Bragg doesn't even know what Trump did that was illegal, he's going to just bring various witnesses to embarrass Trump and hope that a deep blue jury has already made up its mind about the case before the evidence is even brought.
8:08a, 4/22/24
CNN live blog is HEREQuote:
Opening statements in Donald Trump's criminal New York hush money trial are set to begin this morning, more than a year after the former president was indicted in the case.
Trump has been accused of taking part in an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election and an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, which included a hush money payment made to an adult-film star to hide an affair. Trump has denied the affair.
Prosecutors allege that Trump allegedly disguised the transaction as a legal payment and falsified business records numerous times to "promote his candidacy." Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records. He has pleaded not guilty.
David Pecker, the former chairman of American Media Inc., which publishes the National Enquirer. Pecker will be the first witness called by the district attorney's office, according to a person familiar with the plans.
8:22a, 4/22/24
Reminder of what to expect today.
Quote:
The historic first criminal trial of former president and GOP front-runner Donald Trump which some have dubbed the trial of the century gets underway today with opening statements at 9:30 a.m. ET in Manhattan Criminal court.
Here's how the day could play out:The judge also said he'd rule Monday morning on what prosecutors can ask Trump if he testifies. Prosecutors say if Trump testifies, they want to use his past legal run-ins to discredit him to the jury this includes his Civil Fraud and E. Jean Carroll defamation verdicts among other legal run-ins. Trump's defense disputed every item the prosecutors wanted to bring up. Trump said again outside the courtroom Friday that he will testify.
- After opening statements, the prosecution will call its first witness, expected to be Trump's long-time friend and former chief executive of American Media David Pecker, according to a source familiar.
- Court will end at 2 p.m. ET today, due to the Passover holiday.
- Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Pecker, and Trump' former campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks are among the high-profile witnesses who are planning to be called by prosecutors, according to people familiar with the case. Other witnesses will include bankers and Trump Organization officials who handled the payments, lawyers-involved in the transaction, as well as other people who worked on Trump's campaign, the people said.
8:36a, 4/22/24
Quote:
The prosecution team has now entered the courtroom ahead of opening statements in the first criminal trial of former President Donald Trump.
Prosecutors Joshua Steinglass, Matthew Colangelo and Susan Hoffinger are seated at the table. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is also in the court. He is sitting in the front row behind his team.
First I have heard about tax law violations. Attorney billings have costs and fees. Law firm pays filing fees, deposition costs, expert witness fees, etc. and then bill them to the client or against a standing retainer. But those are still generally classified as legal expenses from an accounting standpoint.Quote:
Former President Donald Trump is on trial in Manhattan for his alleged role in a hush money scheme to silence his alleged mistresses before the 2016 election. He faces 34 counts related to "falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election."
Prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime, but they don't have to prove that Trump committed that crime. The prosecution theory is that the second crime could be in violation of federal and state election laws or state tax laws regarding how the reimbursements to Michael Cohen were handled.
Trump's attorneys have kept their defense close to the vest, but in court filings they've indicated that they plan to attack the credibility of Cohen and Stormy Daniels and paint them as liars who are motivated by grudges and money.
Trump's legal team is led by Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, two former federal prosecutors from New York, and Susan Necheles, a veteran criminal defense lawyer with deep experience in New York and before Merchan. Necheles represented Trump's business at its tax fraud trial in 2022. The company was convicted.
Outside lawyers who have been following the case closely say Trump is likely to argue that hush money payments are legal and distance the former president from the repayment scheme and bookkeeping handled by his trusted employees. They may also argue the payments were made to prevent embarrassment to Trump's family and not to influence the election. Trump could also testify in his own defense. He has testified in two recent civil trials, after regretting not taking the stand in a prior civil trial, but the stakes are higher in a criminal case.
8:44a, 4/22/24
Quote:
A juror who expressed concerns about media attention is staying on the panel, Judge Juan Merchan said.
"Juror number nine is going to remain with us," Merchan said, noting "that's not going to be an issue."
8:57a, 4/22/24
In reply to aggiehawg
From what I have gathered from your posts is that it seems that the judge saying that the law says that if he's found guilty of not properly accounting for the NDA payment, he's covering up a crime, thus is guilty, even if no crime actually has been proven.
Will this end up being a complicated presentation? I mean, if all that has to be proven is that an NDA happened, the complications around that seem pretty easy.aggiehawg said:I have no doubt that corporate lawyer in that field is very familiar with confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, probably non-compete contracts as well. They are used routinely when parties are looking for financing for their businesses.Quote:
Lawyers are called for jury duty like anyone else, but they rarely serve as jurors, and it's "totally uncommon" to see two or more lawyers on a single jury, said trial consultant Charli Morris.
But of the seven jurors selected for Trump's hush money trial so far, one is a civil litigator at a large white-shoe law firm, and another is a corporate lawyer at a firm focused on start-ups and venture capital. Five more jurors, plus about six alternates, will be selected in the coming days.
The civil litigator is also familiar with NDAs as part of settlement agreements even for nuisance suits.LINKQuote:
Typically, prosecutors and defense lawyers alike try to keep lawyers off juries, fearing heightened scrutiny from members of their own profession. But in a Manhattan jury pool that is largely seen as unfavorable to the former president, Trump's legal team might see a silver lining in having lawyers on the jury.
I would love, love, love to be selected for a jury. Will never happen, of course. And I myself only allowed one lawyer on a federal antitrust trial we were defending. Such a complex case with antitrust issues and a short timeframe for trial (about 4 days as I recall).
There did come a point during the plaintiff's rebuttal which was disastrous for their case that the lawyer looked over at our counsel table and smiled and he was trying not to laugh out loud by putting his hand over his mouth and chin. Plaintiffs were dead in the water with that one awful witness.
From what I have gathered from your posts is that it seems that the judge saying that the law says that if he's found guilty of not properly accounting for the NDA payment, he's covering up a crime, thus is guilty, even if no crime actually has been proven.
LOL OLD
8:58a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan said that if Donald Trump takes the stand, the court will allow prosecutors "to inquire into the following six determinations including four separate proceedings."
He is now reading through them.
He will allow Trump to be cross-examined on the civil fraud verdict that found he violated the law by fraudulently inflating the value of his properties and was ordered to pay penalties.
Merchan will also allow prosecutors to ask Trump about the two violations of Judge Arthur Engoron's gag order during the trial last fall.
Let the three ring circus begin.Quote:
Prosecutors will be permitted to ask former President Donald Trump about both E. Jean Carroll verdicts in federal court where juries found that Trump defamed her when he denied her rape allegations.
8:59a, 4/22/24
In reply to aggiehawg
aggiehawg said:
Reminder of what to expect today.Quote:
The historic first criminal trial of former president and GOP front-runner Donald Trump which some have dubbed the trial of the century gets underway today with opening statements at 9:30 a.m. ET in Manhattan Criminal court.
Here's how the day could play out:The judge also said he'd rule Monday morning on what prosecutors can ask Trump if he testifies. Prosecutors say if Trump testifies, they want to use his past legal run-ins to discredit him to the jury this includes his Civil Fraud and E. Jean Carroll defamation verdicts among other legal run-ins. Trump's defense disputed every item the prosecutors wanted to bring up. Trump said again outside the courtroom Friday that he will testify.
- After opening statements, the prosecution will call its first witness, expected to be Trump's long-time friend and former chief executive of American Media David Pecker, according to a source familiar.
- Court will end at 2 p.m. ET today, due to the Passover holiday.
- Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Pecker, and Trump' former campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks are among the high-profile witnesses who are planning to be called by prosecutors, according to people familiar with the case. Other witnesses will include bankers and Trump Organization officials who handled the payments, lawyers-involved in the transaction, as well as other people who worked on Trump's campaign, the people said.
Doesn't that pretty much apply to EVERY witness the Prosecution is going to put forward?Quote:
Prosecutors say if Trump testifies, they want to use his past legal run-ins to discredit him to the jury
LOL OLD
9:00a, 4/22/24
Will we find out the felony today? I still don't understand how that is hidden from the defense at this point.
9:04a, 4/22/24
In reply to Science Denier
But Bragg (actually Biden lackey Colangelo) crafted (created really) a felony that has a longer statute of limitations and would not be time barred. It is the predicate crime that supposedly supports the elevation to a felony that remains unclear.
A bit more complicaed than that. The alleged improper accounting is a misdemeanor under NY law. Those misdemeanors are time barred by the statute of limitations.Quote:
From what I have gathered from your posts is that it seems that the judge saying that the law says that if he's found guilty of not properly accounting for the NDA payment, he's covering up a crime, thus is guilty, even if no crime actually has been proven.
But Bragg (actually Biden lackey Colangelo) crafted (created really) a felony that has a longer statute of limitations and would not be time barred. It is the predicate crime that supposedly supports the elevation to a felony that remains unclear.
9:05a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan also ruled the 2022 Trump Organization tax fraud conviction is also off-limits for prosecutors if Donald Trump testifies.
The judge is also not allowing prosecutors to ask Trump about the ruling in Florida when the judge sanctioned Trump for filing a frivolous lawsuit against Hilary Clinton.
9:09a, 4/22/24
If the blog style is cumbersome to follow or you just don't want to give CNN the clicks, two great X-accounts that give a solid play by play:
I'm Gipper
Justice Merchan: We will mark certain objects as exhibits... The defendant may, but is not required to, present evidence. The Defendant is presumed to be innocent. The People must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) April 22, 2024
And the Trump trial has begun...
— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 22, 2024
The People have advised that their Opening Statement will take 45 minutes.
The defense says 25 minutes for its Opening.
I'm Gipper
9:15a, 4/22/24
In reply to aggiehawg
So, does the prosecution have to prove the improper accounting was to cover up for a felony or not? Seems that's the hurdle. Does the jury decide that or the judge? Seems that's the determination if the improper accounting is actually a felony or misdemeanor, if I understand what has been posted on this thread.aggiehawg said:A bit more complicated than that. The alleged improper accounting is a misdemeanor under NY law. Those misdemeanors are time barred by the statute of limitations.Quote:
From what I have gathered from your posts is that it seems that the judge saying that the law says that if he's found guilty of not properly accounting for the NDA payment, he's covering up a crime, thus is guilty, even if no crime actually has been proven.
But Bragg (actually Biden lackey Colangelo) crafted (created really) a felony that has a longer statute of limitations and would not be time barred. It is the predicate crime that supposedly supports the elevation to a felony that remains unclear.
LOL OLD
9:36a, 4/22/24
In reply to Science Denier
There has been some speculation that if the jury is given a lesser included instruction on misdemeanor charges (which were not brought in this indictment) the jury will have an off ramp to convict him of something, not realizing that conviction would be immediately overturned because of the statute of limitations. There are two lawyers on the jury, one a civil litigator with a white shoe law firm an the other a corporate lawyer in the venture capital field.
The civil litigator will be very familiar with statute of limitation questions as well as the overall legality of confidentiality agreements and NDAs often used in the settlement of civil cases. The venture capital guy will also have familiarity with confidentiality and NDA agreements concomitant to raising capital.
One last wildcard, the judge is constrained in only delivering jury instructions on matters that were raised at trial and it is the judge that decides when there was enough evidence adduced at trial to require an instruction. A lot talk and references to the underlying misdemeanors even though not charged presents a dilemma for him. He knows they are time barred and thus why they were not present within the indictment but the jury (excluding the two lawyers) will not.
My gut tells me Merchan will not give any instruction on lesser included offenses and I think that is proper here. but the fact we are even having to talk about this indicates how weak this case is. Too many leaps over gaping holes to get to the felony charges. How do the instructions present a pathway for the jury to get there?
There's a few issues here. The judge decides (after counsel argument) which jury instructions will be given to the jury. So in that sense, it is the judge. Those instructions may or may not have what is called lesser included offenses, a lower level of crime.Quote:
So, does the prosecution have to prove the improper accounting was to cover up for a felony or not? Seems that's the hurdle. Does the jury decide that or the judge? Seems that's the determination if the improper accounting is actually a felony or misdemeanor, if I understand what has been posted on this thread.
There has been some speculation that if the jury is given a lesser included instruction on misdemeanor charges (which were not brought in this indictment) the jury will have an off ramp to convict him of something, not realizing that conviction would be immediately overturned because of the statute of limitations. There are two lawyers on the jury, one a civil litigator with a white shoe law firm an the other a corporate lawyer in the venture capital field.
The civil litigator will be very familiar with statute of limitation questions as well as the overall legality of confidentiality agreements and NDAs often used in the settlement of civil cases. The venture capital guy will also have familiarity with confidentiality and NDA agreements concomitant to raising capital.
One last wildcard, the judge is constrained in only delivering jury instructions on matters that were raised at trial and it is the judge that decides when there was enough evidence adduced at trial to require an instruction. A lot talk and references to the underlying misdemeanors even though not charged presents a dilemma for him. He knows they are time barred and thus why they were not present within the indictment but the jury (excluding the two lawyers) will not.
My gut tells me Merchan will not give any instruction on lesser included offenses and I think that is proper here. but the fact we are even having to talk about this indicates how weak this case is. Too many leaps over gaping holes to get to the felony charges. How do the instructions present a pathway for the jury to get there?
9:40a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo began the opening statements with a focus on the case against former President Donald Trump.
"This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a coverup," Colangelo said.
"The defendant Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again."
Quote:
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said that the "conspiracy began" a few months after Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2015 at a meeting with Trump, David Pecker and Michael Cohen.Colangelo said that the conspiracy extended to payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels by Cohen, just weeks before the 2016 election.Quote:
They "formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected," Colangelo said.
Quote:
Assistant district attorney Matthew Colangelo says Michael Cohen made the hush money payment "at the defendant's direction and he did it to influence the presidential election."
After the election, Donald Trump reimbursed Cohen for that payment, and they "disguised what the payments were for," the prosecutor added in his opening statement.
Trump "said in business records that he was paying Cohen for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement. But those were lies. There was no retainer agreement," Colangelo.
9:50a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo raised the stories the National Enquirer ran to attack Donald Trump's political opponents, including accusing Ben Carson of medical malpractice and accusing GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of "sexual infidelity," and of "having some family connection to the JFK assassination."
"They used a practice called catch and kill," he told the jury.The first one was the $30,000 payment to the former doorman of Trump Tower who alleged Trump fathered a child. "It was the first time that David Pecker had every paid anyone for information about Donald Trump," he told the juryQuote:
"It's a way of buying damaging information not to publish it, but to hide it, make it go away, and in this case, help the candidate," Colangelo said.
Colangelo then described the second catch and kill deal, involving Karen McDougal.
Colangelo said the evidence will show that Trump was informed about the McDougal situation, and "the defendant desperately did not want this information about Karen McDougal to become public because he was concerned about the election."
Quote:
In a 2015 meeting, Donald Trump, Michael Cohen and David Pecker, the ex-publisher of the National Enquirer, agreed that Pecker "would help the defendant's campaign," prosecutor Matthew Colangelo says in his opening statement.
The scheme was three-pronged. Colangelo said: Pecker agreed to help Trump kill negative stories on Trump, publish favorable stories about Trump and publish negative stories about Trump's political opponents.
They agreed that AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, would use the magazine to prevent harmful information from becoming public and publish flattering stories about Trump, Colangelo said. Silencing the harmful stories was the "core" of the conspiracy," he said.
9:52a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo says that David Pecker, the former chairman of the National Enquirer's parent company, was "not acting as a publisher, he was acting as a co-conspirator."
Colangelo is laying out stories associated with the then-chairman and CEO of American Media Inc., Pecker, who was involved in numerous "catch-and-kill" schemes orchestrated on Trump's behalf.
Pecker was a central player in the alleged scheme to pay hush money to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to cover up her alleged affair with Trump ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
9:54a, 4/22/24
Lesser included crime would never apply in this situation. Lesser included crime is when another crime can be proved by establishing all or some of the same fact. Classic example is assault as lesser included offense to murder.Quote:
So in that sense, it is the judge. Those instructions may or may not have what is called lesser included offenses, a lower level of crime.
This has nothing to do with lesser included. It has to do with "another crime."
As previously addressed, the NY model jury instructions do NOT include instruction on what the other crime was.
17.10 is the relevant one here:
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/art175hp2.shtml
I'm Gipper
9:57a, 4/22/24
It seems Pecker will be the key to their case:
I do not know when they are calling him, but to me it would not be wise to call him first in a trial expected to take over a month.
I'm Gipper
Prosecutor: You will hear David Pecker testify about his conversations with Donald Trump about McDougal. But Trump didn't pay, and Pecker was frustrated. Cohen recorded a conversation with Donald Trump. You will here it. Cohen spoke with Allen Weiselberg
— Inner City Press (@innercitypress) April 22, 2024
I do not know when they are calling him, but to me it would not be wise to call him first in a trial expected to take over a month.
I'm Gipper
10:00a, 4/22/24
now do the MSM and any (D)Quote:
The scheme was three-pronged. Colangelo said: Pecker agreed to help Trump kill negative stories on Trump, publish favorable stories about Trump and publish negative stories about Trump's political opponents.
They agreed that AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, would use the magazine to prevent harmful information from becoming public and publish flattering stories about Trump, Colangelo said. Silencing the harmful stories was the "core" of the conspiracy," he said.
I wanna see our defense pissed off, not confused, maybe a little murder in their hearts
Reload12, 11/4/11
10:02a, 4/22/24
In reply to Im Gipper
Some serious 5th and 6th amendment issues here.
This is what doesn't make sense. How can a jury (at least a fair jury and there is some doubt as to the notion we have one here) convict him if they're not instructed on what the "other crime" is much less him being convicted of said "other crime".Im Gipper said:Lesser included crime would never apply in this situation. Lesser included crime is when another crime can be proved by establishing all or some of the same fact. Classic example is assault as lesser included offense to murder.Quote:
So in that sense, it is the judge. Those instructions may or may not have what is called lesser included offenses, a lower level of crime.
This has nothing to do with lesser included. It has to do with "another crime."
As previously addressed, the NY model jury instructions do NOT include instruction on what the other crime was.
17.10 is the relevant one here:
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/art175hp2.shtml
Some serious 5th and 6th amendment issues here.
10:05a, 4/22/24
In reply to EllisCoAg
They're basically saying "He's a bad sneaky, lying, orange man!"
Here's the problem with that. They're not saying exactly what statute he's violating regarding this. That's because there is none.EllisCoAg said:Quote:
The scheme was three-pronged. Colangelo said: Pecker agreed to help Trump kill negative stories on Trump, publish favorable stories about Trump and publish negative stories about Trump's political opponents.
They agreed that AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, would use the magazine to prevent harmful information from becoming public and publish flattering stories about Trump, Colangelo said. Silencing the harmful stories was the "core" of the conspiracy," he said.
They're basically saying "He's a bad sneaky, lying, orange man!"
10:12a, 4/22/24
In reply to aggiehawg
This is ****ing sick.Quote:Quote:
Prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime, but they don't have to prove that Trump committed that crime.
10:18a, 4/22/24
Is it illegal to do an NDA/pay hush money to keep an embarrasing story from coming to light? People do that all the time. Are people running for president required by law to disclose every unsavory tidbit of their lives?
I know the prosecution is saying this is a conspiracy but to me a conspiracy implies an illegal act was committed and they conspired to cover up the illegal act.
I know the prosecution is saying this is a conspiracy but to me a conspiracy implies an illegal act was committed and they conspired to cover up the illegal act.
10:19a, 4/22/24
In reply to AggieUSMC
Goof thing for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland that republicans don't have Constitutional protections in New York anymore.Quote:
This is what doesn't make sense. How can a jury (at least a fair jury and there is some doubt as to the notion we have one here) convict him if they're not instructed on what the "other crime" is much less him being convicted of said "other crime".
Some serious 5th and 6th amendment issues here.
10:24a, 4/22/24
In reply to aggiehawg
Verbal (oral) agreements are legal in NY.
aggiehawg said:Quote:
Trump "said in business records that he was paying Cohen for legal services pursuant to a retainer agreement. But those were lies. There was no retainer agreement," Colangelo.
Verbal (oral) agreements are legal in NY.
10:24a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo acknowledged the jury will hear that Michael Cohen, like other witnesses who will testify at trial, "has made mistakes in his past."
"During this trial, you will hear a lot about Michael Cohen," he said.
"I suspect the defense will go to great lengths to get you to reject his testimony, precisely because it is so damning," Colangelo said.
Jurors will hear about Cohen's criminal conviction for campaign finance violations, tax crimes and lying to Congress, Colangelo told jurors during his opening statement.
The jury will also see that Cohen is "publicly committed to making sure the defendant is held accountable for his role in this conspiracy."
Quote:
Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo tells the jury in former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial that they will need to keep an open mind when assessing Michael Cohen's testimony.
"You'll need to keep an open mind and carefully evaluate all of the evidence that corroborates Michael Cohen's testimony," Colangelo said.Quote:
"Cohen's testimony will be backed up," by testimony from other witnesses and an extensive paper trail, including bank records, phone logs, business documents and other records," he added.
Quote:
Defense attorney Todd Blanche described his client as "larger than life" but noted he's in court to defense himself.
"You have seen him for years and years and years," Blanche said. "He is in some ways larger than life."
"But he's also here in this courtroom, doing what any of us would do, defending himself," Blanche said.
Quote:
Defense attorney Todd Blanche said that his team will call Trump "President Trump" out of respect, a title he "has earned because he was our 45th president."
He adds, "He's a man. He's a husband. He's a father. He's a person just like you and just like me."
Quote:
Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche said that prosecutors just told what appears "to be a very clean, nice story," but that "it is not simple, as the people just described."
Blanche said that what prosecutor Matthew Colangelo just told the jury is not true, and the jury will find "plenty of reasonable doubt."
10:25a, 4/22/24
In reply to Ellis Wyatt
It's not just sick, it's wrong. That's a clear 5th, and 6th amendment violation.Ellis Wyatt said:This is ****ing sick.Quote:Quote:
Prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime, but they don't have to prove that Trump committed that crime.
Quote:
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
A conviction assumes he's guilty of the predicate crime and all defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence. If he's not charged and convicted of the predicate crime, he can't be found guilty of these crimes.Quote:
Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
10:31a, 4/22/24
How worried are any of you that this trial will be successful as a form of election interference?
In 2000, Florida came down to 500 votes and if Biden won the tipping point state by 500 votes, you could attribute that to this trial
In 2000, Florida came down to 500 votes and if Biden won the tipping point state by 500 votes, you could attribute that to this trial
10:34a, 4/22/24
Colangelo was repeatedly talking about conspiracy. Where are the charges for conspiracy?Quote:
Defense lawyer Todd Blanche is now walking through the checks that were cut for Michael Cohen in 2017 after he became Donald Trump's personal attorney.
"The 34 counts, ladies and gentlemen, are really just pieces of paper," Blanche said.
"None of this was a crime," he added.
Blanche acknowledged adult film start Stormy Daniels did in fact sign an NDA in October 2016 in exchange for $130,000.
Blanche suggests that the payments to Cohen "were not a payback."
The heart of the case: Trump was charged by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office last year with 34 counts of falsifying business records. The charges stem from reimbursements made to Cohen for hush money payments he made before the 2016 election to Daniels. The former president has pleaded not guilty and denied the affair.
Each criminal charge Trump is facing relates to a specific entry among the business records of the Trump Organization, according to the indictment. Prosecutors accuse Trump of repeatedly causing false entries in the business records.
10:38a, 4/22/24
In reply to 4stringAg
No it is not illegal to have a non-disclosure agreement, to hide an affair/relationship/matter. The entirety of the allegation is that he did not properly report it from an accounting perspective, which after the fact NY changed to make such an accounting error/fraud into a felony, to allow this to become a case. The insinuations/allegations about a conspiracy to somehow impact the election are…just for show.4stringAg said:
Is it illegal to do an NDA/pay hush money to keep an embarrasing story from coming to light? People do that all the time. Are people running for president required by law to disclose every unsavory tidbit of their lives?
I know the prosecution is saying this is a conspiracy but to me a conspiracy implies an illegal act was committed and they conspired to cover up the illegal act.
10:39a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Defense attorney Todd Blanche said he expects a Trump accountant to testify at trial.
He said the prosecutors won't suggest that the Trump Organization accounting department employee who filed the Michael Cohen payment records on Trump's ledgers did anything wrong when she entered the ledger records or cut the checks.
"You'll learn that President Trump had nothing to do with any of the 34 pieces of paper … except he signed the checks," Blanche told jurors.
"The reality is Mr Trump is not on the hook is not criminally responsible for something Mr. Cohen may have done years after the fact," he said.
The employee "isn't going to say she had any conversations with President Trump, 'Hey, how should I book this?' You won't hear any of that. Her boss, he's not going to say he talked to President Trump about it."
Quote:
"I have a spoiler alert: There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy," Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche said of accusations the payments were trying to illicitly influence the 2016 election.
Quote:
Defense attorney Todd Blanche said his team will cross examine some witnesses called by the prosecution a lot and some very little.
One witness the jury will hear a lot about is Michael Cohen, he said.
Blanche said Cohen wanted a job in the administration after the 2016 election but didn't get one.
10:47a, 4/22/24
Quote:
Michael Cohen is "obsessed with President Trump, even to this day," attorney Todd Blanche told jurors, noting Cohen's podcast and other public commentary.
"He has a goal, an obsession with getting President Trump," Blanche said.
"I submit to you that he cannot be trusted."
Quote:
The Manhattan district attorney's office objected to two statements about Michael Cohen lying, which Judge Juan Merchan sustained.
He asked lawyers to approach the bench.
Blanche accused Cohen of perjuring himself at Trump's civil fraud trial last fall.
The objection was sustained. Blanche continues.
I noted that before when discussing whether Cohen should also be subject to a gag order regarding this case.Quote:
Donald Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury they cannot make a serious decision about Trump based on Michael Cohen's testimony.
Cohen has written several books and frequently appears in media, Blanche said. "His entire financial livelihood depends on President's Trump's destruction," he added.
"You cannot make a serious decision about President Trump relying on the words of Michael Cohen," Blanche said.