All Episodes
Previous Next
May 10, 2024 - Lionel Nation
15:24
How A Former Prosecutor Would Have Made Mincemeat Out of the Loathsome Stormy
| 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.
*Footsteps*
Here's what I would have done had I had the chance to cross-examine Stormy Daniels, Dusty Saddles, whatever the hell her name is.
You ready?
I wouldn't have.
Well, let me clarify this.
First, what is this case about?
Two, What does Stormy Daniels have to do with it?
Nothing.
Three, what is it that you're going to pull and elicit from her testimony which will in any way negate or undermine or negative the aspects or facts or allegations of the indictment, of the prosecution's case in chief?
Nothing.
What can Stormy Daniels say about anything?
Nothing.
She's a skank, a skeeve, a hoe, a courtesan, a virago, a slattern.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Slut shaming?
That can backfire.
What is cross-examination?
Cross-examination is the only time you get, with a few exceptions, which we're not going to bring up, Leading questions.
It's the only time.
And you normally only use leading questions in cross-examination when you're talking to the other side's witness.
They have just conducted direct examination and now you get to cross-examine them.
You can impeach their testimony, which means...
You can call into question what they saw, what they remember, their veracity.
You can affect the weight of the evidence.
Or you can have fun and save all of your stuff for closing.
That's when you hit them.
Not her.
There's a tipping point.
There's this point where you say, yeah, go get her.
And then you risk the chance of somebody saying, hey.
Now you're bullying her.
She was subpoenaed here.
What are you doing?
And you never know when the jury thinks that.
They don't tell you that.
They don't say, hey, knock it off.
They tell you that sometimes at the end.
They tell you that in the verdict.
Cross-examination is very simple.
It suggests...
Actually, leading questions suggest the answer.
Isn't it a fact you've never been to Poughkeepsie?
Isn't it true you've never learned how to play the accordion?
Isn't it a fact?
Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no.
And if you're not asking a yes, no leading question, don't!
What are you doing?
This is their witness.
How is she going to help you?
Let me try this one.
And I would call her Ms. Clifford.
Her name is Stephanie Clifford or something, whatever.
Clifford.
I would never call her Stormy Daniels.
They don't call President Trump President.
I don't call her Daniels.
Ms. Clifford, isn't it true that you have no information whatsoever as to the activities of February the 14th, 2017?
True.
Isn't it true that you cannot testify as to any intent to defraud on the part of President Trump regarding a particular transaction to Michael Cohen?
Yes or no?
Yes, that's true.
Isn't it true that you cannot testify as to the intent to commit any other crime?
True.
Isn't it true that you cannot testify as to the particular invoice in question in count one?
True.
Isn't it true that you cannot testify as to voucher number 842-457 in count two?
True.
Isn't it true that you cannot mention or testify as to anything involving the detailed general ledger for Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust?
True.
And I go through 34 of them.
To remind the jury that she's there to talk about sex.
To remind the jury, oh yeah!
That's right!
This case is about some business thing.
Hey, thanks for mentioning it.
Isn't that true, Ms. Clifford?
Yes.
Isn't that true, Ms. Clifford?
Yes.
You don't know, do you?
No.
Isn't that true?
No.
Isn't that true?
No.
Isn't that true?
No.
You want to mention the fact that she one time said she didn't have sex?
You want to do that?
Why?
So you're going to give her a chance to explain herself?
With all the great stuff that Susan Necklace did, Trump's attorney, he's asking too many open-ended questions.
Well, why did you do that?
Don't ask why!
It's an open-ended question.
That's a direct examination question.
Don't ask that!
Don't give her the chance to answer the question.
She's the other side's witness.
She's not your witness.
Kill her in closing.
Kill her in closing.
If somehow somebody can introduce that piece of that statement she made that they had never had sex, fine, maybe talk about it later.
What does that mean?
If she were to be a liar, Her testimony doesn't affect anything.
One of the things that you, as a trial lawyer, I hope, at the end will tell the jury is, you've been here for I don't know how many weeks, and this is about a business fraud documents entry case.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Count Two, for example, said that The defendant, Donald Trump, in the county of New York and elsewhere, on or about February the 14th, 2017, with the intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof,
made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the detailed general ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842-457, and kept and maintained by The Trump Organization.
Did you hear Ms. Clifford say anything about that?
No.
Did anybody ask anything about that?
No.
No, she's talking about sex and Old Spice and pajamas and...
We've got 34 counts, ladies and gentlemen, exactly like that.
What the hell was she talking about?
Who is she?
What's the point?
They did that to bootstrap the fact that they have no case.
Did you hear me, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, go through her testimony?
No.
Did you hear me asking her a lot of questions?
No.
Because she's irrelevant!
She's irrelevant!
Right now, behind me in this courtroom, a person walked by, a complete stranger.
That person who just walked by, if I were to bring into court, knows as much about the case as Ms. Clifford did.
The case is not about a non-disclosure agreement.
The case is not about hush money.
The case is not about sex.
It's not about anything like that at all.
It's about whether Donald Trump, pursuant to this indictment that I cannot understand for the life of me, but it's whether he defrauded the state of New York by mislabeling something.
Instead of a reimbursement, attorney's fees.
To maybe help his campaign.
Irrespective of what it was.
Stephanie Clifford had nothing to do with this case.
Stephanie Clifford is irrelevant.
There's nothing to ask Stephanie Clifford.
I'd ask her 30, imagine 34 times.
Isn't it true, Ms. Clifford, that you know nothing?
Let me pick one.
How about this?
This is count five.
Isn't it true, Ms. Clifford, that you have no information regarding the defendant, Donald John Trump, President Donald John Trump, in the county of New York and elsewhere, on or about March 16th of 2017, through March the 17th, that's one day, With the intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.
Do you know anything about this?
You know nothing about whether he made or concealed or caused a false entry into business records.
This specifically, this, an invoice to Michael Cohen.
34 of those.
No.
No.
Ms. Clifford, you know nothing about October the 15th.
In which business voucher number 223412?
No.
You don't know anything about that either, do you?
No.
You don't know anything about that.
You don't know.
And then don't say, well, what do you know?
No.
No questions.
No.
They always say, people always say, No lawyer ever asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.
No, you don't give somebody the chance to testify again.
She's already got done testifying.
You're the ringleader.
She's going to answer your questions.
Yes or no.
That's it.
Period.
And you can destroy everything she did.
Everything she said.
Every disgusting moment about golden tweezers and missionary positions and no cundrums, as we say in the South, you can destroy all of that by saying, you don't know anything about the 34 counts.
That's why we're here.
You know nothing about that.
Did you know how this was entered in the, whether the general voucher versus the general ledger?
Do you know anything?
No, never do.
You don't know, do you?
You don't know.
Leading questions.
You don't know how this was recorded or transmitted to Mr. Cohen on the 16th or the 17th.
You don't know this.
You don't know that.
Pick another one.
This is count eight.
This, by the way, is a business record.
This is April the 13th.
This is an invoice on April the 30th.
Another one was voucher number 858770.
This would be count nine.
You don't know anything about that either, do you?
You don't know anything about the business records of the enterprise.
You've never seen...
You don't know.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
And you keep having her say, no, no.
And it's the greatest thing.
Don't waste any time with whether they had sex or whether she's a slut or a porno star.
Who cares?
Who cares?
Get her off!
Your job is to find him not guilty of at least one of these.
One of these counts!
One!
It's a hung jury.
That's all you gotta do.
That's all you gotta do.
And it's devastating to have her say, no, no, you don't know about this?
Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.
And then at the end you'd say, that's what I thought you'd say.
Nothing further.
And you throw your notes down and you walk away.
And then later in closing, you turn to the jury and you say, what was that about?
They wasted my time.
They wasted President Trump's time.
And they wasted your time.
For what?
What was that all about?
Did they get their jollies over that?
Is that it?
Because this had nothing to do about voucher number 852342.
This is a business records case, ladies and gentlemen.
And I want you to go back into that jury room.
And I want you to show the courage and the conviction when you swore to follow your oath as a juror and find the defendant, President Donald John Trump, not guilty of all charges.
So say we all.
That's it.
That's it.
And I'm right.
Right.
You want to be right?
You want to be right by me?
You want to thank me for this?
Good.
Make sure you're subscribed.
Subscribe, make sure you like the video, and make sure, more importantly, make sure that you, you, you, you, you, you, you, very carefully, make sure that you comment.
▲
Export Selection