NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1793022968639221809

Contempt proceedings tonite queen?

[Sir Mohamed]

Any predictions for the outcome so far? I have a feeling we're getting a hung jury.

[brucejoel99]

Around what date will we have a verdict?

Probably late next week or early the following one.

Why so long?

They're already off 'til Tues. so the long Memorial Day weekend doesn't necessitate breaking every upcoming stage of the process up, instead it's just a nice-&-easy uninterrupted glide path to summations on Tues., jury instructions on Wed. morning, & then deliberations start.

[Sir Mohamed]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1793022968639221809

Contempt proceedings tonite queen?

As if we needed more proof how depraved Mr. Trump is as a character.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1793022968639221809
Contempt proceedings tonite queen?

As if we needed more proof how depraved Mr. Trump is as a character.

Merchan was born in Colombia, but has lived in the US since he was a small boy.

You know who else born in Colombia?  Aileen Cannon.

[emailking]

Contempt proceedings tonite queen?

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

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1793022968639221809

Contempt proceedings tonite queen?

As if we needed more proof how depraved Mr. Trump is as a character.

Or how unabashedly depraved his supporters are.

[Ljube]

Let's consider if the prosecution has proved the falsification of business records.
There are three classes of counts in the indictment:
1) Falsified invoices from Michael Cohen
2) Wrong entries in the General Ledger
3) Checks written to Michael Cohen

Entries and checks all correspond to invoices.
Entries are made correctly if the invoices are correct.
The same applies to checks.

Therefore, we need to see if falsified invoices from Michael Cohen represent falsified business records of the Trump Organization.
To prove this, there must be proof of a conspiracy to defraud and the proof of that is the memo from the meeting between Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg where reimbursements to Michael Cohen were discussed.
However, we have no documentary proof that Trump approved this arrangement. The only proof of that is Cohen's testimony.

One logical question comes to mind: Why was Weisselberg not called to testify?
A possible conclusion: He was not called because he would have provided exculpatory evidence for Trump, i.e. testify Trump didn't know anything about it.

This is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, if I were Trump's lawyer, I would still ask for inclusion of the misdemeanor charges as that would give the jury an easy compromise and a swift misdemeanor conviction. The risk to Trump of a felony conviction is too great if he tries to go for a win.

[Meclazine for Israel]

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.

Didn't quote Bruce for that reason, nor did I even ever think that about him.

Appreciate his analysis enormously as a legal talent on the forum.

My plans are far more sinister.

[SnowLabrador]

Any predictions for the outcome so far? I have a feeling we're getting a hung jury.

Same here.

[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.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

It’s still unclear to me why Weisselberg couldn’t have just been forced to testify by granting him immunity.  Under this scenario, he’d be in contempt of court if he tried to avoid testifying.   It would have at least been good to have him on the witness stand to see his demeanor.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It’s still unclear to me why Weisselberg couldn’t have just been forced to testify by granting him immunity.  Under this scenario, he’d be in contempt of court if he tried to avoid testifying.   It would have at least been good to have him on the witness stand to see his demeanor.

Because he would have just committed perjury again, lying to protect Donald in return for even more time in jail.

[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.

[brucejoel99]

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.

And even if the prosecution doesn't have Weisselberg locked into particular statements that'd help them prove their case against Trump, or documented evidence that Weisselberg couldn't hope to deny on cross-examination with any shred of credibility, the defense isn't entitled to what they'd really love out of this, the "missing witness" jury instruction to infer the prosecution didn't call him because his testimony would have been exculpatory, because Weisselberg wasn't solely for the prosecution to call; the defense could've too, & they didn't.

[emailking]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Wouldn't that Weisselberg has already been convicted and served his sentence mean he could not take the fifth? He's not at risk of further prosecution because of double jeopardy, so he's in the same boat as people granted immunity or a pardon. Although it's probably true he wouldn't be a useful witness for either side.

[brucejoel99]

Wouldn't that Weisselberg has already been convicted and served his sentence mean he could not take the fifth? He's not at risk of further prosecution because of double jeopardy, so he's in the same boat as people granted immunity or a pardon. Although it's probably true he wouldn't be a useful witness for either side.

He got 5 months for Trump Org. fraud & 5 months for perjury in Trump's civil fraud trial, he's technically at risk of prosecution here without grand-jury immunity (& he wasn't called there for the same reason that he hasn't been called up at trial: he's too unreliable for both sides).

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1793684610255089912https://twitter.com/astoraaron/status/1793605128546898199

[Landslide Lyndon]

I wonder whether the change in numbers is a result of a differing enthusiasm gap or if there are really out there so many people whose mind would change with a conviction.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Has any pollster asked how people's vote would be affected if Trump were actually in prison on Election Day?

[brucejoel99]

Has any pollster asked how people's vote would be affected if Trump were actually in prison on Election Day?

Not in that wording, the closest polling has come to my knowledge is majorities of voters in 7 swing states saying they'd be unwilling to vote Trump if he's convicted of a crime (53%) or sentenced to prison (55%) in any of his 4 cases, per a Jan. Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Has any pollster asked how people's vote would be affected if Trump were actually in prison on Election Day?

Not in that wording, the closest polling has come to my knowledge is majorities of voters in 7 swing states saying they'd be unwilling to vote Trump if he's convicted of a crime (53%) or sentenced to prison in any of his 4 cases, per a Jan. Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll.

Polls lie as I said all the time they said Walker was gonna beat Warnock, and Laxalt was gonna beat CCM and NV and AZ polls have been terrible as far as polling, I travel to CO, AZ, NV and NM which equals TX EC votes with WA and OR and they are more D than TX R that's why your endorsed candidate Allred is gonna lose by 11 like Beto voters don't care about Football in TX. They care about guns which Cruz stands for

[Ljube]

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.

And even if the prosecution doesn't have Weisselberg locked into particular statements that'd help them prove their case against Trump, or documented evidence that Weisselberg couldn't hope to deny on cross-examination with any shred of credibility, the defense isn't entitled to what they'd really love out of this, the "missing witness" jury instruction to infer the prosecution didn't call him because his testimony would have been exculpatory, because Weisselberg wasn't solely for the prosecution to call; the defense could've too, & they didn't.

The defense doesn't have the obligation to present any case.
The prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not calling Weisselberg creates an opening for a reasonable doubt.

They could have offered him a deal and sealed the case. And they didn't.

Of course, this doesn't go into the jury instructions, but this will be in jurors' minds.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1793684610255089912https://twitter.com/astoraaron/status/1793605128546898199

Come on, New York jury! Help save the country!