gets a condom, but she didn't get a condom.
She said that she felt drugged, but she wasn't drugged.
She said that, you know, she felt coerced, but she did it of her own free will.
So again, that speaks to the judge saying she had credibility issues.
One of the things the judge said, which I do want to ask you about, is I do think he says after her testimony, well, there were things there that were better left unsaid.
The fact that the judge says this, but he allowed it to be said makes me think that he's opening the door for either a mistrial or an appeal.
Well, a couple of things, too.
Or a tainted jury.
Or, there's an expression we have in trial law, you can't unring the bell.
I love these cautionary instructions.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please disregard.
Wait, that doesn't make any sense.
The problem is, what he did was, he adds his cake and eats it, too.
He says, now listen, you.
Listen you, Natalie.
We shouldn't be doing this.
How dare you bringing up this sexual stuff and the fact that he uses Old Spice and his deodorant and golden tweezers.
So he admonishes them after he lets it in.
Now normally before this, there is an emotion called emotion in limine, which means emotion to limit.
And most judges would have said, excuse me.
You're not going to talk about this.
You're not going to talk about him or Ivanka or his sex life or whether he and Melania sleep.
No, no, this is a documents case.
This is a documents case.
Now, if there was some type of...
Remember, if it was relevant and it's not, because you might say, well, what about the fact that he says he didn't have sex with her and she said he did?
So what?
They signed the agreement.
It doesn't matter why you signed it.
It doesn't matter if he said, I never signed a nondisclosure.
That's not my signature.
We didn't do this.
I didn't misallocate or misdenote this or something else.
Fine.
That's okay.
But what does this have to do with them having sex?
It was meant to embarrass him.
It was meant to sully, to hurt.
You have Democratic Operatives.
You have the People's Republic of Manhattan.
You've got everybody.
You've got a case where the prior DA, Cy Vance, says, I'm not going to touch this.
You've got the federal government that said, I'm not going to touch this.
You've got the elections committee that says, I'm not going to touch this.
You had Alvin Bragg initially say, I'm not going to touch this.
And then they said, you sure about that?
Oh, you know what?
Now we might do it.
Because I would be surprised, and I'm not saying this, but I wouldn't be surprised if I said, whoever gives me the scalp of Donald Trump, can you say federal judgeship?
Yes.
Governor, can you?
Do you want to be the first person?
I was the man who sentenced, who convicted, well, the jury convicted, but I sentenced Donald Trump to jail, to Rikers.
And Donald Trump is saying, do it.
Tell me you're that stupid.
Tell me you're that stupid.
Tell me.
My numbers, I can go a little higher.
Please.
Please.
Speaking my mind.
Meanwhile, Michael Cohen, he's okay.
Stormy Daniels can speak.
Everybody can speak.
Did you see Michael Cohen's recent TikTok?
Whatever this thing is.
I don't even know what the hell this thing was.
This is a joke.
And for them to show you how desperate they are, Natalie, they brought in this Colangelo, this F...
Excuse me, this DOJ big shot from the Department of Justice to come down to New York State to try this rinky-dink documents case?
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
And remember what they're doing.
They're saying, and this doesn't, because you have to read the actual indictment, they're saying that on 34 counts, 34, why is that important?
Well, you might have one jury that says, okay, I gave him a break.
I only found you guilty of 17 counts.
It's ridiculous.
It's one basic transaction, one set of circumstances.
But what they're trying to do is they're trying to say that this was done fraudulently.
there was a conspiracy because he wasn't he he was she was being paid and not not to to keep her quiet to prevent her from embarrassing him and hurting his marriage but this was actually maybe an in-kind election uh you know
Right, I want to ask this about that transaction, actually, because it's about the exchange of money that prevented the American people from knowing about this before the election.
So the money bit is what they're hinging it on because I always ask myself, and I see this conversation on Twitter, Is that why it's different from the American people being kept from knowing about Hunter Biden's laptop?
Why?
Oh, there's no, there's no, the chutzpah, the elephantine, you know, that these people have to do this with a straight face.
So are you saying they're not, they're the same?
The American people were kept from this story.
Someone did Joe Biden a favor.
Who did that?
No, no, no.
What they're keeping the American public from is a crime.
It is a crime what Hunter Biden did.
It was a crime for him to sell finger paintings and basically have folks buy these works of art.
It was a crime for him to conspire with China.
It was a crime for him to appear on the barista board under this supposed expertise.
It was a crime for him to funnel money to the big guy.
That's a crime.
What Trump did was, I elected...
Not to tell you something.
He elects not to tell you the true story of his hair, or whether he dyes his hair, or problems he's had with Melania.
That is a fact that a candidate elects not to tell you.
That is not the concealment of a crime.
That is not the conspiracy to keep a federal crime or a series of crimes from the American people.
That's a different story.
He was electing what information to go out.
This is ridiculous.
But what I'm telling you is, and you've hit on it exactly, it's specious.
Nobody's buying this.
But let's get down to the brass tacks here.
They're going to find him guilty!
You think?
They're going to find them guilty.
They're going to find them guilty of one charge too.
But here's what I'm hoping for.
Number one.
One juror.
One who says, uh-uh.
You took me away from my family and my home for this piece of garbage?
I never even liked Trump.
I hope they're going to say in my ideal world.
I don't even like Trump.
But what you did to me, you put this, this slatter and this matrix, this, this.
This shrew, this harlot.
How dare you?
This is absurd.
I'm disgusted, but you don't know what they're going to say.
That's number one.
The next problem is...
But wait, can you play that out?
If that jury...
Sure.
If that juror says this, then what?
It's a hung jury?
Then...
Not guilty.
Hung jury.
Do it again.
Yeah, but 34 counts.
I said not guilty.
None of them.
34 counts.
I don't believe it was...
Uh-uh.
And you can sit there and say, excuse me, let's have the indictment blown up.
Let's read through this.
Tell me, and believe me, if I read you the indictment, you would be asleep so fast.
You would say, what is this even about?
It has nothing to do, and let me explain something also.
A lot of folks, there's a lot of things that we can kind of, let's face it, Natalie, we can say, well, you know, Trump with the documents case, I don't know.
Yeah, we've discussed this.
Or the Georgia case.
You know, January 6th, well, that's not really sedation.
The Georgia case, Fannie and Wade, well, but this one, there's nothing there.
When I tell you this, and you're going to ask yourself, but how in the name of God?
Does Judge Mershon allow this?
How does it get passed a motion to dismiss?
I don't know.
And we don't want to say he's corrupt because they say, well, you know, his daughter is an operative.
Okay, listen, every judge there was, in essence, a political appointee.
We all know this.
They do this all the time.
Well, you know, Gorsuch was appointed by Trump.
So you can play this all day long.
This is a travesty.
Nobody can believe this.
Why?
Everything will be okay until you put on Stormy Daniels.
Until you did this, you could say, look, it's a crazy case.
It's a bit far-fetched.
Yeah, convoluted.
We can kind of sort of see it.
But what?
And when she starts laughing about it, and you could say, is this woman a victim?
And God forbid, God forbid, I don't know if they did this during the voir dire, but let's say you have a woman or a man who has had somebody in their family who's been the victim of sexual violence.
Somebody who knows what it's like.
Who hears these laughing asides, these kind of drive-by intimations that somehow she was the victim of something.
This woman who was a professional prostitute on film.
Let me just explain this to you.
She's saying to you, this little Rebecca of Sunnybrook, this, you know, pure as a driven snow, is what was somehow who went.
And by the way, this is a little similar, though dissimilar, to Harvey Weinstein.
When those women went, they said they received untoward, unwelcome.
Uninvited whatever.
There was nothing uninvited.
She said, okay, this is weird.
Alright.
And the way she showed, she lifted her leg and he was like this.
And I'm thinking, what is your testimony?
She doesn't make a good victim.
And in fact, even CNN recently was covering this and said she's being jokey.
And that doesn't seem to be landing with the jury who finds that distasteful.
But she's not a victim!
Right.
She's a sexual...
She's a lynchpin, I guess we would call her.
She is theoretically the reason...
Let me tell you something.
Trump cannot possibly testify.
Cannot.
Because he'll blow it up.
They're going to bring up everything else about Andrew and E.G. and Carol.
Oh, God.
No, no.
But if in a perfect world, he could.
If he could testify.
And he said, let me tell you why I signed this.
I don't want anybody to find out, you're right, that I was so stupid that I even dared to sully my reputation by being with this skank, this horse-faced...
Mr. Red over here for five seconds.
I'm embarrassed by it.
I mean, I've done some pretty low stuff, but look at her!
Look at her!
Of course, she would just remember what she said.
That drove her crazy.
She called me Horseface, and I hate him.
And she said something to the effect of, that orange turd isn't good, or something.
Well, yeah.
Let's talk about why she said that.
Because she owes him half a million dollars in a defamation case.
And she said yesterday she would never pay this orange person.
She'd rather go to jail.
So she has a vested interest in this case putting him in jail so that maybe she doesn't have to pay him.
Or that, and by the way, this is the only guy, talk about Art of the Deal, that they introduced somehow, he wrote in what, 1987.
This is the guy who goes to a hooker.
She ends up paying him $300,000.
That's a good deal.
This guy knows what he's doing.
Obviously.
But in this one here, anytime I show bias, anytime I show that you're testifying...
See, the beautiful part about cross-examination, a little bit of background.
Direct examination is when I interview my witness.
And I ask my witness, who, what, when, where, and why.
Where are you from?
And the reason why I can't ask leading questions is because, why would I be able to do this?
This is my witness.
Leading questions are that special little thing that we give Lawyer on cross-examination, where he gets to interview, where he gets to question the opposing size witness.
And leading questions, by the way, are designed to get to the heart of it.
And what I would have loved is to have somebody almost like the great serial killer profiler John Douglas years ago offered advice.
To the prosecutor who was questioning Wayne Williams and the Atlanta murders.
And he said, this is what'll make him mad.
This is what'll...
Yeah.
This is what...
So I would have loved to have...
Necklace, the...
By the way, thank God Alina Haba's out.
Thank God that this Margo Martin and these babes...
Get them out!
Let's have real lawyers.
But if she would have walked up, taken her time, there's Stormy Daniels.
It started with something like, well, well, well.
Stormy Daniels.
That's not your name, is it?
Your name is Stephanie, right?
Stephanie Clifford?
Yeah.
Stormy Daniels.
Your big day.
Big day.
You hate him.
Don't you?
He called you horse face, didn't he?
If you're not going to ask a leading question, I don't want to even be there.
Right.
This is your time to get back at him, isn't it?
But don't we have a whole other day of that tomorrow?
She's going to go back.
Right.
So we will get more of that and we'll see if they do, in fact, do that.
So we're going to leave it there because that's all we have time for today.
And there was so much.
It's not even close.
Right.
Well, I mean, if anybody was wondering if this was for the purpose of political mudslinging, we can wonder no more.
And also, I'm just going to leave it with this, is that it worries me that if inadmissible evidence can be thrown in like this for somebody's trial, what do the rest of us have a right to a free trial?
And so, that's the thing.
I'm going to throw this one in there.
I mentioned Harvey Weinstein.
Look, you may not like him.
They railroaded him.
Why are they bringing up old cases with other women that were never charged?
It's called a Molino hearing where you're bringing a prior...
Can we please stay with this?
Imagine you're going for a speeding ticket.
Miss Morris, in 1978, did you steal something?
Did you steal a cookie from Starbucks with your mother?
Oh, you remember.
Yes.
Did you bring...
And you're going to say, wait a minute, what?
So, you're that same person, that cookie thief.
So, you're going to say, what the hell does this have to do with this?
Well, that's the point.
Right.
What does it have to do?
Because it shows a propensity.
Well, if she did that then, if he lied then, now sometimes, not to go into detail, you can use it to prove ID and MO and all that stuff, but this is...
They don't even care.
They want to bury him.
They want to put his, like a Kathy Griffin, they want to put his scalp on their wall.
That's all it is.
It has nothing to do with law and order.
And it goes to show you how vile and putrescent and corrupt this system is.
And this is why people hate this system.
They hate everything.
It's the same group that tells you you can't even complain about an election that you thought was stolen.
This is, you can't even, you know, anyway.
All right.
Well, that's where we have to leave it today.
Thank you so much for this.
This was, yeah, like I said, I'm going to go run a lap after this.
I invite everybody else to because I need to get this energy out.
We've been talking to Lionel from Lionel Nation, his great YouTube channel.
Check it out.
Thank you again for coming on Redacted.
▲
Export Selection