NY: Trump on Trial!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I don’t think this is a difficult case to build reasonable doubt about - all you need is to convince the jury that there’s a chance that there may have been some other motive for the payments besides the election - but the defense team has not done an amazing job thus far.

[emailking]

Unless they completely disbelieve Cohen, I think his testimony puts to rest any possibility that Trump was concerned about Melania in this whole affair. Like his statement that they just need to push it past the election, if he wins he's President and it doesn't matter, if he loses he doesn't care anyway. And also it supposedly was Malania's idea to call Access Hollywood just locker room talk which became a huge right wing messaging push that weekend. lol

[Redban]

If all they have is the former FEC guy, and maybe not even him, then the highlight of their defense is the cross of Cohen and that's not going well so far.

Disagree

- they exposed for the jury that Cohen has an extreme grudge against Trump (e.g. "dictator douchebag," "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain," "belongs in a cage") and had to be asked by prosecutors to stop talking about Trump.

-  they got Cohen to say he'd like to see Trump convicted in this case

-  they got Cohen to admit that he earned $3-4 million from writing books attacking Trump and selling anti-Trump merchandise

- they got Cohen to admit that he lied several times under oath (e.g. Mueller investigation)

Overall, I still think the prosecution, who rested their case, needed to do more. We still don't know the "other crime," there is not much about Trump's intent (i.e. did Trump know he was commiting or concealing some other crime), and they still never said why the payments couldn't have been legally or reasonably classified as "legal expenses." People ITT are counting on a superstar closing statement to answer those questions and package this case for the jury

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1790535811638652970

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Serious question: what does the defense’s case look like if they don’t call a single witness to the stand?

It sounds like they are calling expert witnesses, which seems like a pretty reasonable strategy to me.  If you can convince the jury that there is a reasonable interpretation of the law under which Trump isn’t guilty of the crime even if you accept all the prosecution’s facts, you don’t need to contest any of the prosecution’s facts.

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon/status/1790535811638652970

I've honestly lost all my previous respect for the Times. It was a solid newspaper many years ago, but over the last few years, it has been quite bad.

[mjba257]

Serious question: what does the defense’s case look like if they don’t call a single witness to the stand?

It sounds like they are calling expert witnesses, which seems like a pretty reasonable strategy to me.  If you can convince the jury that there is a reasonable interpretation of the law under which Trump isn’t guilty of the crime even if you accept all the prosecution’s facts, you don’t need to contest any of the prosecution’s facts.

What are the chances they call Avennati to the stand? There may be some logistical challenges with him being incarcerated so they'd need to let the judge know now in order to make arrangements to get him there by next week

[emailking]

I'm guessing low since they told the judge at the moment their only witnesses are Trump and the FEC guy and they haven't decided on either of those.

[emailking]

If all they have is the former FEC guy, and maybe not even him, then the highlight of their defense is the cross of Cohen and that's not going well so far.

Disagree

- they exposed for the jury that Cohen has an extreme grudge against Trump (e.g. "dictator douchebag," "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain," "belongs in a cage") and had to be asked by prosecutors to stop talking about Trump.

-  they got Cohen to say he'd like to see Trump convicted in this case

-  they got Cohen to admit that he earned $3-4 million from writing books attacking Trump and selling anti-Trump merchandise

- they got Cohen to admit that he lied several times under oath (e.g. Mueller investigation)

Overall, I still think the prosecution, who rested their case, needed to do more. We still don't know the "other crime," there is not much about Trump's intent (i.e. did Trump know he was commiting or concealing some other crime), and they still never said why the payments couldn't have been legally or reasonably classified as "legal expenses." People ITT are counting on a superstar closing statement to answer those questions and package this case for the jury

They're good points. It sounds like Blanche's style isn't going over well though.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I don’t think this is a difficult case to build reasonable doubt about - all you need is to convince the jury that there’s a chance that there may have been some other motive for the payments besides the election - but the defense team has not done an amazing job thus far.

This is untrue AFAIK. Under NY law, the jury can think that Trump did it for some other motive (i.e. to protect his family) as long as they ALSO think that he did it because of the election. In other words, NY law does not require it to be either-or. It can be both.

Which is an important distinction, because I would think it substantially increases the odds of conviction.

[soundchaser]

Serious question: what does the defense’s case look like if they don’t call a single witness to the stand?

It sounds like they are calling expert witnesses, which seems like a pretty reasonable strategy to me.  If you can convince the jury that there is a reasonable interpretation of the law under which Trump isn’t guilty of the crime even if you accept all the prosecution’s facts, you don’t need to contest any of the prosecution’s facts.

Potentially one expert witness — but they haven’t decided to call him yet. I’m just posing the hypothetical that they don’t, which seems bad for their case.

Even still, I don’t think the defense has painted a clear narrative for an alternative reason/interpretation yet.

[mjba257]

So any estimates how much longer this trial will be? I'm thinking the week of Memorial Day we'll have a verdict.

[emailking]

Defense tactics raise eyebrows in Cohen cross-examination

It would be no surprise if the jury in Donald Trump’s first criminal trial now sees his former fixer, Michael Cohen, as a profane social media troll and vengeful liar who dreams of seeing the boss he once worshipped behind bars.

But jurors don’t have to like Cohen. They just have to believe him.

Trump’s self-described former “thug” came under a sustained attack from defense attorney Todd Blanche Tuesday in a cross-examination meant to shatter his credibility as the star witness to the ex-president’s allegedly criminal behavior. But critically, he didn’t lose his composure on the stand. So far, he’s avoided traps that would fatally undermine the case.

...


The task of the defense in cross-examination was, therefore, to so undermine Cohen’s credibility that they sowed reasonable doubt in the minds of at least one juror about the wider case.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-analysis/index.html

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/grahamkates/status/1790432811570106562

I am now officially begging the defense to call this man:

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1790846021695672542

[emailking]

Doesn't that guy remember the parade of cabinet hopefuls at Trump tower after the election? lol

[Badger]

So he would just be arguing that the falsifications can't be upgraded to felonies or that he didn't even break the law at all?

That he didn't violate FECA & so presumably therefore isn't guilty of the upgraded falsification to conceal a conspiracy to commit (nonexistent) FECA violations; I guess he could still be convicted of lesser-included misdemeanor business record falsification offenses, but I'll be surprised if this defense team willingly eats the imp(L)ication of asking for that instruction.

We've talked about this possibility b4 and I think its more likely than some may want to believe. A plea down to a misdemeanor won't carry the same weight as a felony conviction and if the prosecution agrees, that could lead to an early end of the trial (as soon as next week). And from the standpoint of the prosecution, this may be ideal because a misdemeanor as a lesser chance of being reversed on appeal.

There. Will. Not. Be. A. Plea. To. A. Misdemeanor. Or. Anything. Else. In case you haven't noticed in the last multiple decades, any admission of wrongdoing whatsoever is categorically, even pathologically contrary to Trump's fundamental nature. It will never happen. I will gladly bet you $100 at 50 to 1 odds, as it's an easy $100.

Now, whether New York law permits as Ohio's does that the court and/or prosecution May request an instruction on a lesser included offense if the facts warrant a potential finding by the jury, even over the defenses objection, I don't know. Whether the prosecution would push for that as a strategic decision I wouldn't Hazard a guess on, though I think they'd be reluctant to allow Trump to escape felony convictions. If the judge can do so sua sponte though, that's anyone's guess, and even more so how the jury would rule if given that option.

I'm further unsure whether there's any meaningful distinction among the dozens of counts Trump faces here to where if instructions were given for potential lesser included misdemeanor violations that would still be ripe for a felony conviction even if the jury convicted him on misdemeanors or even acquitted on other counts.

[mjba257]

So he would just be arguing that the falsifications can't be upgraded to felonies or that he didn't even break the law at all?

That he didn't violate FECA & so presumably therefore isn't guilty of the upgraded falsification to conceal a conspiracy to commit (nonexistent) FECA violations; I guess he could still be convicted of lesser-included misdemeanor business record falsification offenses, but I'll be surprised if this defense team willingly eats the imp(L)ication of asking for that instruction.

We've talked about this possibility b4 and I think its more likely than some may want to believe. A plea down to a misdemeanor won't carry the same weight as a felony conviction and if the prosecution agrees, that could lead to an early end of the trial (as soon as next week). And from the standpoint of the prosecution, this may be ideal because a misdemeanor as a lesser chance of being reversed on appeal.

There. Will. Not. Be. A. Plea. To. A. Misdemeanor. Or. Anything. Else. In case you haven't noticed in the last multiple decades, any admission of wrongdoing whatsoever is categorically, even pathologically contrary to Trump's fundamental nature. It will never happen. I will gladly bet you $100 at 50 to 1 odds, as it's an easy $100.

Now, whether New York law permits as Ohio's does that the court and/or prosecution May request an instruction on a lesser included offense if the facts warrant a potential finding by the jury, even over the defenses objection, I don't know. Whether the prosecution would push for that as a strategic decision I wouldn't Hazard a guess on, though I think they'd be reluctant to allow Trump to escape felony convictions. If the judge can do so sua sponge though, that's anyone's guess, and even more so how the jury would rule if given that option.

I'm further unsure whether there's any meaningful distinction among the dozens of counts Trump faces here to where if instructions were given for potential lesser included misdemeanor violations that would still be ripe for a felony conviction even if the jury convicted him on misdemeanors or even acquitted on other counts.

The defense could motion for the judge to instruct the jury on a misdemeanor violation when the time comes. It is an option. The prosecution could object, but there is a benefit because a misdemeanor makes a conviction more likely, just not on the felonies. But to the prosecution, a misdemeanor conviction is better than an acquittal. And if the jury is instructed on the misdemeanor charges, it gives them an easy out. Perhaps a holdout would be more likely to agree to convict on that

[soundchaser]

There’s approximately 0% chance Merchan would consider such a motion from the defense.

[mjba257]

There’s approximately 0% chance Merchan would consider such a motion from the defense.

Why not? Are you saying he's a biased hack? That's a perfectly reasonable motion that has sound legal backing. Why would he not consider such a motion unless you think he's clearly biased against the defense and making baseless rulings?

[soundchaser]

Why would he consider it, given how the defendant has treated his courtroom?

[wbrocks67]

A terrible look for the defense that they basically have nobody after the prosecution had multiple witnesses.

https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1790704650963816922

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Perhaps they're trying to wrap the trial up quickly, before their uncontrollable client is jailed for contempt?

Legal expert: Judge may hold contempt "hearing" over Trump "surrogates" circumventing gag order

“If Trump is feeding any of these congressmen or senators information to talk about, that violates the gag order,” he said, adding that the judge "may have a hearing on it, and it could violate other gag orders in other cases that are pending now. And, so, that's a serious thing, and the court of appeals decision is something that has to be taken seriously."

A former spokesperson for Trump suggested that is the game plan. “I think what he’s looking for is a way around the gag order,” Michael Dubke told CNN. “They have the ability to say things that Donald Trump has been wanting to say been struck down 10 times for saying. So this is one way to get around the gag order.”

It’s a problem, though, if Trump is literally dictating what his self-declared surrogates are saying. And there’s reporting that suggests that is indeed the case.

On Monday, New York Magazine's Andrew Rice told MSNBC he witnessed the defendant in the courtroom appearing to edit the statements that his self-declared surrogates would go on to say. “I was sitting close enough that I could actually look over Trump’s shoulder and see what he was reading,” Rice recounted. As Michael Cohen testified, Trump was “going through and annotating and editing the quotes that these people were going to say," Rice said.

[emailking]

Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz have shown up at the trial today to support Mr. Trump.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/annabower/status/1791104019445760278https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1791104881811456506

[emailking]

Judge asks the jury if they are ok with working next Wednesday, which could mean he thinks they'll be in deliberations by then. Remember they have off tomorrow for Trump's son's graduation.