NY: Trump on Trial!

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1786467460260012209https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1786468488816496885

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I will never truly forgive 46% of the electorate for voting for him a month after “when you’re a star they let you do it, grab them by the pussy”.

Nor should anyone.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Lawyer folks: what's your take on Hope Hicks breaking down in tears on the witness stand?

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/molcranenewman/status/1786480464326242698https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1786481141270094304

Lawyer folks: what's your take on Hope Hicks breaking down in tears on the witness stand?

She feels bad for betraying the guy who gave her the opportunity of a lifetime.

[President Johnson]

I will never truly forgive 46% of the electorate for voting for him a month after “when you’re a star they let you do it, grab them by the pussy”.

Nor should anyone.

Could be 46% again after Trump revealed to be a traitor that attempted to subvert the will of electorate via a coup attempt.

[emailking]

Merchan seems pretty fair to me. Like Chutkan.

[emailking]

Lawyer folks: what's your take on Hope Hicks breaking down in tears on the witness stand?

She feels bad for betraying the guy who gave her the opportunity of a lifetime.

This seems to be Lisa Rubin's take on air too who was in the courtroom. She's broken up about doing this to someone to whom she was devoted.

[7,052,770]

Lawyer folks: what's your take on Hope Hicks breaking down in tears on the witness stand?

She feels bad for betraying the guy who gave her the opportunity of a lifetime.

This seems to be Lisa Rubin's take on air too who was in the courtroom. She's broken up about doing this to someone to whom she was devoted.

Pretty silly. He'd do it to her without a second thought.

[brucejoel99]

Lawyer folks: what's your take on Hope Hicks breaking down in tears on the witness stand?

She feels bad for betraying the guy who gave her the opportunity of a lifetime.

This seems to be Lisa Rubin's take on air too who was in the courtroom. She's broken up about doing this to someone to whom she was devoted.

Which further implies that she recognizes the gravity of her truthful testimony being hella corroborating:

https://twitter.com/aweissmann_/status/1786475549059121374

BREAKING: COUP DE GRAS from Hicks:

Hicks says Trump told her Cohen on his own paid Stormy to protect him- so Trump eventually learns of the hush money payoffs, on this telling, which means that later, labelling Trump's reimbursement payments as ongoing "legal fees" would be false. ‬

‪Bonus: Hicks says it's not like Cohen to make the Stormy payments out of the goodness of his heart and to not take credit.  Ie all the testimony about what a louse Cohen is plays into the DA's case.‬

‪Hicks adds that Trump said it was better that this is coming out now and not before the election- another nail in the coffin.‬

[Progressive Pessimist]

I will never truly forgive 46% of the electorate for voting for him a month after “when you’re a star they let you do it, grab them by the pussy”.

In a just world that really should have been the end of him.

[Beet]

A find it a wee bit interesting that so many of these attractive young female Republican staffers who were common around Trump in his first term seem to hate his guts.

[Progressive Pessimist]

A find it a wee bit interesting that so many of these attractive young female Republican staffers who were common around Trump in his first term seem to hate his guts.

That isn't the least bit surprising. It's the same with some of the female Fox News anchors. Fake it 'til you make it, then when you're free or had enough you can finally be yourself.

[soundchaser]

Come on, Weissmann — it’s “coup de grâce”

[2016]

Braggs Case is falling apart. Maybe Trump will be aquitted after all just like John Edwards was all those years ago.

[emailking]

Braggs Case is falling apart. Maybe Trump will be aquitted after all just like John Edwards was all those years ago.

Consensus from legal experts I've heard today is that the prosecution significantly advanced their case this week especially with Hick's testimony. I've heard some viewpoints that she also gave some nuggets that help the defense.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Braggs Case is falling apart. Maybe Trump will be aquitted after all just like John Edwards was all those years ago.

Consensus from legal experts I've heard today is that the prosecution significantly advanced their case this week especially with Hick's testimony. I've heard some viewpoints that she also gave some nuggets that help the defense.

The only help I've seen that helps the defense is that she suggested Trump cared about his family finding out about the philandering. But if he cared so much wouldn't he have not indulged in the shamekess hedonism in the first place?

[Ferguson97]

In a just world that really should have been the end of him.

In a just world, making fun of that disabled reporter would have been the end of it.

[brucejoel99]

Braggs Case is falling apart. Maybe Trump will be aquitted after all just like John Edwards was all those years ago.

Consensus from legal experts I've heard today is that the prosecution significantly advanced their case this week especially with Hick's testimony. I've heard some viewpoints that she also gave some nuggets that help the defense.

https://twitter.com/alegalnerd/status/1786535929710305409

The jurors are going to have no difficulty in deciding why Hicks cried: She felt guilty about having to testify about Trump's bold-faced lies. Her testimony will resonate powerfully with the jury. Trump's sunk -- on the facts & the law. [...]

I've personally tried 100+ jury trials. I've supervised the prosecution of 100s of jury trials. I know what impact emotion can have on jurors. The P[eople] v. T[rump] jurors are going to despise T[rump] for putting Hope Hicks through her internal turmoil in order to protect himself. T[rump]'s done.

>Replying to: "Hard to interpret crying if you didn't see it in person. IMO there are a lot of moving parts in the prosecution's "election interference" theory of the case. I think they were hoping Hicks would directly tie payment to election. She didn't. They may need to shift to tax fraud."

No shift necessary. Regardless of my opinion on whether DA should have brought the prosecution, the facts & law (Merchan's jury instructions) will lead to 175.10 felony convictions. T[rump]'s only "Hope," hung jury. But, significant appellate issues.

If convicted, it'll be quite the show to watch the legal team raise stuff like FECA & evidentiary Molineux/Sandoval issues on appeal.

[Badger]

Any idea on the time frame of this trial? When is it expected to conclude? Will there be additional delay tactics?

Not sure what you mean by delay tactics, but I think the ballpark estimate was 6-8 weeks -- so we likely have at least two more weeks minimum.

By delay tactics, I mean filing frivolous motions, calling unnecessary witnesses, firing lawyers, etc. Anything to either prolong the trial or cause a mistrial

Got it.  Yeah I think six to eight weeks total was the ballpark estimate, but who knows?

I still don't believe this case ultimately ends up before the jury. Either Team Trump finds something that ties the judges hands and forces a mistrial or there's a plea down to misdemeanors.

Yeah, but you've been blathering on with that same line of bull inks without an ounce of basis for literally months now. So why don't you either bring something to the table rather than your random baseless speculation?

[brucejoel99]

Any idea on the time frame of this trial? When is it expected to conclude? Will there be additional delay tactics?

Not sure what you mean by delay tactics, but I think the ballpark estimate was 6-8 weeks -- so we likely have at least two more weeks minimum.

By delay tactics, I mean filing frivolous motions, calling unnecessary witnesses, firing lawyers, etc. Anything to either prolong the trial or cause a mistrial

Got it.  Yeah I think six to eight weeks total was the ballpark estimate, but who knows?

I still don't believe this case ultimately ends up before the jury. Either Team Trump finds something that ties the judges hands and forces a mistrial or there's a plea down to misdemeanors.

Yeah, but you've been blathering on with that same line of bull inks without an ounce of basis for literally months now. So why don't you either bring something to the table rather than your random baseless speculation?

It's so funny how the 1 weird trick has to be something mysteriously tying the judge's hands, or accepting a plea down to misdemeanors that hasn't even been offered, instead of just.. pulling a John Edwards & convincing a juror that the hush-money payment's primary purpose was for personal & not campaign-related reasons that'd make it a campaign expense. What Bragg's office is alleging here is literally the same way DOJ prosecuted John Edwards for FECA violations (in addition to Cohen's plea & AMI's settlements). There's nothing legally wrong with unreported in-kind loans violating FECA: Edwards' jury just concluded his hush-money wasn't for his campaign, but rather to keep his illegitimate child secret from his wife.

[brucejoel99]

BREAKING: COUP DE GRAS from Hicks:

Hicks says Trump told her Cohen on his own paid Stormy to protect him- so Trump eventually learns of the hush money payoffs, on this telling, which means that later, labelling Trump's reimbursement payments as ongoing "legal fees" would be false. ‬

‪Bonus: Hicks says it's not like Cohen to make the Stormy payments out of the goodness of his heart and to not take credit.  Ie all the testimony about what a louse Cohen is plays into the DA's case.‬

‪Hicks adds that Trump said it was better that this is coming out now and not before the election- another nail in the coffin.‬

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1786544779758604423https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1786549517657010235

[The admission is admissible under NY law:]

8.23. Informal and Formal Judicial Admissions

(1) Informal Judicial Admissions.

(a) A statement made in the course of any judicial proceeding (whether in the same or another case) by a party or, in accord with paragraph (b), the party’s attorney, that is inconsistent with the position the party now assumes is admissible as an "informal judicial admission" that constitutes evidence (not conclusive evidence) of the fact(s) admitted.

(b) For a statement of a party's attorney to be admitted as an informal judicial admission, the proponent must show that the attorney is the authorized agent of the client, that the client is the source of the statement, and that the client expressly or impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege.

(2) Formal Judicial Admissions.

An act of a party done in the course of a judicial proceeding that dispenses with the production of
evidence by conceding, for the purposes of the litigation, the truth of a fact alleged by the adversary is admissible as a "formal judicial admission." A formal judicial admission is conclusive of the fact(s) admitted in the action in which the admission is made.

This would relate to admissibility of a document from Trump's counsel. [...] [Tha]t is what is being discussed here, a filing by Trump's counsel in [Stormy Daniels' 2018 civil case filed against Donald Trump...] (1)(a) says it *is* admissible.

They would also need [to] show that the requirements of (1)(b) are met... Satisfying (1)(b) [would] be a perfunctory matter of stating for the record who Trump's counsel was. The document in question literally names them. [BLAKELY LAW GROUP, Attorneys for Defendants, ESSENTIAL CONSULTANTS, LLC and MICHAEL COHEN. HARDER LLP, Atorneys for Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP.] Trump would have to challenge that as somehow not being correct. [...]

It is the requirement that "the client is the source of the statement" that is the evidentiary hurdle. [...] Obviously he was. The only alternative is a scenario in which the prosecution offers the document into evidence, Trump's lawyers object, & they argue the counsel in the civil case was the real source of the statement. Such a move would waive attorney/client [privilege] to allow questions.

[Trump tweets are also admissible as] direct admission(s) by T[rump] that the $130G was a "reimbursement" to Cohen (i.e., not "legal expenses" as T[rump] stated on his business records)... I have a feeling many such admissions could be found with the simplest digging... Apparently, the DA has scrubbed tens of thousands of T[rump]'s tweets in preparation for this trial.

Bear in mind that Cohen pleading guilty to the payments being unlawful campaign contributions was *the cover story*. Trump's own version was Cohen did it on his own & Trump merely repaid him. He can't now pretend the payments weren't connected.

With Trump himself not testifying his lawyers have an uphill climb to present *any* credible reasonable doubt... Will any juror believe there's reasonable doubt that (1) the docs filed by T[rump] w/ his business were "false;" (2) T[rump] filed docs w/ "intent to defraud" some person, group or entity; (3) T[rump] filed docs w/ "intent to conceal" a "conspiracy" to violate FECA; or (4) the $130G = FECA violation? [...] Was any of the $420G T[rump] paid C[ohen] actually for "legal expenses"?

Very doubtful. Even if they come away completely disliking Cohen, it's hard to buy the notion he made the payment without Trump's knowledge simply to spare Melania the humiliation. We already have other testimony of Trump's knowledge of the McDougal payment before it was made. Cohen taking out the loan to make the payments pretty much kills any alternate scenarios Trump might suggest... If the prosecutors play it right, having the jury dislike Cohen could turn to their advantage, because it was Trump who made use of such a scummy person... The prosecution [can] play it right. It's Cohen who has to maintain his cool under [cross-examination]... I doubt he will. But it might not matter.

[emailking]

The prosecution [can] play it right. It's Cohen who has to maintain his cool under [cross-examination]... I doubt he will. But it might not matter.

Hmm, I'll go ahead and take possibly the minority the position I think he will maintain his cool. I've heard him challenged somewhat on air before and heard him both ignore it and get defensive. And in this case he knows it's coming. Granted Blanche will be a whole other level and will be specifically trying to get under his skin.

I agree with the Xer though, whoever said that, it probably doesn't matter since Cohen will just be confirming what's already in evidence.

I'm looking forward to it!

[brucejoel99]

The prosecution [can] play it right. It's Cohen who has to maintain his cool under [cross-examination]... I doubt he will. But it might not matter.

Hmm, I'll go ahead and take possibly the minority the position I think he will maintain his cool. I've heard him challenged somewhat on air before and heard him both ignore it and get defensive. And in this case he knows it's coming. Granted Blanche will be a whole other level and will be specifically trying to get under his skin.

I agree with the Xer though, whoever said that, it probably doesn't matter since Cohen will just be confirming what's already in evidence.

I'm looking forward to it!

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1787301436587475287

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/bradmossesq/status/1787443699456123142https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1787428730710720615

To be clear: *if* Trump just written a check directly to Stormy (the hypothetical presented by the listener), he could have done that legally under FECA *if* he later disclosed the payment accurately (which of course he never would have done since he was trying to hide it).

IRL, what happened was the money was advanced by Cohen.  That made what happened *both* an illegal contribution (by Cohen over the legal limit) and a disclosure violation (failure to disclose the Cohen illegal contribution and the failure to disclose the reimbursement), which was a crime for which Cohen served federal prison time.

And that makes the falsification of business records a felony under New York law.

[emailking]

Cohen was convicted of 1 act of perjury so I don't see how he can be a "serial perjurer". That perjury, btw, was that he told Congress, at Trump's request, that the Trump Tower Moscow deal ended 5 months earlier than it did. Oh I long for the days when Turley appeared on Olbermann almost every night to criticize the Bush administration.