NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[emailking]

Blanche got Cohen to admit the outcome of the trial affects him personally. Yikes.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Blanche got Cohen to admit the outcome of the trial affects him personally. Yikes.

He can swear Cohen personally but there is too much collaborating witnesses and evidence backing his statements up

[soundchaser]

The defense is doing a much better job today, FWIW. Not sure it’s anything that can’t be overcome during redirect, but “Michael Cohen is an unrepentant liar, and he’s lying to you in his testimony” isn’t the WORST way to sow doubt.

[wbrocks67]

Blanche got Cohen to admit the outcome of the trial affects him personally. Yikes.

I mean, that's not too surprising? I would imagine everyone would believe he was lying if he said no.

The thing with Cohen is that he has a sordid past and is an admitted liar, but it's also perfectly normal for him to have a personal reaction to Trump's actions and how he was treated.

[EJ24]

The prosecution has been terrible here, let's be real. They have asked essentially nothing about the documents being falsified, which is what this case is supposed to rest on. I thought they spent way too much time in the Access Hollywood stuff with Stormy and Cohen.

And then today, the star witness Cohen has repeatedly admitted under oath how many times he's lied about everything. It ain't looking good.

There has been no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump ordered these documents to be falsified. And to be honest the whole thing just looks like a complete mess full of liars that Trump surrounded himself with. The only thing the defense has to do is introduce enough doubt, and they've done that.

[soundchaser]

The prosecution has Trump on tape managing the similar McDougal scheme, testimony from several members of the organization about how he micromanaged, and his signature on the checks. As far as the paper trail goes, they’ve done a pretty great job.

[emailking]

Blanche got Cohen to admit the outcome of the trial affects him personally. Yikes.

I mean, that's not too surprising? I would imagine everyone would believe he was lying if he said no.

The thing with Cohen is that he has a sordid past and is an admitted liar, but it's also perfectly normal for him to have a personal reaction to Trump's actions and how he was treated.

I figured the implication was that he'll be able to monetize it like he's made millions already. Blanche just moved on immediately and didn't give him a chance to clean it up.

[emailking]

The prosecution has been terrible here, let's be real. They have asked essentially nothing about the documents being falsified, which is what this case is supposed to rest on. I thought they spent way too much time in the Access Hollywood stuff with Stormy and Cohen.

And then today, the star witness Cohen has repeatedly admitted under oath how many times he's lied about everything. It ain't looking good.

There has been no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump ordered these documents to be falsified. And to be honest the whole thing just looks like a complete mess full of liars that Trump surrounded himself with. The only thing the defense has to do is introduce enough doubt, and they've done that.

Disagree on most points. I think we have good evidence they were falsified.

[brucejoel99]

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.

No dice:

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1791132826890371303

[wbrocks67]

Defense not bringing a case would really be a major issue for jurors imo. I've been a part of a jury before, and people take seriously the overarching things like that - which side presented more evidence than the other. The fact that the prosecution has had numerous witnesses and then the defense just kind of sits it out will be a key factor I think, and telling. Prosecution always starts from a better place just because of how trials are situated, but a defense without almost anybody gives them even more disadvantages.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Defense not bringing a case would really be a major issue for jurors imo. I've been a part of a jury before, and people take seriously the overarching things like that - which side presented more evidence than the other. The fact that the prosecution has had numerous witnesses and then the defense just kind of sits it out will be a key factor I think, and telling. Prosecution always starts from a better place just because of how trials are situated, but a defense without almost anybody gives them even more disadvantages.

When I was on a jury, the defense brought up only three "character witnesses" who were on the stand for less than 30 minutes combined and got thoroughly embarrassed by the prosecution's line of questioning - admitted they only rarely interacted with the defendant / hadn't seen her in years and didn't know why they were in a courtroom, essentially admitting they lied 30 seconds earlier when they said they spoke frequently about defendant's character.

The majority were firmly on the not guilty train before that happened and we still voted not guilty because it was the right verdict given the lack of a case by the state, but boy, we sure admitted it would have been much easier if the defense didn't completely embarrass themselves.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Defense not bringing a case would really be a major issue for jurors imo. I've been a part of a jury before, and people take seriously the overarching things like that - which side presented more evidence than the other. The fact that the prosecution has had numerous witnesses and then the defense just kind of sits it out will be a key factor I think, and telling. Prosecution always starts from a better place just because of how trials are situated, but a defense without almost anybody gives them even more disadvantages.

Not a lawyer but doesn't it seem like a no brainer for the prosecution to mention that fact?
So many people were involved in this case and yet nobody stepped up to defend Trump and explain why he is innocent.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I've also been on a jury where the defendant taking the stand really helped their case -- he was credible and seemed like an ordinary person, rather than the Jack the Ripper that the prosecution made him out to be.  I won't say it definitely made the difference (the state's case was fairly weak anyway) but it made a Not Guilty verdict a lot easier, and we talked about it as a point in the defendant's favor during deliberations.

[emailking]

So Trump should take the stand so the jury feels better about possibly concluding Cohen lied that Trump was briefed on the whole scheme 🤔

[Redban]

The prosecution has been terrible here, let's be real. They have asked essentially nothing about the documents being falsified, which is what this case is supposed to rest on. I thought they spent way too much time in the Access Hollywood stuff with Stormy and Cohen.

And then today, the star witness Cohen has repeatedly admitted under oath how many times he's lied about everything. It ain't looking good.

There has been no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump ordered these documents to be falsified. And to be honest the whole thing just looks like a complete mess full of liars that Trump surrounded himself with. The only thing the defense has to do is introduce enough doubt, and they've done that.

Disagree on most points. I think we have good evidence they were falsified.

I disagree. I don’t think they have shown that “legal services” was an obviously invalid or unreasonable way to characterize the payment. They offer some evidence that Trump did it to help his campaign instead of his marriage, citing his statements that Melania wouldn’t care and such.  So I guess the conclusion is that the payments should’ve been characterized as “campaign contribution” or something. But the prosecution hasn’t made that clear

170.05 requires  intent on Trump’s part. Was it so obvious that the payment wasn’t “legal services,” or do you have to go diving into technical legal hodgepodge to know that the payment shouldn’t have been characterized as “legal services.” When Trump wrote “legal services,” you don’t think he might’ve really believed “legal services” was a true and accurate way to characterize the payments? The prosecution hasn’t showed otherwise

[emailking]

The prosecution has been terrible here, let's be real. They have asked essentially nothing about the documents being falsified, which is what this case is supposed to rest on. I thought they spent way too much time in the Access Hollywood stuff with Stormy and Cohen.

And then today, the star witness Cohen has repeatedly admitted under oath how many times he's lied about everything. It ain't looking good.

There has been no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump ordered these documents to be falsified. And to be honest the whole thing just looks like a complete mess full of liars that Trump surrounded himself with. The only thing the defense has to do is introduce enough doubt, and they've done that.

Disagree on most points. I think we have good evidence they were falsified.

I disagree. I don’t think they have shown that “legal services” was an obviously invalid or unreasonable way to characterize the payment.

If it's legal services they don't need to plus it up to cover his tax hit.

[Redban]

If it's legal services they don't need to plus it up to cover his tax hit.

Huh? … the case is that he intentionally falsified business records by writing “legal services.” So you’re saying the prosecution doesn’t need to show that the payments were not actually legal services (and that Trump knew they weren’t “legal services”)?

You said there’s enough evidence that he falsified the business records. I don’t see it, nor do I see evidence of trump’s intent. A reasonable take is, simply, that Trump thought “legal services” was a true and accurate characterization

[emailking]

A juror has an appointment next Thursday and they're trying to get them to reschedule I guess.

[emailking]

If it's legal services they don't need to plus it up to cover his tax hit.

Huh? … the case is that he intentionally falsified business records by writing “legal services.” So you’re saying the prosecution doesn’t need to show that the payments were not actually legal services (and that Trump knew they weren’t “legal services”)?

You said there’s enough evidence that he falsified the business records. I don’t see it, nor do I see evidence of trump’s intent. A reasonable take is, simply, that Trump thought “legal services” was a true and accurate characterization

People's exhibit 35

[Agafin]

Anderson Cooper seems to be of the opinion that the trial  is going poorly for the prosecution.

https://twitter.com/_johnnymaga/status/1791163774960816421

[emailking]

They're definitely going to need a redirect.

[GeorgiaModerate]

We're in the home stretch:

https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1791200716150714417
https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1791201156573626494

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm probably going to jinx it, but here it goes: is it me? Or is this trial going unusually well for the prosecution?

Sorry all. I did jinx it.

Acquittal or hung jury is of course going to happen. Trump probably gets re-elected, and everything continues to suck.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I'm probably going to jinx it, but here it goes: is it me? Or is this trial going unusually well for the prosecution?

Sorry all. I did jinx it.

Acquittal or hung jury is of course going to happen. Trump probably gets re-elected, and everything continues to suck.

I think you are overreacting.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm probably going to jinx it, but here it goes: is it me? Or is this trial going unusually well for the prosecution?

Sorry all. I did jinx it.

Acquittal or hung jury is of course going to happen. Trump probably gets re-elected, and everything continues to suck.

I think you are overreacting.

I hope so, but this isnlt the development the prosecution needed in the home stretch.