Trump’s Defense Rests Without Him Taking the Stand
Jury deliberations could begin next Tuesday.
Former President Donald Trump’s defense has rested. Jury deliberations will begin next Tuesday.
Trump did not testify. We don’t know why.
The defense didn’t call former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith because Judge Merchan limited the scope of his testimony:
“Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me. Now, it’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance,” former FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith posted on X on Monday.
“But the Federal Election Campaign Act is very complex. Even Antonin Scalia – a pretty smart guy, even you hate him – once said ‘this [campaign finance] law is so intricate that I can’t figure it out.’ Picture a jury in a product liability case trying to figure out if a complex machine was negligently designed, based only on a boilerplate recitation of the general definition of ‘negligence.’ They’d be lost without knowing technology & industry norms,” he continued.
Smith is an election law expert who Trump has called the “Rolls-Royce” of experts in his field, but he will not testify after Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith could speak before the court on the basic definitions surrounding election law but not expand beyond that scope.
Trump faces 34 charges of falsifying business records in the first degree. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg has to prove that Trump falsified the business records “in furtherance of another crime: conspiracy to promote or prevent election.”
Smith previously wrote in The Federalist:
Misreporting business expenses is normally, at most, a misdemeanor. Bragg seeks to ratchet it up to a felony here by arguing that the misreporting was done to cover up a crime. That alleged crime is a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The theory is that Trump’s payments to Daniels were campaign expenditures and thus needed to be publicly reported as such. By not reporting the expenditure, the theory goes, Trump prevented the public from knowing information that might have influenced their votes.
There is one big problem with this theory: The payments to Daniels were not campaign payments.
The potential jury instruction states: “If the payment would have been made even in absence of candidacy, payment should not be treated as contribution.”
Robert Costello
The defense called attorney Robert Costello, an informal advisor to Michael Cohen, to the stand in the hopes of discrediting Cohen.
Costello claimed that Cohen told him that Trump did not know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels.
It might have backfired due to lawyer retainer agreements. (This will come up below in the jury instruction debate.) From The Washington Post:
But Costello said that in a meeting with Cohen in May 2018, soon after their first meeting the month before, Cohen was given a retainer agreement and “he stuck it in his briefcase, said ‘I’ll look at it later.’ Every time [Costello associate] Jeff Citron asked him about it, he gave us an excuse.”
Costello said he continued to email and text with Cohen, including a reference to “back channel” communications with Rudy Giuliani, who was then working as a lawyer for Trump. Costello said Giuliani used the “back channel” term.
Costello also acknowledged he was concerned that Cohen hadn’t paid him or signed the retainer. Finally in August 2018, Cohen sent an email telling Costello, “you do not and have never represented me in this or any matter.”
Costello said that was “false.”
Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger then put the retainer agreement for Cohen in front of Costello. He admitted that Cohen never signed it.
Costello told the jury he never tried to pressure Cohen into doing anything. Trump’s lawyers wanted clarification about Costello’s meeting with Cohen, but Merchan sustained all of the prosecution’s objections.
Jury Instruction Debate
The prosecution, defense, and Judge Merchan debated jury instructions on Tuesday afternoon. Merchan sided with the prosecution regarding requests.
It’s disturbing, to say the least. I swear if they come back with a guilty verdict, it will be overturned in appeals courts.
Georgetown law professor Jonathan Turley posted that the prosecutors wanted to change the language. Language is important in law.
Willfull and Unlawful
A powerful language argument centers around “willfull” and “unlawful.”
…The Prosecution is arguing that there is no need to show “willful” violations for the use of unlawful means to influence an election. Bragg wants a lower standard than the one that ordinarily applies to criminal conduct…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…The prosecutors are arguing that unlawful means was not meant to be a criminal standard. However, the government is using that language for a criminal violation. It is a deeply disturbing effort to convict a citizen of a crime without meeting the higher standard for crimes…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Bragg’s office is calling the “willful” language a burdening of the jury with “excessive language.” That is remarkably dismissive for a defendant who could be convicted on the basis of these charges…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
The defense wants the jury to know that they “must find the higher standard of a crime for this to be a criminal violation.” It includes a “mere presence” charge for the jury to understand that even if Trump was in the room where discussions took place it does not show intent.
The prosecution argued it could “mislead” the jury.
…The defense also wants a “mere presence” charge for the jury to understand that, even if Trump were in the room during some discussions, it is not dispositive of intent…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Again, the government is saying it would “mislead” the jury on the import of his mere presence. But the defense is noting that the government is citing a meeting with Trump with the discussion of fairly standard discussions that are not criminal like seeking positive press…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Merchan is now turning to instructions on “unlawful means.” The government is arguing that the jury does not have to be unanimous on what are the unlawful means. Thus they could have radically different views on that core means finding…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Colangelo is arguing that this deviates from the standard instruction. Merchan said both are messing with the traditional language and that he will stick with the standard language…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
Campaign Money
The defense then wanted the jury to know that Trump could spend any amount of his own money on the campaign, and there were no limitations.
The prosecutors described the language as “extraneous” and confusing.
Merchan agreed and refused to insert the lines from actual regulations.
“Less, Not More”
The next round focused on what Smith would have included in his testimony concerning First Amendment rights activities. Turley noted that the prosecution’s efforts show it is a loose case.
…The prosecutors are again saying that the “jury needs less not more.” That again is a telling mantra from Bragg’s office. They are opposing language taken from regulations and cases that clarify these standards. Merchan again ruled for the prosecutors…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Merchan said “we want to make it as easily as possible for the jury.” That is hardly a comforting standard for a defendant, particularly someone who is unpopular in this district…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
“Reasonably Forseeable”
The prosecutors wanted to add “reasonably forseeable” to the jury language:
After lengthy and complex discussion, Justice Merchan responds to a request by prosecutors — that language be included in the jury instructions suggesting it was “reasonably forseeable” that false records would be created as a result of Trump’s conduct — by saying that he’s inclined not to include it. But he reserves judgment for now.
It seems like, on the knottiest issues, Merchan is holding back from making decisions, giving himself time to study the issues further.
Accomplice as a Matter of Law
Turley also found the debate around “accomplice as a matter of law” troubling and dangerous:
…Now they are dealing with “accomplice as a matter of law.” This is a dangerous issue because the prosecutors have been strongly suggesting that Cohen’s convictions shows election violations. Merchan says that the government is “playing with fire” in again seeking to raise the crimes by Cohen in this way…
…Now they are dealing with “accomplice as a matter of law.” This is a dangerous issue because the prosecutors have been strongly suggesting that Cohen’s convictions shows election violations. Merchan says that the government is “playing with fire” in again seeking to raise the…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Merchan is reworking the language. However, he is warning that, if the defense raises other crimes committed by Cohen, it would “open the door” to the government using the language…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Merchan said that the government “can’t go there” if it tries to suggest that Cohen’s commission of these crimes implicates Trump…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Merchan is saying that he is striking the Latin term for charity because he struggles to pronounce it as do many. All lawyers agreed. Latin teachers will be irate.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
Intent of Fraud and “Causing the Causer”
The defense wanted more specifics regarding the instruction to pull from statutory commentary on the meaning of “intent of fraud.” Merchan said no and sided with the prosecution.
The defense asked to strike language regarding “causing the causer” since it could confuse the jury.
Merchan appeared to side with the defense but said he would take it under consideration.
“Intent to Commit or Conceal Another Crime”
The defense wanted to strike “intent to commit or conceal another crime” because the government does not have to prove it.
Turley pointed out it can mislead or shift the burden.
The government wants it in. Guess how Merchan ruled? For the prosecution.
…The government wants it in even though the defense has not and will not raise this issue. This is a repeated objection of the government stressing things not at issue. Merchan is keeping it under advisement…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Colangelo is opposing and argues that no showing for two showings of intent is required. Given the government’s opposing to using the criminal standard of proof earlier, it is another effort to make it easier for the jury to convict…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…Merchan ruled against the defense. Merchan is saying that the language implies a reference to the showing of the second of the intent…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
Retainer Agreement
The defense wants the jury to know that retainer agreements do not have to be in writing. The prosecution says otherwise.
…This is significant because the instruction would emphasize a critical point of the prosecution that there was no retainer arrangement. It could be read by jurors as establishing a key point for the government…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
…… The government is arguing that this is merely a “theoretical exception” …
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
Spoilation
The defense wanted a spoliation (act of ruining something or taking something by illegal or unethical means) instruction because of changes to Cohen’s cellphone.
…Merchan has rejected the defense motion and said that they can argue such issues to the jury…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2024
Guilty Verdict
Trump’s defense requested a guilty verdict come from an unanimous jury that “Trump had falsified records to conceal a conspiracy to win an election by unlawful means.” They also want the jurors to unanimously agree “on what those unlawful means were.” Neither one is required by law.
The prosecution said no because Trump should be treated like any other defendant.
Merchan sounded like he agreed with the prosecution: “There’s no reason to rewrite the law for this case.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
No idea what the jury will decide but hopefully the defense is allowed to make a strong closing argument and they get a hung jury.
I have served as a juror on a Long Island murder trial where we delivered a guilty verdict despite 1 juror’s hatred of the police and his belief that people should not be sent to prison.
I have also spent a lot of time in the city with people who have backgrounds very similar to what has been reported of this jury. Based on my experience I would expect that at least 6 jurors are ready vote to convict and are not interested in any deliberations and would do the same regardless of what the charges or evidence against Trump was.
My hope is that at least one and maybe 3 jurors really tried to process the testimony and will refuse to convict. Depending on how strong the debate is a best case is that some of the other 3 will follow suit to get hung jury and end their service.
It is entirely possible that there will be no real deliberations and they will convict Trump just as a tribal action, but I hold our hope for some courage and honesty from a few jurors.
My bet is that having 2 lawyers on the jury will make a difference, either if one of them recognizes a sham case and causes a hung jury or if both of them persuade any holdouts that Trump is guilty. “Convicted Felon Trump” has a nice ring to it for allegedly cheating on his wife, except that America might also pay a huge price for being stuck with the “walking dead” for 4 more years.
the lawyers are on the jury, not by happen chance, but to be the authority figures in the law and to direct any hold outs to convict
Imagine going through an entire trial and still not know what you are actually charged with.
He knows exactly what he’s charged with. Falsifying business records with the intent to commit another crime, or to aid or conceal another crime. He’s not charged with any other crime.
Indeed he wouldn’t even need to have committed the other crime; he’d be guilty if he committed this crime with the intent to commit another one, and then never did.
As it is, Bragg has specified the “other crime” he alleges this one was committed in aid of: Conspiracy to influence an election by illegal means. But that just kicks the can further, because now the jury must guess at those illegal means. If he “conspired” to influence the election only by legal means, then there was no “other crime”, so the false business record (if there was one, which the evidence shows there wasn’t) would not be connected to another crime, and would only be a misdemeanor.
This is all confusing, and needs to be explained clearly to the jury, but the judge’s decisions seem to indicate that it won’t be. So we just have to hope the jury has been paying attention and will see through it. Because the bottom line is that there is no there there. There’s no substance to the charges. The elements of the crime have not been proven, because you can’t prove something without specifying exactly what it is!
True, Trump is not *charged* with another crime. (even if you think what he did was a crime) He’s charged with recording legal expenses as legal expenses in furtherance of a great conspiracy to (cough, ahem, wheeze, mutter, mumble) which allows Bragg to charge him even after the statute of limitations is up. (in theory)
Far as I can tell, the prosecution is trying their best to pretend that first ‘crime’ is worse than terrible, just an awful thing, oh woe is us etc… Then they say nothing about the ‘stretch’ crime, leaving those insinuations to the witless witness Cohen who took a plea on a non-crime in order to save his buns from fifty years in the pen for the taxi medallion fraud. I’m starting to seriously consider the possibility that Cohen is sandbagging his testimony just to get back at the prosecution for forcing him into his plea. I mean he’s not that dumb, is he? Really?
Read what Milhouse has written. It is the worst kind of lie.
Every sentence is designed to demoralize and leave one without hope AND provide cover
Because this–
Because the bottom line is that there is no there there. There’s no substance to the charges. The elements of the crime have not been proven, because you can’t prove something without specifying exactly what it is!
–is what everyone’s been saying. It is what Milhouse is ‘refuting in the first p[art of this response.
Because his purpose is to make you think that whatever you say is wrong.
The demonic servant of the Prince of Lies speaks again.
This is true peak Milhouse. What is the “other crime”? The charge must inform you with some specificity of bothe the conduct and the law allegedly violated. Saying Milhouse is charged with murder he commited somehow within the last 50 years would maybe suffice per the Milouse theory of “knowing exactely what he is charged with” but under any sane standard it is not
Read the article and quite confused what is a charge or isn’t.
Also hearing a week off before deliberations, is that done ever? Never heard of doing this. One would think asap would be better to not forget facts. OK, if it was a normal trial and not a Kangaroo Court that the verdict was know long before the trial started.
That is just it. We don’t know what the “second charge” is, it’s a secret. Every member of the jury can determine a different crime to find him guilty of and he is still convicted.
No presumption of innocence. The prosecutor doesn’t have had to prove any crime took place. The defendant doesn’t even know the charges.
Is this the Soviet Union?
It’s not a second charge, it’s an element of the first and only charge. But the elements of a crime have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case they haven’t been.
NY Statue required all the elements to be specified in the indictment. They were not, and no one seemed to care.
The elements of the fraud have gone totally missing. No one mentions whom he defrauded, or what he defrauded them out of what manner he did this. To my knowledge, these business records were never required to be submitted. They were subpoenaed and combed to find any inaccuracies.
He defrauded the people of the United States of relevant information damaging to his election prospects.
The business records didn’t have inaccuracies they were fraudulent
Don’t be ridiculous. The people had no right to that information, and he had no duty to provide it. On the contrary, he was even entitled to outright lie to voters, if he liked, let alone merely keep from them information that was none of their damned business in the first place.
@Milhouse
Sure they did, and it wasn’t him providing it was it it was a media organisation that he was colluding with that killed it. He didn’t lie about it did he, he hid it which is quite different. If the story had come out he could have tried denying it and that would have been fine but he didn’t instead he had the story bought and killed off.
BartE: Your argument implies that the fraud was the NDA not the business records That is not the charge. Even in the expansive NY definition, the false information must intended to deceive someone. The prosecution has presented zero evidence that Donald Trump intended to give those records to anyone. Perhaps Bragg needs to prosecute anyone that makes a mistake in a Quicken entry for their sole proprietorship. Without an intent to give the false information to someone, this is what Bragg has criminalized.
How did they have a right to that information? How was it any of their damned business?
So? That just makes it better for him, not worse.
Which is better than lying, isn’t it? And since he had every legal right to lie about it, it follows a fortiori that he had every right to try to suppress it. You’re just not making any sense.
You don’t seem to understand that nobody even alleges there was anything wrong with the NDA, or with his paying for it, let alone with National Enquirer doing similar things sua sponte. The only allegation against him is that his bookkeeper tagged the transactions with the wrong category in his internal ledgers that nobody had any business ever looking at.
Plenty of time to let each juror know they will be doxxed and harassed mercilessly.
This whole case seems faulty if what I have seen reported is correct … that reporting the payoff as a campaign expense would not have appeared as such until 2017, well after the election. Therefore, recording it as a legal expense could not possibly have been to keep it from public view before the election.
Yes. The defense will surely hammer this point in its closing statement.
nope! The prosecution will object and the corrupt judge will sustain
That’s doesn’t change the nature of the payment does it, and the fraud is keeping the story from public view using an illegitimate payment so there are actually several choices of crime here.
keeping unflattering information from the public violates no statute, and what book entry do you suppose was required, “payment to shut up porn star”
You idiot, nobody is even alleging that there was anything wrong with the payment. NDAs are 100% legal, and so is paying for them. The only allegation is that the legal expense of obtaining the NDA was booked in Trump’s private ledgers as… legal expenses.
Incorrect the payment has been construed as tax fraud potentially as the other crime. Sorry wrong again Milhouse
HOW? Have you ever run a business? Ever worked for a large company? NDAs are par for the course, as are (or were until FTC banned them, but’s still up in the air) non-competes and intellectual property agreements. The tax implication is whether or not he wrote off the expenses, and that’s something you’re not likely to know. In the trust ballpark, Milhouse is batting 1000, and you’re butt is drawing splinters on the bench in the dugout.
Reportedly, by a Trump lawyer, no deduction was taken for the Stormy payments
You really are a fucking moron.
Tax fraud?! How so? On the contrary, Cohen was paid double so he could cover the taxes on the payment!
I construe you as an idiot.
Under your theory, that assessment is thereby confirmed.
Heh.
You’re a special kind of moron, ain’t you? Bless your heart.
I have literally never heard of the defense resting and the judge putting the jury off for a WEEK before they even BEGIN deliberating. The only point seems to be to give them maximum amount of time to be attacked by everybody they know for daring to even think about Aquitaine Bad Orange Man.
On another note, not unique to this case, I have always found it ABSURD that both sides present their case and THEN they argue about jury instructions.
Jury instructions are core to the entire nature of guilt amd innocence. How can you demand they present their defense before you know what the jury is going to be told is required tonfind him guilty?
Jury instructions should be finalized before a jury is ever seated.
Well maybe Trump will get a huge turnout at his South Bronx rally Thursday and peer pressure to convict won’t be as strong as it normally would for NY jury. Like in the old western movies when the sheriff faces down the lynch mob. Once a few brave people stand up for right then a whole lot of the crowd loses their enthusiasm.
I just read the rally is capped at 3500 people which is still pretty strong for a weekday rally in the deep blue Bronx. I doubt if a Biden rally could generate 350 attendees including paid democrat operatives.
Good point. It’s like agreeing to the rules of the game….after the game has been played. In fairness to the ‘they system’ though, jury instructions are generally very uneventful and even pedestrian, oftentimes lifted verbatim from precedential cases and/or appellate court guidance. That there’s this much division about incredibly important topics – like what the CHARGES actually are – underscores what a shit-show this trial has been.
In practice, I don’t see that ever happening. Look at the Rittenhouse case for an example of why. The prosecutors intended to present such and such a case. Very early on, they learned that they were nitwits, and that things hadn’t gone down at all like they thought they had. They switched horses in midstream and pressed an entirely different legal theory to convict him. Had they issued the jury instructions before the arguments began, the jury would have know a lot of stuff about the law that nobody was addressing anymore, and nothing about the law that the prosecution was now prosecuting over.
I was on a med mal jury, and the plaintiff’s lawyers kept changing their theory of what the defendants had done wrong. The theory they pressed hard in the opening statement was never heard from again. The trial went on for four weeks, and it seemed like every day they had a new theory. At the end of it all the judge ended up asking us about three specific decisions and nothing else; for each decision we were to say (a) was it negligent, and (b) if so did it cause any harm. So 90% of the evidence we heard turned out to be completely irrelevant because we were never asked about it.
“”Trump did not testify. We don’t know why.””
If he doesn’t testify, they’ll have more trouble starting a new persecution for perjury.
Count our blessings. For a “skilled negotiator,” one of Trump’s biggest flaws is not knowing when to keep his mouth shut. Happily, he seems to have gotten good legal representation on that for once.
I am a physician, and certainly no legal eagle, except where law intersects with medicine in the forensic sense of my medical specialty and subspecialties (in my case, infectious diseases and critical care); in the namesake of this account (my beloved late grandfather—psychiatry, neurology, neuropsychiatry and forensic psychiatry)—but I am not my grandfather. My cousin, who is a psychiatrist/neurologist does occasionally post here, so be aware.
What we all are wondering from all of you legal eagles: what are the going odds? I know you aren’t Vegas bookmakers, but believe me when I tell you most people consider you to be the ultimate bookmakers because you read jury’s faces for a living—whether you are litigators or not—so, what’s the consensus? I have read so far that most of the criminal litigators, with the exception of whackademic TDS variety (the biggest mouths) are saying “hung jury” and a lot of infighting amongst the Democrats as to blame and what went wrong. Guess we’ll see. Not a gambling woman here. Take enough chances going from Austin to San Antonio in an SUV full of kids!
Its not clear to me a lot has gone wrong, Cohens testimony was cleared up and actually proved a decent witness. In fact because of the Costello debacle he actually looked pretty good. Well done defence for making Cohen look good.
As for odds, the facts of the case are damning but its not clear to me how the conspiracy aspect plays out with the jury. Not a betting man but id go 65% chance of felony conviction, best bet for Trump is to plead guilty to misdemeanours and avoid the felony charge
“Its not clear to me…”
You should have just stopped after that.
Oh Barty, there you go again. All Cohen’s testimony proved was that he committed grand larceny and admitted it in open court, proving he was even more of a liar. Don’t know the Latin term, but it is to the effect that “once a liar, always a liar”. Goes in medicine as well as law, I believe. The facts of the case are not “damning” when no crime has been established against the accused. What were recorded as legal expenses were in fact legal expenses. The rest is peripheral nonsense created in a cauldron in a witch-hunt cauldron by Democrat politicians seeking to get rid of a political opponent. Putting Stormy Daniels on the stand was a bonehead move, but putting on Cohen was even stupider. All of the prosecution’s prep couldn’t shield Cohen from his own mouth and narcissism. That always gets narcissists in the end.
“They also want the jurors to unanimously agree “on what those unlawful means were.” Neither one is required by law.
Wut? How can that be ‘the law?’ There is this thing called the 6th Amendment, right? Just a couple years ago in in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Court incorporated the REQUIREMENT of UNANIMOUS verdicts to the states (Louisiana was the last state in the Union which didn’t require unanimous verdicts in all criminal cases). This decision cited earlier jurisprudence established in 1948 (Andres v. US) which said: “Unanimity in jury verdicts is required where the Sixth and Seventh Amendments apply. In criminal cases this requirement of unanimity extends to all issues – character or degree of the crime, guilt and punishment – which are left to the jury.”
We’re in Bizaro World.
Weeks ago I said a hung jury is the absolute best Trump can hope for in that city with that judge and that jury. After reading the commentary about these jury instructions, I believe a hung jury is going to take a small miracle…maybe a giant miracle.
That also had me a little stunned.
From what I understand after doing some more reading, this ‘unique’ characteristic of this case is part of the novel application of this bootstrapping law that hasn’t been used since prohibition and never used in the manner it’s being used today. There’s absolutely no way this is going to withstand 21st Century judicial scrutiny…and of course Marchan & Bragg understand this.
Professor Alan Dershowitz was there and summed up the judge’s actions in his blog. Note that Prof. Dershowitz is a lifelong Democrat.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/inside-court-when-judge-closed-trump-trial-what-saw-shocked-me-alan-dershowitz
It is also on his personal blog, which is well worth subscribing to.
Regardless of the outcome here, this is outrageous, and both Costello and Dershowitz should report him to the Judicial Conduct committee.
He already has been, as was Engoron, by Elise Steffanic,..which will turn out to be a waste of time
For what controlling his court. What an idiotic statement. The witness was warned multiple times not to continue his response when objected to and sustained. Costello can’t unilaterally decide anything. Oh and the rest of the media reported the facts quite differently that the witness was a bit of a twat who didn’t know his place. There has been no suggestion other from Derschowitz who let’s face it is moderately deranged that anything untoward happened other than from the witness
Beware, run on sentences comin’
Esteemed Bridge Troll and Eminent Legal Counsel Bart E Farthammer has now weighed in with yet another of his patented Dirty Sanchez deflections.
Everyone else (channeling Vincent Gambino): “Everything that Farthammer guy just said is bullshit.”
For threatening to strike a witness’s testimony, in violation of the defendant’s 6th amendment rights.
Looking like the judge will ensure a conviction. Guilt or innocence is not what this is about.
It’s more about deceiving lemmings and destroying the bastion of individualism in the process.
It has been suggested that the reason Merchan’s daughter is getting all those campaign jobs, is that she is the conduit to get bribe money to the judge
Who has suggested that, and on what basis? Without any factual basis it is a completely scurrilous and evil thing to say. It’s absolutely no different from Harry Reid’s infamous slander against Mitt Romney.
She’s a campaign consultant, she’s been working in that field since long before this case was even thought of, and I’m not aware of any evidence that she has more clients now than she did before; but even if she did, that would simply be the result of the free publicity that Trump and his acolytes have given her. Without a scintilla of evidence nobody has any right to allege that she’s committing a crime. If you do that you have no right to complain when people do it to Trump, or to any Republican.
Who has suggested that, and on what basis?
No one has ‘suggested’ it, Democrat.
It is observable. It is happening. No one needs to ‘suggest’ the sun come up, because it is an observable fact that it does.
She is observably trading on this case.
And no amount of squawking from the likes of you will change that.
You again, with your filthy lies. You are a truly disgusting piece of inhumanity.
MarkS claims that this has been suggested. But there’s not a shred of evidence for it, and I’ve never even heard of anyone openly suggesting it. You go further and claim it’s an established fact, when you know damn well that it isn’t.
She is not “trading on the case”, whatever that is supposed to mean, but even if she were it would not justify the vicious, scurrilous accusation MarkS has said others have suggested, and that you have openly made. That is because you are an evil person.
Also, it would have been REALLY stupid for Trump to take the stand.
The prosecution has proven absolutely nothing. This would be a slam-dunk acquittal for anybody they weren’t trying to convict of Campaigning While Orange.
The only thing putting him on the stand would do would be to let the pathetic hack judge and prosecutor try to get a blazing headline for the propaganda media TRUMP FORCED TO SAY X.
So I 100% agree with him not taking the stand.
“The prosecution has proven absolutely nothing”
They have proven a number of things:
1. That the affair took place
2. That payments were made
3. That Trump knew about the payments
4. That the scheme with Pecker was to suppress negative stories including ones which weren’t even true
5. That Trump wasn’t bothered about paying if it could be delayed until after the election
6. That many documents were fraudulent7=
7. That the defence is trying to claim simultaneously that you should trust Cohen when he is the only evidence with respect to his own malfeasance but he is absolutely not trust worthy for everything else even where extensively collaborated.
nothing you listed is illegal, and there were no fraudulent documents, as labeling payments to a lawyer as a “legal expense” is labelling it what it is, a legal expense, whether or not you are paying for a service or reimbursing for an expense the lawyer incurred in service to you
I would add that the prosecution did not put forward a single expert witness to address the alleged illegality in recording that transaction as a ‘legal expense.’ Unlike most criminal cases where there is a victim and/or complaining witness or a dead body – prima facie evidence of a crime – the only ‘evidence’ of a crime in this entire case is the allegation stated by the prosecution in opening arguments. I kept waiting for the state to call a NY licensed CPA to testify that the payments were recorded in violation of state law and to instruct the jurors how that payment should have been recorded. It never happened.
No licensed CPA wanted to be involved in this mess.
It’s not really that complicated of a case, the judge is perfectly capable of interpreting the law here.
Errr wrong fraudulent documents are fraudulent amd is very much illegal hence being misdemeanors and I’m stating facts proven in support of a conspiracy for the felony. Sorry you’re just plain wrong
That is begging the question. You can’t argue that they fact that they were fraudulent proves that they were fraudulent. You have to prove that it is a fact, and the prosecution never did. And that’s in addition to all the other flaws in its case.
“Merchan said “we want to make it as easily as possible for the jury.” That is hardly a comforting standard for a defendant, particularly someone who is unpopular in this district…”
So you want it to be as confusing as possible, that is perverse
“Smith is an election law expert who Trump has called the “Rolls-Royce” of experts in his field” So he is ‘the best’ because Trump says so. Smith has a long history, his views prior have been debatable at best.
“Trump did not testify. We don’t know why.” Why would he, he has always chickened out of testifying and lets face it when he has its been a train wreck. Not committing suicide by exposing himself to questions under oath is a good choice.
Allll-righty then. Let’s assume the jury hangs. What then? Does Bragg try to continue this nonsense by getting a new trial?
Good question. With ANY other prosecutor, I think the answer would be a self-evident ‘no,’ (no other prosecutor not named Fani Willis would have brought this case). But, with this prosecutor, I’m not so sure. Bragg has no fear of being held accountable, not by the voters and certainly not by the licensing and oversight bureaucracy in the state of New York. He’s a hero to those idiots. So, I think there really would be some chance he’d refile the case. If it’s a hung jury and it’s 11-1 to convict, I think the chances of refiling are almost a certainty. Anyone waiting for calmer, rational and non-partisan heads to prevail here are whistling past the graveyard.
He files new charges and makes a big speech to the camera about how Trump clearly ‘corrupted’ the jury by violating the gag order.
Then he tries to demand a trial date in October so he can keep him from campaigning right before the election.
BartE, your post is maybe the the most offensive piece I have ever seen on this site. You’re anti-justice opinion, to use your language, is perverse. The biased judge is supposedly ‘making it easy on the jury’ to write instructions that ignore what the law is, and try to get them, to decide it based on his law, not statue. It’s pretty obvious you never sat on a jury before.
Further, the man you accuse of having debatable views on election law just happened to be the chair of the FEC. The only reason you think his views are debatable is that you’re leftist vision of the world says that anyone who does not let Democrats do whatever they want is wrong.
Finally, Trump frankly does need to testify. There is no case there, and it is a rigged trial from beginning to end. The only ‘chicken’ involved in this discussion is you.
You find facts offensive – that’s a you problem
How is providing opinion and facts on a criminal case where its blindingly obvious of Trumps guilt ‘anti justice’. This is pure projection on your part
Demonstrate bias on the part of the judge. I think you’ll fond you actually want to special treatment for Trump. Do better
No the reason I find his views debatable is his record. You can wish that away all you want but feelings aren’t an argument.
Its ironic that you claim Democrats want to do whatever they want when ti’s demonstrated to be the case for team MAGA.
Being a snowflake isn’t much of an argument. Again, do better.
You are not allowed to have your own ‘facts’ sir. Your facts are incorrect, your opinions are biased by political leanings, and you don’t like it when someone uses your words to disagree with you. It’s ironic you call me a snowflake when you get your feeling hurt instead of a serious respo0nse to my post, and other posts.
If you cannot see bias on the part of the judge, that is a problem I can’t correct. There are none so blind as those who will not see. For example, limiting the former head of the FEC as to what he can say while allowing a porn actress to go in details of a lurid relationship she said years ago did not occur that has zero relevance to the charges, whatever they are, is bias beyond belief.
Finally sir, let’s talk about the fact that Democrats today just rammed through by executive/administrative order another illegal loan forgiveness plan that will end up in the courts. The President that holds speeches in a setting that looks like Germany circa 1936, and weaponizes the FBI against school parents and pro-life protestors is a Democrat, not a Republican, or Trump.
Take your blinders off and see reality for what it is, ans opposed to what you wish it to be.
After all, without Cohen’s active participation, the conspiracy was impossible. In general, a one-man conspiracy is impossible. Where are the rest of the conspirators?
I am looking forward to RECNGE against Bragg, Colangelo, and all who are involved, including this jury. They are all known and will answer for this crime against the Republic. It’s all laid out at ispeakfortrump.com
jurors on the oj simpson jury admitted to not caring about the facts
JUST REVENGE
trump faces the wrath of the anti american posse hq’d in nyc
hopefully there will be one with a conscience for truth and free trump
it wont stop lefty and their continued attack on americas good people
stop lefty!!!
Judges usually tell the jury what they want. This judge clearly wants a conviction, and he will get it.
The problem with one of the jury instructions is this. Would the payment have been made if he was not running for office? On the one hand yes, he has a prenup and would owe a significant amount of money in a divorce if it was due to the affair with Stormy. On the other hand she would not have threatened to go public if he were not running for president so how will the jury interpret that?