I would think at this point the motion to dismiss would be first related to the felony charge which remains up in the air. I don't know how you say they have presented enough to prove that charge. At least make the prosecutor defend that they have in open court.

When the prosecution rests its case, you are going to see motion from the Trump attorneys saying there is no evidence of any underlying crime that was allegedly attempted to be covered up

BMX Bandit said:

---

When the prosecution rests its case, you are going to see motion from the Trump attorneys saying there is no evidence of any underlying crime that was allegedly attempted to be covered up

---

Serious question: In light of Merchan's original ruling that the state could have alternative theories of what the predicate crime is in their theory of the case, based upon the evidence adduced at trial, will Merchan at least address those? Meaning throw one or more out? A partial directed verdict, so to speak?

Obviously the reason I ask is because of the campaign finance violation allegations, which as a matter of law is outside of Bragg's jurisdiction and thus is not a question of fact for the jury to decide.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

When the prosecution rests its case, you are going to see motion from the Trump attorneys saying there is no evidence of any underlying crime that was allegedly attempted to be covered up

---

Serious question: In light of Merchan's original ruling that the state could have alternative theories of what the predicate crime is in their theory of the case, based upon the evidence adduced at trial, will Merchan at least address those? Meaning throw one or more out? A partial directed verdict, so to speak?

Obviously the reason I ask is because of the campaign finance violation allegations, which as a matter of law is outside of Bragg's jurisdiction and thus is not a question of fact for the jury to decide.

---

You're confusing Marchan with a competent, reasonable and unbiased judge who isn't gaining a sodomistic pleasure out of telling a defendant whom he loathes where to be and what he can or cannot say on a daily basis, all while his daughter profits financially from the prosecution.

Two more weeks of this farce before the jury is sent to deliberate under the most extreme conditions against Trump possible.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

When the prosecution rests its case, you are going to see motion from the Trump attorneys saying there is no evidence of any underlying crime that was allegedly attempted to be covered up

---

Serious question: In light of Merchan's original ruling that the state could have alternative theories of what the predicate crime is in their theory of the case, based upon the evidence adduced at trial, will Merchan at least address those? Meaning throw one or more out? A partial directed verdict, so to speak?

Obviously the reason I ask is because of the campaign finance violation allegations, which as a matter of law is outside of Bragg's jurisdiction and thus is not a question of fact for the jury to decide.

---

I thought we had discussed on this thread that the campaign finance violations were permitted by a federal judge? I'm probably just confused once again.

Bill Maher has questions about Stormy. NSFW Language warning.

Bill Maher blows up the Manhattan case against Trump.

'Stormy Daniels is a horrible witness.'

Listen to what Stormy told Bill Maher.pic.twitter.com/3WB9l2erJS

— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) May 11, 2024

Quote:

---

Smith's testimony could have opened the jury's eyes to the fact that the FEC and Department of Justice deliberately chose not to charge Trump for same payment Bragg insists amounts to a felony. Yet Merchan barred him from mentioning the matter.

"That the FEC dismissed the complaint against defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing," Merchan wrote "These matters are therefore irrelevant and defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence or both."

Merchan also prohibited Smith from mentioning "there had never been a case in which anyone had been convicted of a federal campaign finance law violation for the making of 'hush money payments.'"

Smith, with his wealth of knowledge and experience on campaign finance, is only permitted to give "general background as to what the Federal Campaign Commission is, background as to who makes up the FEC, what the FEC's function is, what laws, if any, the FEC is responsible for enforcing, and general definitions and terms that relate directly to this case, such as for example 'campaign contribution.'"

---

LINK

Just a reminder of what Merchan considers irrelevant to Bragg's case, FECA violations or lack of FECA violations.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

When the prosecution rests its case, you are going to see motion from the Trump attorneys saying there is no evidence of any underlying crime that was allegedly attempted to be covered up

---

Serious question: In light of Merchan's original ruling that the state could have alternative theories of what the predicate crime is in their theory of the case, based upon the evidence adduced at trial, will Merchan at least address those? Meaning throw one or more out? A partial directed verdict, so to speak?

Obviously the reason I ask is because of the campaign finance violation allegations, which as a matter of law is outside of Bragg's jurisdiction and thus is not a question of fact for the jury to decide.

---

I thought we had discussed on this thread that the campaign finance violations were permitted by a federal judge? I'm probably just confused once again.

---

Right. A federal crime can be the object crime of a state crime. Indeed, Trump's team never argued that they couldn't federal law.

But yes, Trump tried to get the FECA issue tossed aside for various reasons and they were rejected in federal court by a federal judge.

Trump's team has never pushed to introduce the ultimate decisions made by the FEC and SDNY. And I don't think they would want to because the State would have Michael Cohen's FECA guilty plea on the court screens before the defense could sit down. Neither side is looking to push those kind of ultimate decisions into evidence

It is generally hard to get in evidence of another prosecutor/administrative agency declining to charge something. Usually a judge will want the jury hear the evidence and decide for themselves.



Plus, the legal issue in this case is INTENT to commit a crime which is different than committing the crime.

I'm still struggling to understand why the judge won't allow the defense to enter anything about the previous investigations, from the entities who have the most experience in those types of investigations, into evidence.

Is that typical?

SwigAg11 said:

---

I'm still struggling to understand why the judge won't allow the defense to enter anything about the previous investigations, from the entities who have the most experience in those types of investigations, into evidence.

Is that typical?

---

As I understand it, the judge won't let them enter into evidence the decisions to charge/not charge. That's typical. To charge/not to charge is discretionary but would probably be very "prejudicial" to a jury.

Courts are loath to let that stuff in. These prosecutors decided it warranted pursuing. A Court will now want a jury to hear the evidence and decide based on the facts, not a decision made by someone else.

It risks the jury not making their own judgment but just following what someone else decided. And that someone else might have made that decision based on different facts or different interpretations or credibility or maybe inadmissible evidence or whatever.




It's much the same reason an expert can't testify as to legal conclusions or conclude a defendant met or didn't meet an element of a crime. Intrudes too much on the jury's job.


I've said over and over I have doubts the state can prove their case here. But I think the judge made the right call here.

Short 8 minute stream about Merchan quashing the subpoena for Mark Pomerantz, who has taken the 5th.

Why isn't anyone concerned about the blatant tampering with evidence. Bragg's paralegal admitted in court on Friday that the office deleted some call records between witness Michael Cohen and Dylan Howard, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels for Pete's sake, that's raising questions of whether or not the prosecutors have misled the court and at the very least tampering with evidence.

That was a summary exhibit where they choose what numbers to display. As long as the original is in the record, the summary exhibit is a non issue.

In prep for tomorrow's climactic s***show that is this trial let's do a preview of the next witness, Michael Cohen.

Quote:

---

In the first four weeks of former President Trump's hush money trial, his one-time personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has been called a "jerk," an "*******" and challenging to work with to the point that some sought to actively avoid him.

But when Cohen takes the stand Monday billed as a star witness for the Manhattan district attorney's office he'll be tasked with convincing the jury hearing the former president's first criminal case that he's also something else: a credible witness.

---

Quote:

---

It won't be an easy task.

Cohen made the $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels to stay silent about her alleged affair in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, funneling his own money through a shell company he opened for that sole purpose.

He also played a role in coordinating two other so-called "catch-and-kill" deals, where people with unflattering stories about Trump were paid by a tabloid friendly to the then-2016 presidential candidate to keep their stories secret.

---

Quote:

---

Trump's team is likely to pull out all the stops to paint Cohen as a liar. While the district attorney's office has been upfront with jurors that Cohen has "baggage," it has insisted documents corroborate his account. Lanny Davis, his former legal adviser, maintains the same, though he declined to comment on the trial evidence in an interview with The Hill, noting he is respectful of the judge's order.

"It's about the documents; it's not about Michael," Davis told The Hill. "The documents corroborate."

---

Had forgotten that Cohen's counsel was Lanny Davis, Clinton scum lawyer. That was not by accident.

Quote:

---

That war over his credibility has been underway from the start of the trial.

Jurors have seen Cohen's texts, heard recordings of his phone calls and have learned about his criminal record, with the witness's name coming up repeatedly throughout the completed testimony.

And for some of the 18 New Yorkers serving as jurors and alternates, Cohen's reputation precedes him. One of the jurors said during the selection process he follows Cohen on the social platform X.

---

What? Had not heard that!

Quote:

---

Cohen and Trump were first introduced by the former president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., in 2006, around the time Trump's alleged affairs with Daniels and another woman, ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal, took place.

He quickly became one of Trump's most loyal aides, earning a nickname as the then-business mogul's "pit bull." Asked about the label in a 2011 ABC News interview, Cohen described his duties as doing "everything in my power" to resolve issues to Trump's benefit.

"If you do something wrong, I'm going to come at you, grab you by the neck, and I'm not going to let you go until I'm finished," he said.

---

Sounds pretty Roy Cohn-ish to me. Filed under Cohen-may-be-Satan-but-he's-my-Satan.

Quote:

---

Text messages between Daniels's attorney, her manager and a top editor at the National Enquirer the tabloid that helped quash Trump's bad press detailed incessant phone calls from Cohen that often involved derogatory exchanges.

"He was highly excitable, sort of a pants-on-fire kind of guy. He had a lot of things going on," testified Keith Davidson, Daniels's lawyer at the time of the hush money agreement. "I'd frequently be on the phone with him, he'd take another call, he'd be talking out of two ears."

---

Quote:

---

When Cohen takes the stand, it's expected he'll say more of the same. Testifying in Trump's civil fraud trial last year, he agreed that he harbors "significant animosity" toward the former president.

"In fact, you often go on social media, stating all your animosity?" Trump attorney Alina Habba asked at the time.

"Not all my animosity," Cohen retorted, as laughter rippled through the gallery. He later conceded he has built his new career off publicly attacking Trump.

---

So he has a financial interest in testifying? Animus + financial interest= credibility questions.

Quote:

---

"The minute he shouts and loses his temper and gets angry which he has every right to do, goodness knows, after what he's been through he knows and I know that he loses and they win, after all these years," Davis said. "So he knows what he has to do."

---

Expect the prosecution to object a lot during the defense cross of Cohen to slow things down and allow Cohen time to keep his composure.

LINK

I have no doubt Cohen will think he's smarter than the Trump lawyers and the prosecution, thinking he can outwit the former and for the latter, help them by going outside the scope of the question.

100 times out of 100, that goes terribly for the witness.

He's going to be the conductor of his own train wreck is my prediction.

Im Gipper said:

---

I have no doubt Cohen will think he's smarter than the Trump lawyers and the prosecution, thinking he can outwit the former and for the latter, help them by going outside the scope of the question.

100 times out of 100, that goes terribly for the witness.

He's going to be the conductor of his own train wreck is my prediction.

---

Yep. Cohen is a born embellisher (as is Trump, for that matter) and tamping down that innate habit will be very difficult for him. Hence why I predict the state will try to lead him with very specific questions during direct and then object to nearly every question on cross.

aggiehawg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I have no doubt Cohen will think he's smarter than the Trump lawyers and the prosecution, thinking he can outwit the former and for the latter, help them by going outside the scope of the question.

100 times out of 100, that goes terribly for the witness.

He's going to be the conductor of his own train wreck is my prediction.

---

Yep. Cohen is a born embellisher (as is Trump, for that matter) and tamping down that innate habit will be very difficult for him. Hence why I predict the state will try to lead him with very specific questions during direct and then object to nearly every question on cross.

---

so how does that square with previous comments re objecting often, that frequent objections can imply to the jury 'what are you hiding?'

Quote:

---

so how does that mesh with previous comments re objecting often, that frequent objections can imply to the jury 'what are you hiding?'

---

Cohen is a different duck than a regular lay witness. He is unlikeable, an a-hole and a pants-on-fire excitable guy difficult to control.

Jury has been hearing that about him for four weeks. So counsel's attempts to rein him in and get him to focus won't come as a surprise to the jury, they'll likely expect it.

Have seen that first hand in one of my early trials. There was a guy that the jury had heard from his previous employees was a real PITA to work for. For whatever reason opposing counsel chose to put that guy on the stand during rebuttal. It was a disaster for them as he was a doofus a-hole on the stand.

The jury will be expecting a doofus a-hole in Cohen. Does he confirm those opinions? Or maintain his composure to refute it?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

so how does that mesh with previous comments re objecting often, that frequent objections can imply to the jury 'what are you hiding?'

---

Cohen is a different duck than a regular lay witness. He is unlikeable, an a-hole and a pants-on-fire excitable guy difficult to control.

Jury has been hearing that about him for four weeks. So counsel's attempts to rein him in and get him to focus won't come as a surprise to the jury, they'll likely expect it.

Have seen that first hand in one of my early trials. There was a guy that the jury had heard from his previous employees was a real PITA to work for. For whatever reason opposing counsel chose to put that guy on the stand during rebuttal. It was a disaster for them as he was a doofus a-hole on the stand.

The jury will be expecting a doofus a-hole in Cohen. Does he confirm those opinions? Or maintain his composure to refute it?

---

Welp, INAL but maybe defense counsel can counter-object each time prosecution objects: "Objection your honor. Let the witness answer our questions. Without interruptions!"

Not the way that works, not in Merchan's court. Some judges might let counsel get away with that, as we saw in the Rittenhouse trial.

aggiehawg said:

---

Not the way that works, not in Merchan's court. Some judges might let counsel get away with that, as we saw in the Rittenhouse trial.

---

Gotcha!

Looking forward to your play-by-play tomorrow.

100% Pure Aggie said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Not the way that works, not in Merchan's court. Some judges might let counsel get away with that, as we saw in the Rittenhouse trial.

---

Gotcha!

Looking forward to your play-by-play tomorrow.

---

Should be fun! I love a three ring circus with clown cars!

One other thing about Cohen that will be working against him, he's not a trial lawyer. Has very limited to no courtroom experience.

My law school roommate for two years is a brilliant lawyer, law review, Coif, top 2% of her class. She went into commercial real estate/corporate route while I became a civil trial attorney. IOW, if any her deals wound up in court it was because someone screwed up and she was more likely to be deposed than to represent anyone in court. Within a few years of beginning practice we kept in touch and when I was telling her about my court stories she had forgotten all of the procedure and rules of evidence she had down cold while in school.

Cohen has shown himself to be quite careless in his language, nor does he seem to care how his words might sound one day in a court of law. He is neither restrained nor cautious in choosing his words. He has lost whatever "lawyer demeanor" he may have had as a newbie lawyer. His interractions with the judges in his criminal matters show that.

By that I mean, in every trial lawyer's career, there will come a time when you need to back into the well with a tube of KY Jelly taped to your back begging the judge to be gentle (metaphorically speaking).

Cohen doesn't have the instincts to know when he should do that, apparently.

Troy91 said:

---

That was a summary exhibit where they choose what numbers to display. As long as the original is in the record, the summary exhibit is a non issue.

---

That is normally correct, when the underlying evidence is in the record beforehand.

Again, the absolute Gold Standard of how to curate a case, how to present evidence ina criminal trial by a prosecution team, the Waukesha Christmas Parade trial.

Even if Brooks had been represented by counsel, they could not have attacked that.

Sorry just started following this a few days ago. Was the underlying evidence in evidence in this case? Also thank you so much for what you do for this board!

Tailgate88 said:

---

Sorry just started following this a few days ago. Was the underlying evidence in evidence in this case? Also thank you so much for what you do for this board!

---

Honestly, I don't know. Trial is not televised and have to rely on the accuracy of those bloggin and tweeting about it. Damned if I know.

That is really the issue. The CNN blog is more focused on Trump's posture than on reporting what evidence is being admitted.

Without a legal mind live blogging the trial, you are left with pretty faces and empty minds posting TMZ updates.

Troy91 said:

---

That is really the issue. The CNN blog is more focused on Trump's posture than on reporting what evidence is being admitted.

Without a legal mind live blogging the trial, you are left with pretty faces and empty minds posting TMZ updates.

---

Sorry, doing my best, here.

Please don't take that as criticism of you. Without a live feed in the courtroom, we are left to the news channels and their choices.

We both know the importance of tracking the introduction of exhibits into evidence. That importance is amplified in a case built upon a paperwork error.

The absence of reporting on what papers have been admitted has been odd.

I appreciate your summary of the CNN blog for us.

Checking in before this circus kicks off this week. So, this came out over the weekend I guess? Stormy in 2018 laughing with Bill Maher about not being a victim/me-too thing with Trump?

Stormy Daniels lied to the Court in the Trump Trial

pic.twitter.com/5t47FVOpmz

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) May 12, 2024

And, one of CNN (which is very fake news and an enemy of the republic and should be treated as such) had another one of their talking heads go off the reservation and admit this is just a 'get-Trump' prosecution and nothing more?

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria says he doubts the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump

• Recent CNN poll found 56 percent of Americans are skeptical that Trump can receive a fair trial

"The trials against [Trump] keep him in the… pic.twitter.com/JUCxCm0apF

— Unlimited L's (@unlimited_ls) May 12, 2024

And Bragg's office deleted records of the 'star' witnesses coordinating?

BREAKING: One of Alvin Bragg's paralegals admitted in the Trump trial that his office deleted three pages worth of phone calls between Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels' lawyer, raising questions about evidentiary integrity.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) May 12, 2024

Judge Merchan's daughter Loren's biggest client is Adam Schiff (and she just so happened to get $2.15 million from Biden 2020 campaign)?

Just a reminder that Judge Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, boasts having Adam Schiff as her top client, and he has paid her firm close to $14 MILLION.
Do you believe this is a conflict of interest? pic.twitter.com/1bNNxfsEfP

— 🇺🇸🇺🇸Josh Dunlap🇺🇲🇺🇲 ULTRA-MAGA (@JDunlap1974) May 9, 2024

Onward to conviction!

To be fair on the deleting of pages of calls, that was a summary document, and all of the calls were still submitted as evidence. However, the defense did get to insinuate that the prosecution was hiding something to the jury.

SwigAg11 said:

---

To be fair on the deleting of pages of calls, that was a summary document, and all of the calls were still submitted as evidence. However, the defense did get to insinuate that the prosecution was hiding something to the jury.

---

Yes, but it does leave me wondering if this is more of an attempt by the paralegal to remove redundant or irrelevant information; or, if this is a case of "Oh yes, the the deleted calls are still in evidence. You can find them somewhere in those 17 bank boxes we've given you over in the corner if you look real hard."

Quote:

---

We both know the importance of tracking the introduction of exhibits into evidence. That importance is amplified in a case built upon a paperwork error.

The absence of reporting on what papers have been admitted has been odd.

---

What has continued to strike me as odd is who the DA's office has selected to be the foundational witnesses. It is pretty late in the state's case in chief to just now seeing people from AT&T and Verizon bookended with paralegals from the DA's office and not investigators nor police officers nor state crime lab employees, for instance.

The feds had Cohen's cell phone and computers since April 2018, yet the extraction data relied upon in this case was done by Bragg's office in January 2023? Just how tech savvy is Cohen? That's a long gap of time when it comes to digital records, it seems to me.

Anyway, CNN live blog is HERE