TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I also hate to ask this now, but who is Keith Schiller (the bodyguard) in all of this mess?

---

He sounds like he's basically been standing next to Trump for the last 2 decades. He answered phone calls that hvae come up in this case, he handled documents that have come up in this case, he apparently is the one who approached Daniels and invited her to dinner with Trump (not really important to the case), and just seemed to be "around" a lot of what other witnesses have talked about.

I don't know if you close with him unless he's carrying a smoking gun we don't know about.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Did they say two more on Friday?

---

I remember there being 2 more said, Cohen plus someone

---

Yes, they said 2 more witnesses as of last week. Cohen plus someone. I'd predict that would be either the body guard Keith Schiller or an expert to lay out the campaign finance theory and issues. While they've hit the tax theory directly, the campaign finance side of it hasn't been highlighted. Nor something the jury will be as familiar with.

I don't know what Schiller would add at this point, but he's been name-checked so many times it leaves that possibility open. So, more likely the latter, a campaign finance related testimony.

But that's just a best guess.

---

Now way they put an expert on campaign finance theory on. They entire prosecution centers around not actually defining the charges against Trump. Bringing in an expert allows the defense to show that there was no federal crime prosecuted and so no underlying charge here on which this entire case rests.

---

It also opens up a rebuttal expert for the defense which the judge to date has prohibited.

---

To be clear, Bradley Smith wasn't prohibited from testifying.

Trump's team did not designate him as an expert witness. They designated him as a fact witness. The Judge ruled he is actually an expert witness and limited what he can talk about.

A State witness can testify within those same bounds without opening anything up.

---

Quote:

---

Edit: Is this the same Bradley Smith who has served as FEC chairman? It seems like he would have the experience to be a credible expert witness.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen apparently wants a reality show but, if his testimony Monday is any indication, reality is about to sink in for not just Cohen but the prosecutors and the court.

In stoking interest in his own appearance, the former Trump counsel promised the public that they should be "prepared to be surprised."

Thus far, however, Cohen has offered nothing new and, more importantly, nothing to make the case for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

---

Quote:

---

Michael Cohen testified in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial on May 13,
Just before he took the stand, the New York Post revealed that Cohen has been peddling a reality show called "The Fixer," including working with Colin Whelan, who helped create "Joe Exotic: Tigers, Lies and Cover-Up." Whelan appears interested to stay within that genre.

The Cohen pitch came with a cheesy promo video where he promised viewers, "I am your fixer."
His first post-Trump client, Bragg, may have to disagree.

---

Quote:

---

With the prosecution's case almost over, Bragg needed Cohen to clearly state that Trump intentionally committed fraud to conceal some still poorly defined crime.

The problem is that Cohen only confirmed that Trump knew he was going to pay for the nondisclosure agreement and that it would be buried before the election. None of that is unlawful.

---

Quote:

---

On his reality show promo, Cohen tells viewers that he is now there to fix their problems because "the little guy doesn't usually have access to people with my particular set of skills."

Those skills seem to have escaped all of the witnesses who were compelled to work with him.
Witnesses detailed how Cohen was ridiculed as someone "prone to exaggeration" and unprofessional.

---

Quote:

---

Cohen only succeeded in confirming that he put together this payment and advised Trump to go forward with it.

He assured him that it would effectively kill the story before the election.

None of that is illegal. The "Fix it man" assured Trump that he fixed it and now wants Trump to go to jail for following that advice.

In the course of that representation, Cohen also admitted to taping his client without his knowledge, a breathtaking breach of trust and confidentiality.

---

Quote:

---

Cohen contradicted Davidson and insisted that he only wanted to be Trump's personal lawyer.
He also admitted that he was unaware that the publisher of National Enquirer, David Pecker, had long killed negative stories about Trump and other celebrities for decades.

Cohen has yet to fix the problem for Bragg.

More importantly, he has added to the problem for Judge Juan Merchan. Many of us have ridiculed this case as devoid of any criminal act.

Indeed, Merchan has allowed the prosecutors to proceed without clearly stating what crime was being concealed.

---

Quote:

---

Absent a sudden epiphany in his final testimony on Tuesday, Merchan should rule in favor of a directed verdict that is, throwing the case out before it goes to a jury. If he instead sends this farcical case to the jury, it is Merchan, not Cohen, who may have a better claim to a reality show as the ultimate "Fix It Man."

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, he's not allowed to talk about the merits.

As I understand it, that's mostly because the question here is was there intent to commit campaign finance violations, not were there actually campaign finance violations. So, it's not actually all that relevant. He's allowed to testify generally about campaign finance which I see as relevant in the sense it's helping answer the question "would Trump have reason to believe this might be a campaign finance violation."

And any time a witness is getting close to making conclusions of law (e.g. were there campaign finance violations), that's always tricky.

---

So intent to commit a crime, that is not actually a crime, is actually a crime?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The jury is shown paperwork when Michael Cohen opened the bank account for Resolution Consultants, LLC.
Cohen filled out the form saying it was a management consulting company.

Quote:

---

'I'm not sure if they would've opened it if it stated to pay off an adult film star for a nondisclosure agreement," he says.

---

Cohen says he lied on the documents to open the account.

---

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BTW, I know the prosecution didn't give the defense the order of witnesses they called, but can the defense return the favor?

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, he's not allowed to talk about the merits.

As I understand it, that's mostly because the question here is was there intent to commit campaign finance violations, not were there actually campaign finance violations. So, it's not actually all that relevant. He's allowed to testify generally about campaign finance which I see as relevant in the sense it's helping answer the question "would Trump have reason to believe this might be a campaign finance violation."

And any time a witness is getting close to making conclusions of law (e.g. were there campaign finance violations), that's always tricky.

---

So intent to commit a crime, that is not actually a crime, is actually a crime?

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

That's interesting to know. Thank you.

I was asking more about the campaign finance laws. However, I'm now recognizing, once again to my confusion, that they aren't charging campaign finance laws per se (I also think outside of Bragg's jurisdiction?).

No worries. Yes, he's not formally charged with campaign finance violations and could not be by New York State. But a federal crime can be what's called the "object crime" of a state crime, so it doesn't really matter here.

Edit: At the heart of the campaign finance issue, is the prosecution claiming that Cohen's payment was a campaign contribution and should have been disclosed?

Yes, and/or that the reimbursement was a campaign expenditure that should have been reported as such.


(p.s. I think showing Cohen made a campaign contribution that wasn't reported would be fairly easy. And he's already pled guilty to that, of course. What's harder and what the State of New York would need to prove is that Trump acted with intent to aid/conceal that.)

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sorry...but have to ask the legal experts again. Was today's testimony good, bad or no impact on DJT defense? Do appreciate honest/informative responses. TIA!!!

---

aggiehawg said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sorry...but have to ask the legal experts again. Was today's testimony good, bad or no impact on DJT defense? Do appreciate honest/informative responses. TIA!!!

---

Only impact is that Cohen testified in such a manner that he was following Trump's directions, that makes his credibility a fact question to alow Judge Merchan to deny defense counsel's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution's case in chief. A low bar for success by the state but that's what they needed most. Get the case to the jury.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

My undergrad degree is finance, so I border on knowing just enough accounting to be dangerous.

How does GAAP say to classify payments for an NDA? I have a hard time seeing how classifying them as a legal expense amounts to fraud.

---

I think there's a pull down menu in all accounting software for PSSUM (Porn Star Shut Up Money).

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

With capone, they knew his crimes and could only find tax evasion stuff...with trump, they had no idea of any crime (still don't actually), and scoured the guys finances for years and found... this. And some people think there is legitimacy to these proceedings instead of the obvious banana republic stuff that is going on.

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

My undergrad degree is finance, so I border on knowing just enough accounting to be dangerous.

How does GAAP say to classify payments for an NDA? I have a hard time seeing how classifying them as a legal expense amounts to fraud.

---

jt2hunt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sorry...but have to ask the legal experts again. Was today's testimony good, bad or no impact on DJT defense? Do appreciate honest/informative responses. TIA!!!

---

Only impact is that Cohen testified in such a manner that he was following Trump's directions, that makes his credibility a fact question to alow Judge Merchan to deny defense counsel's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution's case in chief. A low bar for success by the state but that's what they needed most. Get the case to the jury.

---

Cross won't impact this bar?

---

Quote:

---

A conviction in the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump would boost his support among key swing state voters, a Telegraph/Redfield & Wilton Strategies poll recently found, contradicting a narrative that a potential Trump conviction would somehow boost President Joe Biden's flagging poll numbers.

The poll sampled voters in seven swing states.

• In Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, a greater number of voters said a Trump conviction would make them more likely than not to vote for Trump.
• Thirty-five percent of voters in Georgia said a Trump conviction would increase their chances of voting for the former president. Only 27 percent said a Trump conviction would cause them to support him less.
• Polling numbers in Arizona and Pennsylvania showed that a potential conviction would either produce no significant impact or slightly hurt Trump. Arizona voters were evenly split. Pennsylvania voters said a conviction would make them support Trump "slightly less."

"Our polling makes it clear that American voters want an election that is decided by themselves, not by the courts," Philip van Scheltinga, director of research at Redfield & Wilton Strategies, told the Telegraph.
"It is not that surprising that more voters say they'd be more likely to vote for Trump if he is convicted, given what has been happening over the last several years," he said. "For most Americans, this case is yet another instance of the many fraught battles between Trump and his opponents."

"The investigations into Trump helped secure his nomination, by sucking the air out of other campaigns, and making it difficult to criticise him when he was being seen as being attacked," he added. "Now, they might just propel him into the White House."

---

Quote:

---

It's questionable, however, whether Trump actually wants to win the case, or take the boost in swing states a conviction will likely give him:

---

Quote:

---

That's a federal crime that a state attorney general has no jurisdiction over. Period.

If that's the crime, the indictment is completely unconstitutional.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Sorry...but have to ask the legal experts again. Was today's testimony good, bad or no impact on DJT defense? Do appreciate honest/informative responses. TIA!!!

---

Only impact is that Cohen testified in such a manner that he was following Trump's directions, that makes his credibility a fact question to alow Judge Merchan to deny defense counsel's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution's case in chief. A low bar for success by the state but that's what they needed most. Get the case to the jury.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

It's questionable, however, whether Trump actually wants to win the case, or take the boost in swing states a conviction will likely give him:

---

very fake news


Trump wants to actually win this case, its not even up for legitimate debate.


your comments on cohen are regarding the weight of the evidence and who to believe. the question aggiehawg and I were responding to dealt with the procedural rule related to a directed verdict or whatever its called in new york

---

nortex97 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

It's questionable, however, whether Trump actually wants to win the case, or take the boost in swing states a conviction will likely give him:

---

very fake news


Trump wants to actually win this case, its not even up for legitimate debate.


your comments on cohen are regarding the weight of the evidence and who to believe. the question aggiehawg and I were responding to dealt with the procedural rule related to a directed verdict or whatever its called in new york

---

Turkey disagrees:

"You would think that Alvin Bragg would have more important things to worry about than political prosecutions.

Mr. Turley concludes:

Absent a sudden epiphany in his final testimony on Tuesday, Merchan should rule in favor of a directed verdict that is, throwing the case out before it goes to a jury. If he instead sends this farcical case to the jury, it is Merchan, not Cohen, who may have a better claim to a reality show as the ultimate "Fix It Man.""

From red state quote.

---

Rockdoc said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

No, he's not allowed to talk about the merits.

As I understand it, that's mostly because the question here is was there intent to commit campaign finance violations, not were there actually campaign finance violations. So, it's not actually all that relevant. He's allowed to testify generally about campaign finance which I see as relevant in the sense it's helping answer the question "would Trump have reason to believe this might be a campaign finance violation."

And any time a witness is getting close to making conclusions of law (e.g. were there campaign finance violations), that's always tricky.

---

So intent to commit a crime, that is not actually a crime, is actually a crime?

---

You have to remember, you're talking to a poster that thinks this is a fair and just trial.

---