I'm guessing the defense will scour Cohen's recent social media (at least during the trial) to see if he's making statements that imply he's following along, even though he's not supposed to.

I am only following casually but I'm amazed the Cohen thing took this long to surface and I also can't believe that Trump's counsel has not hit the ceiling with nonparty texts being introduced with any kind of authentication by either the sender or the recipient. Maybe their challenge questions on cross are not making the summaries.

captkirk said:

---

---

I guess we will see Monday if the judge was serious about putting Trump in jail if he ignored the gag order again.

Quote:

---

I'm guessing the defense will scour Cohen's recent social media (at least during the trial) to see if he's making statements that imply he's following along, even though he's not supposed to.

---

They likely have been all along. Plus all of his interviews on cable news of which there have been many.

Much like Stormy, his story has changed over time which recently led to a federal court judge saying he's a serial perjurer in rejecting Cohen's fifth request to have his probation terminated. Cohen's reason has been that he has cooperated with authorities to hurt Trump.

Quote:

---

As Donald Trump left court Friday, he lamented his gag order while others say "whatever they want."
"Everybody can say whatever they want," he said. "But I'm not allowed to say anything about anybody."
"It's a disgrace," he added.
He went on to show clips of stories criticizing the case, including from Jonathan Turley and Sean Hannity. Trump also repeatedly attacked President Joe Biden and took credit for the stock market going up, claiming it's a response to his leading in the polls.
During the trial on Friday, CNN's reporters saw Trump going through a large pile of clips.

---

dmart90 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

I guess we will see Monday if the judge was serious about putting Trump in jail if he ignored the gag order again.

---

This isn't a violation

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm guessing the defense will scour Cohen's recent social media (at least during the trial) to see if he's making statements that imply he's following along, even though he's not supposed to.

---

They likely have been all along. Plus all of his interviews on cable news of which there have been many.

Much like Stormy, his story has changed over time which recently led to a federal court judge saying he's a serial perjurer in rejecting Cohen's fifth request to have his probation terminated. Cohen's reason has been that he has cooperated with authorities to hurt Trump.

---

Will the defense be allowed to state that a federal judge called him a serial perjurer?

chiphijason said:

---

I am only following casually but I'm amazed the Cohen thing took this long to surface and I also can't believe that Trump's counsel has not hit the ceiling with nonparty texts being introduced with any kind of authentication by either the sender or the recipient. Maybe their challenge questions on cross are not making the summaries.

---

Howard, the media content guy from National Enquirer, lives in Australia and thus unavailable. Weisselberg is in Riker's Island serving a sentence for perjury.

Cohen will testify on Monday so his texts ad emails were be covered. Pecker and Davidson have already testified.

No, but the conviction will come in

Quote:

---

Will the defense be allowed to state that a federal judge called him a serial perjurer?

---

They can ask him about it, assuming the judge even allows that.

BMX Bandit said:

---

No, but the conviction will come in

---

He's still on probation, they can ask about that. Potential Giglio material there with Biden's DOJ being so closely involved with Bragg's prosecution.

But Merchan rejected the defense request to call Mark Pomerantz. Colangelo is protected since he's state counsel of record.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

No, but the conviction will come in

---

He's still on probation, they can ask about that. Potential Giglio material there with Biden's DOJ being so closely involved with Bragg's prosecution.

But Merchan rejected the defense request to call Mark Pomerantz. Colangelo is protected since he's state counsel of record.

---

Wait, does that mean the defense won't be able to bring up that he's a convicted perjurer? That seems to be very relevant to a jury trying to determine his credibility?

Again, his perjury convection will come in.

But someone said about the conviction is not supposed to come in

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

No, but the conviction will come in

---

He's still on probation, they can ask about that. Potential Giglio material there with Biden's DOJ being so closely involved with Bragg's prosecution.

But Merchan rejected the defense request to call Mark Pomerantz. Colangelo is protected since he's state counsel of record.

---

Wait, does that mean the defense won't be able to bring up that he's a convicted perjurer? That seems to be very relevant to a jury trying to determine his credibility?

---

Sorry, I was unclear there. His guilty plea and conviction will come in. The question was what a federal judge said about him still being a perjurer will come in. That statement was made in the course of a hearing requested by Cohen regarding his probation. Getting that statement in would be hard but Cohen can be asked about his status on probation from the original conviction.

At least in my view that would be fair game under Giglio wherein a witness can be asked if they have been promised anything in return for their testimony.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

No, but the conviction will come in

---

He's still on probation, they can ask about that. Potential Giglio material there with Biden's DOJ being so closely involved with Bragg's prosecution.

But Merchan rejected the defense request to call Mark Pomerantz. Colangelo is protected since he's state counsel of record.

---

Wait, does that mean the defense won't be able to bring up that he's a convicted perjurer? That seems to be very relevant to a jury trying to determine his credibility?

---

Sorry, I was unclear there. His guilty plea and conviction will come in. The question was what a federal judge said about him still being a perjurer will come in. That statement was made in the course of a hearing requested by Cohen regarding his probation. Getting that statement in would be hard but Cohen can be asked about his status on probation from the original conviction.

At least in my view that would be fair game under Giglio wherein a witness can be asked if they have been promised anything in return for their testimony.

---

Now I understand. Thank you!

Quote:

---

Now I understand. Thank you!

---

No problem. The prosecution's case in chief has been a pretty messy one to try to follow along, not to mention how sketchy many of the witnesses are. Stormy's lawyer Davidson, Stormy herself and on Monday, Cohen.

Part of me is kind of hoping that the defense calls CPL Avenatti just for the entertainment value but that is very doubtful.

I see no reason for Trump to take the stand as it stands now. I may reassess that after Cohen is done.

I still think Merchan should err on the side of caution and have a hearing (without the jury present) to ask Cohen about his following the progress of the trial, both before and after his order today. Which shouldn't have been necessary, BTW.

And the state whining that they had "repeatedly, repeatedly" instructed their witnesses not to follow the case but they had no control over them to be disingenuous.

Can the prosecution explain why all of this is a crime during their closing? Or do they have to bring up a witness to explain why it is a crime? Trying to figure out who the other witness could be next week (assuming Cohen is one of the two), and I am wondering if they will bring someone in to connect all of the dots and explain why all of this is a crime. Thus far, they have brought forth all sorts of information to show Stormy was paid money to stay quiet, but the two big parts they haven't done yet is to show that Trump directed the payment or explain how that's a crime. I assume Cohen will say that Trump told him to do it, but they still need to explain why that's illegal.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Can the prosecution explain why all of this is a crime during their closing? Or do they have to bring up a witness to explain why it is a crime? Trying to figure out who the other witness could be next week (assuming Cohen is one of the two), and I am wondering if they will bring someone in to connect all of the dots and explain why all of this is a crime. Thus far, they have brought forth all sorts of information to show Stormy was paid money to stay quiet, but the two big parts they haven't done yet is to show that Trump directed the payment or explain how that's a crime. I assume Cohen will say that Trump told him to do it, but they still need to explain why that's illegal.

---

No. All the prosecution can do is present questions of facts for the jury to decide. And then the jury takes their jury instructions and apply the facts as they find them to the instructions on the law.

The jury instructions here will be quite a battle between counsel and the judge with the still unknown predicate crime hanging out there to maybe be defined at some point? IDK.

aggiehawg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Can the prosecution explain why all of this is a crime during their closing? Or do they have to bring up a witness to explain why it is a crime? Trying to figure out who the other witness could be next week (assuming Cohen is one of the two), and I am wondering if they will bring someone in to connect all of the dots and explain why all of this is a crime. Thus far, they have brought forth all sorts of information to show Stormy was paid money to stay quiet, but the two big parts they haven't done yet is to show that Trump directed the payment or explain how that's a crime. I assume Cohen will say that Trump told him to do it, but they still need to explain why that's illegal.

---

No. All the prosecution can do is present questions of facts for the jury to decide. And then the jury takes their jury instructions and apply the facts as they find them to the instructions on the law.

The jury instructions here will be quite a battle between counsel and the judge with the still unknown predicate crime hanging out there to maybe be defined at some point? IDK.

---

With how messy the prosecution's case in chief has been, do you think the defense will attempt to have at least one of the underlying election laws be dismissed as possible predicate crimes? Of course they will attempt a directed verdict and probably call for mistrial once again.

aggiehawg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Can the prosecution explain why all of this is a crime during their closing? Or do they have to bring up a witness to explain why it is a crime? Trying to figure out who the other witness could be next week (assuming Cohen is one of the two), and I am wondering if they will bring someone in to connect all of the dots and explain why all of this is a crime. Thus far, they have brought forth all sorts of information to show Stormy was paid money to stay quiet, but the two big parts they haven't done yet is to show that Trump directed the payment or explain how that's a crime. I assume Cohen will say that Trump told him to do it, but they still need to explain why that's illegal.

---

No. All the prosecution can do is present questions of facts for the jury to decide. And then the jury takes their jury instructions and apply the facts as they find them to the instructions on the law.

The jury instructions here will be quite a battle between counsel and the judge with the still unknown predicate crime hanging out there to maybe be defined at some point? IDK.

---

That part is still the most mind numbing baffling part of all of this. Complete circus.

I thought the predicate crimes were the various election laws?

Thread.

The details around the bank activity have been widely reported, but many of the underlying financial documents haven’t surfaced. And since cameras aren’t allowed in the courtroom, the public largely hasn’t seen the evidence at the center of the trial

2/

— Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) May 10, 2024

Quote:

---

With how messy the prosecution's case in chief has been, do you think the defense will attempt to have at least one of the underlying election laws be dismissed as possible predicate crimes? Of course they will attempt a directed verdict and probably call for mistrial once again.

---

A few things at play here procedurally and substantively.

Procedurally, the defense has to continue to make their record for purposes of appeal. Renewing motions and making new ones at the close of the state's case in chief. Those are actions required by the rules for appeals.

Substantively, the jury instructions will have to connect the legal dots in some manner on that predicate crime to have any meaning for the jury, in my view. If jury finds A, then the law says Trump has violated statute B, for instance. As I have stated before, there really are not lesser included offenses here, not the way the indictment reads anyway. Lesser includeds often provide a conflicted jury an off ramp, so to speak for a compromise verdict. (not ideal of course but it is what it is.)

Is "election interference" actually a crime? What are the acts that constitute "election interference"? IDK. Does the jury have any idea after this presentation by the prosecution? Does the jury even agree on their interpretation of that term? IDK. Will they be required to find one anyway?

So the jury instructions will be a battle over how to properly (if that is even possible) fill in that gap for them.

As to Cohen on Monday, I am reminded of the movie Driving Miss Daisy. They are on a road trip to Mobile and take a wrong turn. Daisy becomes upset and accuses Hoke of taking the wrong turn. He responds, "You took the turn with me and you have the map!" Cohen going into federal election law territory with his own guilty plea and trying to tie that back to Trump, when Cohen was the lawyer with the map directing him?

Cohen had no affiliation with the 2016 campaign. And the state's witnesses knew that. Dealing with Cohen was not campaign related although Stormy and her people had a concern that her "story" would lose value when Trump lost, as they all assumed he would. But that were their own conclusions, not Trump's. The only thing those closest to Trump saw was his concern for his wife and family.

Some elaoration for those not on X? TIA.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-10/trump-trial-bank-records-show-130k-hush-money-payment-to-stormy-daniels

Here is the story written by the guy that did the tweet. It's just showing copies of documents They're discussing in court


Another poster posted a link to the pattern instructions used in New York. So we have a pretty good idea of how they will look

Lot of words to say that charging the jury in this case in a manner that has a prayer of standing up on appeal is basically impossible.

Charging a jury in complex cases is very difficult and fraught with peril. For bigger cases, my firm specifically embeds appellate counsel with the trial team for the specific purpose of (1) ensuring error is preserved and (2) charging the jury correctly. You'd be shocked at how often cases have to be re-tried because the way that the jury was charged was incorrect.

I have followed this thread as best as my non legal mind can. I think I can summarize.

So, if the payments for hush money (not illegal) were misclassified, then per what the IRS generally does is require you to reclassify, pay the tax, pay a penalty and interest. Go you your merry way.

This trial is nothing more than a sham to make Trump look bad and keep him off the campaign trail. And get the liberal MSM some ratings eyeballs for advertising.

Max Stonetrail said:

---

I have followed this thread as best as my non legal mind can. I think I can summarize.

So, if the payments for hush money (not illegal) were misclassified, then per what the IRS generally does is require you to reclassify, pay the tax, pay a penalty and interest. Go you your merry way.

This trial is nothing more than a sham to make Trump look bad and keep him off the campaign trail. And get the liberal MSM some ratings eyeballs for advertising.

---

Yep, and to use 18 year old accusations to smear him daily. This is a win-win for the prosecution. No matter what happens, they have dragged him through the mud. If they put him in jail, they'll be happier, but they can't lose with all of this.

It may all be a huge tactical miscalculation, but they are doing to Trump what Biden would not be able to do to him.

Common sense says Cohen isn't paying $130K money to Daniels without being directed to, knowing that Trump is reimbursing him. And common sense is a guy like Trump isn't giving a dime to Daniels if they didn't have sex.
Plus Trump has a history of infidelity.

So if docs show payoff then I am 100% sold they had sex andTrump paid her off through Cohen. Any right wing types trying to argue otherwise on those two points if the docs exist, I call B.S.

That said, I also call B.S. on the left wing side for this politically motivated circus trying to hang a felony 'election interference' charge on Trump. Yes, he is an unfaithful husband and he pays off women to stay quiet. But this trial seems stupid.

My opinion from the middle, who has mostly tired of both the left and right wing's antics.

Quote:

---

It may all be a huge tactical miscalculation, but they are doing to Trump what Biden would not be able to do to him.

---

Only it is Biden and Garland doing this, in the form of Colangelo. And before him, Mark Pomerantz.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It may all be a huge tactical miscalculation, but they are doing to Trump what Biden would not be able to do to him.

---

Only it is Biden and Garlnd doing this, in the form of Colangelo. And before him, Mark Pomerantz.

---

Oh, I just mean one-on-one, in a debate setting or something like that.

Yes, the whole thing was coordinated via Democrats, Inc.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

So if docs show payoff then I am 100% sold they had sex and Trump paid her off through Cohen. Any right wing types trying to argue otherwise on those two points if the docs exist, I call B.S.

My opinion from the middle, who has mostly tired of both the left and right wing's antics.

---

You can call BS, but this would not be the first time someone paid someone off just to not get an accusation that is not true, but somewhat believable, out there. It's like settling to avoid the expense of a lawsuit. The existence of the docs doesn't necessarily prove sex one way or the other. DC is one big swap meet, so if infidelity is grounds for not being elected, that place would be almost empty.

I would be curious what "right wing antics" are at play here. This seems pretty one sided to me.

I could easily see Cohen doing this on his own to pay her off knowing that he'd be reimbursed for legal expenses without having to discuss with Trump what he paid off or why. If this wasn't the case, then why the rush the election was already near it didn't matter. The story was out there that part doesn't hold water.