NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[emailking]

Evidence that Cohen stole from Trump Org. a "bomb dropped in the middle of the prosecution's case"

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig described revelations from Monday that Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen stole from the company as a "bomb dropped right in the middle of the prosecution's case."

During the ongoing cross-examination, it was revealed that Cohen stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump organization.

CNN's Laura Coates said she was surprised this evidence was coming out on the third day of Cohen’s testimony, and that the prosecution did not get on the front foot to “take the sting out” when it had a chance during direct examination.

“We’re talking about 420,000 – it’s not 15 bucks,” Coates said.

...

Some context: In court today, it was revealed that Cohen gave RedFinch $20,000 and kept $30,000 for himself.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-20-24/index.html


I don't know how true or significant this is. Maybe something that can be clarified in redirect?

[emailking]

My brain is having trouble parsing that X post lol.

I'll take your word for it.

[emailking]

But he didn't actually testify in them, did he?  Or am I misremembering?

I believe he testified in one of the Carroll trials and he tried to testify in the civil fraud trial (just started ranting from his desk) and the judge cut him off after a couple minutes because he wasn't staying in the parameters he was allowed to testify about.

[emailking]

Apparently the judge is not going to allow the photo to come in, hmm.

[emailking]

Objecting to the photo seems like something of an own goal by the defense? Now it's a big deal, and a witness is going to have to testify about it. Again, I'm no lawyer, but "we're really trying to keep this piece of evidence out" has to be a bad look.

Does the jury know they're trying to keep it out though? I assume this all happened in sidebar.

[emailking]

Judge cleared the courtroom of press and jury to chew out Costello. He was apparently rolling his eyes at the judge and saying things like "strike it."

[emailking]

The prosecution has rested and i believe they have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt (misdemeanor and/or felony, all 34 counts). This is technically the bare minimum they need to be at when they have rested.

Please note that this is not the same as I would vote to convict because:

1. The defense still has a case to present. The have the opportunity to sow reasonable doubt.
2. We haven't heard Closing Arguments. This can focus the evidence and the arguments that supports or exculpates guilt.
3. I haven't seen the demeanor of the witnesses as they were testifying. This can be key for assessing their credibility.
4. I haven't deliberated. Being challenged by your peers who have doubts is an essential part of our justice system.

Nonetheless, as an intellectual exercise, I believe the prosecution met their burden. I am convinced.

[emailking]

They'll have to do a good job explaining the law next Tuesday because there are probably jurors who feel the same.

[emailking]

yes but it could be a very dry explanation, I believe the the lawyers can talk about it to some extent too and they can give it more oomph.

[emailking]

I think they know they're probably going lose and thought they had momentum after Cohen and wanted to go for a kill shot. A risk that doesn't seem to have paid off.

[emailking]

Yeah the jury wasn't even present and sidebars outside of the public eye happen all the time.

[emailking]

Both sides rest in Trump hush money trial

Former President Trump’s defense rested its brief case Tuesday after calling just two witnesses in the criminal hush money trial in New York.

Trump ultimately did not take the stand, despite repeatedly saying that he would be willing to testify in his own defense.

The prosecution rested its case Monday, after trying to rehabilitate the sometimes rocky testimony of Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen, their key witness in the case.

Closing arguments are expected to take place next Tuesday.

https://www.cnn.com/webview/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-21-24/index.html

[emailking]

Assuming misdemeanor only becomes allowed and they convict on misdemeanors and not felonies, I think it means either they don't understand that part of the law or they don't believe Cohen. Because if you believe Cohen's testimony, seems clear Trump was only worried about the effect on the election. Pecker also spoke to that somewhat, but it was more based on his impression of Trump's intentions, whereas Trump made it more explicit with Cohen.

[emailking]

I actually still think outright acquittal is underrated. But conviction is very iffy, though I think that's more likely than not. If it happens, I don't think it will be because the jury was biased.

[emailking]

Defense asks judge to instruct jury that hush money is not illegal. Judge says he doesn't think it's necessary

Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that he wanted the judge to instruct the jury that hush money is not illegal.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass opposed Bove's request and went on to say the defense was asking the judge to make their legal arguments for them.

Shortly after, Judge Juan Merchan weighed in and said he would not include it because it came out several times in testimony that hush money is not illegal.

Merchan said that he suspects the defense will make that argument during summations and the prosecution won't dispute that. He said giving an instruction to that effect is taking it too far.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-21-24/index.html

[emailking]

It sounds like another significant ruling is the judge ruled it's up to the jury to decide if the if the crime being covered up by the fraud was illegal and the prosecution doesn't have to prove it was unlawful. Not sure I have this right.

[emailking]

If memory serves, there's still I think a chance of the January 6th trial going forward before the election? If a hung jury erupts here, that may be our country's last chance to convince voters not to go down the Road of devolving from a functioning democracy to something like Victor orban's Hungary

If SCOTUS outright denies him and Chutkan gives them the promised 78 days but does not delay it any further because of the election then it could at least get started before the election. But based on the oral arguments it seems very possible/probable they're going to kick it back for clarification as to which of the indictments are within the scope of his official duties.

[emailking]

I think Thursday is when we're getting a decision on whether misdemeanor only is a possibility. If convicted of misdemeanors but not felonies, I think the impact would be minimal because then you can't label him a convicted felon, and it might also play into the witch hunt narrative. This is total speculation, it's all uncharted territory.

[emailking]

I don't think Bruce is the type to delete if he turns out to be wrong about something FWIW.

Also, none of us knows what the impact of a conviction will be. We're all ****ing in the wind here.

[emailking]

Contempt proceedings tonite queen?

The judge isn't covered by the gag order so this is allowed unfortunately.

[emailking]

One logical question comes to mind: Why was Weisselberg not called to testify?

For the prosecution, he was going to take the 5th so no point. For the Defense, they can't say Cohen is untrustworthy because he pled guilty to perjury if their star witness has the same issue.

[emailking]

Unfortunately yeah, there's too much risk he would just say, yeah those meetings never happened, Cohen and I did it all on their own, Trump knew nothing. He's a hostile witness who wouldn't work with the prosecution.

[emailking]

I believe they're told to infer nothing inculpatory or exculpatory by his absence, right?

[emailking]

Bragg has a solid case on falsification of the business records misdemeanor, but no case on the felony charges.

He doesn't have "no case". Cohen said Trump was in the room when they discussed the repayment scheme and also that Trump told him that they just needed to get past the election and then he doesn't care. You may not believe him, it may not be enough to convince you regardless, but it's a case!

[emailking]

What's the answer to "How did Merchan rule? 🤐" ? Just that he didn't?