Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What's wild is the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York is the one that appointed Merchan.

So is it accurate that the person that appointed him is the one responsible for judicial oversight?

Trump up **** creek on this deal six ways from Sunday.

---

If that is true (and I have no reason to think it isn't) that supervising judge has skin in the game and would behoove them to have a word.

A&M stands a better chance of winning a natty this year in football than Trump at getting out of this with an acquittal or even a hung jury.

This case was preordained the minute it was brought in this jurisdiction. They have to have a guilty verdict here to try to ruin Trump's chances in November.

Gouveia will be on fire this evening. Starting in less than 2 minutes.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

As hawg pointed out earlier, the bailiffs typically got their finger on the pulse of the jury and knows the sentiment of the jury which they promptly relay to the judge.

So it's fair to say if you the defense, to see a judge acting with this much confidence and animosity it ain't a good sign.

That along with the time pressure now being put on the defense tells us more than anything it's a done deal, imho.

---

Don't really disagree with that, yet Merchan took the motion for dismiss or directed verdict under advisment instead of just denying it outright immediately. That was curious to me. If Merchan belives it is all over with the jury for a conviction, why hold out on making that decision?

---

I didn't expect that either, but I also know that there is literally zero chance he dismisses the charges. I mean, absolutely zero. I think he did that to try to give some kind of hint of impartiality after everything he did today to assist the prosecution.

Even if you are the most rabid of brain dead liberals, how could ANYONE watch this trial and conclude that this judge was a neutral? Shouldn't his conduct scare the left too, considering the right could just as easily behave this way if they ever assume power?

---

Originally, I was also expecting the judge just to laugh when the defense asked for the case the case to be thrown out again. I certainly don't think the judge will side with the defense because Cohen is lying. I think he will say it's up to the jury to decide if he is or isn't, and if that even matters.

That said, I was thinking about the fact the State hasn't really shown yet where the crime was, and I think there is a very slim chance that could get the judge to dismiss. I am sure one of the resident lawyers will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think on the jury instructions, they have to explain what the crime is. We know sex is not a crime and an NDA is not a crime. I am not even sure that falsifying documents is a crime, since the Trump Org is a private organization (It's also been made clear that Trump did not create any of those documents anyways). Everyone is assuming that there was some sort of campaign finance violation, but the state never actually explained what the violation was. As much as we joke about it, they can't instruct the jury to vote guilty because he's orange. They actually have to spell out the crime they are voting on. If the judge can't figure out a way to write out the charges that don't look super obviously biased, then I think there's a small chance he'll dismiss the charges and try to save a little face for himself.

Merchan is a piece of *****

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They actually have to spell out the crime they are voting on. If the judge can't figure out a way to write out the charges that don't look super obviously biased, then I think there's a small chance he'll dismiss the charges and try to save a little face for himself.

---

Under the 6th, you would be correct. But the US Constitution apparently doesn't apply to a state court in Manhattan. That is the subtext here.

---

I think the assumption has always been that the prosecution would explain the crime through the process, and the judge was letting them do that. But now that we are at the end, it's like the prosecution just forgot that part and since they've rested, it's too late for them to bring someone in to explain that. I kind of wonder if the defense decided not call the election law expert, because it might allow the prosecution to explain the crime during cross.

Basically, I am wonder if the plan was always to offer up the flimsy argument that Trump broke an election crime with the falsified documents, and then just play the odds that a NY jury would find him guilty because he's Trump. Now, though, the prosecution screwed up and forgot about the election crime. They only showed that documents were created. Now that they've got to actually put something down on paper which will go into the record, the judge is having second thoughts.

Here's something that is different. Multiple times the defense has motioned for dismissal and normally Merchan immediately denied it and they move on. Today Merchan decided to reserve his ruling. Just thought that was of note

Quote:

---

Basically, I am wonder if the plan was always to offer up the flimsy argument that Trump broke an election crime with the falsified documents, and then just play the odds that a NY jury would find him guilty because he's Trump.

---

I believe this was always the case.

They're giving double-barrel middle fingers to Trump, to the Constitution, and to America. They're saying "**** you. Do something about it."

Quote:

---

Now that they've got to actually put something down on paper which will go into the record, the judge is having second thoughts.

---

Jury charge is nut-cuttin time. Where the rubber meets the road. So we'll see what they come up with. Might be a solid 2-3 days to sort all that out and lodge objections to the charge.

The only thing I heard/saw falsified was the invoices from Cohen.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Now that they've got to actually put something down on paper which will go into the record, the judge is having second thoughts.

---

Jury charge is nut-cuttin time. Where the rubber meets the road. So we'll see what they come up with. Might be a solid 2-3 days to sort all that out and lodge objections to the charge.

---

There is a way to keep the bloodbath down.

But Merchan will not let that happen.

I do think the defense made a major mistake by not asking every witness, "Did you see or hear Trump direct anyone to mark these payments as a legal expense?" I am fairly certain every single person, including Cohen, would have said no. It would have been a huge point to make that every witness testified they had no knowledge of how the decision was made to mark these as a legal expense, with the exception of that accounting lady who said they were marked that way because Cohen's invoices are always marked that way.

Rockdoc said:

---

It's hard to believe this is going on in our country. I hope the dems are very proud.

---

Of course they are proud of it, Why does this surprise you. the Demrats have done this stuff since the days of Clarence Thomas SCotUS nomination process. And MSNBC has long been known to be American Pravda trash. Why any conservative would be surprised is well, surprising.

This stuff is what this trash does and has for several decades.

A long term union with this filth is not possible for either side. Changes are a coming and deep down we all know it.

It's on the prosecution to prove. With the bias and behavior we've already seen, it wouldn't have amounted to a hill of beans.

Instead, by avoiding it, there's yet another drop of water in the Pacific Ocean of reversible error. The lack of a clear directive by trump would exonerate anyone not named Trump.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They actually have to spell out the crime they are voting on. If the judge can't figure out a way to write out the charges that don't look super obviously biased, then I think there's a small chance he'll dismiss the charges and try to save a little face for himself.

---

Under the 6th, you would be correct. But the US Constitution apparently doesn't apply to a state court in Manhattan. That is the subtext here.

---

If I I understand the law here, mean tweets or being orange is enough to convict you of a crime that has not even been identified. Sweet justice system they have in New York.

Businesses might think about abandoning the State of New York.

The stability of predictability of their legal regime has been exposed.

aggiehawg said:

---

Oh for heaven's sake!

MSNBC’s @Lawrence O’Donnell defends Michael Cohen stealing from the Trump Org.: “Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, & it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved & the bonus he had gotten the year before” pic.twitter.com/UsdEfQUetR

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 20, 2024

---

If Trump is not convicted, this poster boy for TDS may just kill himself.

I won't shed a tear.

AustinAg2K said:

---

I do think the defense made a major mistake by not asking every witness, "Did you see or hear Trump direct anyone to mark these payments as a legal expense?" I am fairly certain every single person, including Cohen, would have said no. It would have been a huge point to make that every witness testified they had no knowledge of how the decision was made to mark these as a legal expense, with the exception of that accounting lady who said they were marked that way because Cohen's invoices are always marked that way.

---

Actually they did. They asked the girl that handled the invoices herself. They also asked the guy who worked under Weisellberg

Foreverconservative said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

I do think the defense made a major mistake by not asking every witness, "Did you see or hear Trump direct anyone to mark these payments as a legal expense?" I am fairly certain every single person, including Cohen, would have said no. It would have been a huge point to make that every witness testified they had no knowledge of how the decision was made to mark these as a legal expense, with the exception of that accounting lady who said they were marked that way because Cohen's invoices are always marked that way.

---

Actually they did. They asked the girl that handled the invoices herself. They also asked the guy who worked under Weisellberg

---

Correct. They have pretty much asked every witness (outside of some foundational witnesses to get certain records into evidence) if they had ever witnessed Trump personally order the payments or the documentation of the payments. Their plan was obviously to make the point that literally the only evidence is Cohen's word.

That's what this case has always come down to, and why every other entity never brought an indictment. Costello has also stated that when Cohen was interviewed by SDNY (I think it was) reps, they were laughing at the evidence that Cohen thought he had on Trump.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

BlackLab said:

---

A fair and impartial jury can see when a judge is tipping their hand on the scales and giving preference to one side.

---

That only matters if we have a fair and impartial jury. I'm not convinced we do.

---

Aren't there two lawyers on the jury? How can ANY remotely competent lawyer not see what is going on here?

Now that I say that, they are probably both scared to death of the sure to come repercussions from exercising justice and will ignore this clown show and vote guilty

---

What are the odds that 2 lawyers would be picked on the same jury in any court for any reason? Is it possible there were shenanigans in the selection of the pool of potential jurors?
I am becoming more and more cynical in my old age.

aggiehawg said:

---

Oh for heaven's sake!

MSNBC’s @Lawrence O’Donnell defends Michael Cohen stealing from the Trump Org.: “Cohen [was trying] to rebalance the bonus he thought he deserved, & it still came out as less than the bonus he thought he deserved & the bonus he had gotten the year before” pic.twitter.com/UsdEfQUetR

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) May 20, 2024

---

Cousin Eddie would approve of this legal rationale.

Quote:

---

What are the odds that 2 lawyers would be picked on the same jury

---

Can rewind the tape, but this was the very first indication from the peanut gallery of how all this would go. Typically lawyers are the very first people struck as neither side wants them on the jury.

Somehow this jury ended up with two!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is returning to the letter Michael Cohen's attorney sent to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2018 on the Stormy Daniels payment.
Cohen had testified under cross-examination that he said there was an "omission" in that letter, Hoffinger notes, and during direct that it was misleading and deceptive.

Quote:

---

Cohen says, "What's omitted is the fact that it was paid for by Mr. Trump or the Trump trust."
"And did you intend for it to be misleading in that way?" the prosecutor asks.
"I did," Cohen says.

---

Trump has a pen in his hand and is tapping the back of it on the paper in front of him on the desk.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger reads the line from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) statement, "The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution."
"Was that a true statement?" she asks Michael Cohen.
"No ma'am," he says.

---

---

Wait...So, now COHEN is an expert on what is and what isn't a "campaign contribution"?

But, Trump's team can't bring in someone that does that for a living to discuss that issue?

AustinAg2K said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

They actually have to spell out the crime they are voting on. If the judge can't figure out a way to write out the charges that don't look super obviously biased, then I think there's a small chance he'll dismiss the charges and try to save a little face for himself.

---

Under the 6th, you would be correct. But the US Constitution apparently doesn't apply to a state court in Manhattan. That is the subtext here.

---

I think the assumption has always been that the prosecution would explain the crime through the process, and the judge was letting them do that. But now that we are at the end, it's like the prosecution just forgot that part and since they've rested, it's too late for them to bring someone in to explain that. I kind of wonder if the defense decided not call the election law expert, because it might allow the prosecution to explain the crime during cross.

Basically, I am wonder if the plan was always to offer up the flimsy argument that Trump broke an election crime with the falsified documents, and then just play the odds that a NY jury would find him guilty because he's Trump. Now, though, the prosecution screwed up and forgot about the election crime. They only showed that documents were created. Now that they've got to actually put something down on paper which will go into the record, the judge is having second thoughts.

---

The irony is that Colangelo job hopped to lead this goat rope and basically stormy daniels'ed himself, but forgot to do any actual work on the case. It's OK though, he'll be around for the next lawfare sham to cash in yet again.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

What are the odds that 2 lawyers would be picked on the same jury

---

Can rewind the tape, but this was the very first indication from the peanut gallery of how all this would go. Typically lawyers are the very first people struck as neither side wants them on the jury.

Somehow this jury ended up with two!

---

IANAL - Q: Is it a consensus amongst the attorneys on this thread that the defense lost 100% of all jury selection battles?

Ag with kids said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger is returning to the letter Michael Cohen's attorney sent to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2018 on the Stormy Daniels payment.
Cohen had testified under cross-examination that he said there was an "omission" in that letter, Hoffinger notes, and during direct that it was misleading and deceptive.

Quote:

---

Cohen says, "What's omitted is the fact that it was paid for by Mr. Trump or the Trump trust."
"And did you intend for it to be misleading in that way?" the prosecutor asks.
"I did," Cohen says.

---

Trump has a pen in his hand and is tapping the back of it on the paper in front of him on the desk.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger reads the line from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) statement, "The payment in question does not constitute a campaign contribution."
"Was that a true statement?" she asks Michael Cohen.
"No ma'am," he says.

---

---

Wait...So, now COHEN is an expert on what is and what isn't a "campaign contribution"?

But, Trump's team can't bring in someone that does that for a living to discuss that issue?

---

Disbarred fact witness giving an expert opinion on the law.

Seems par for the course here, no?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

What are the odds that 2 lawyers would be picked on the same jury

---

Can rewind the tape, but this was the very first indication from the peanut gallery of how all this would go. Typically lawyers are the very first people struck as neither side wants them on the jury.

Somehow this jury ended up with two!

---

Thanks for the reply. I guess I'm not the only one getting cynical.

So as Costello was miraculously able to get this statement out and on the record before the jury

Quote:

---

Costello testified that Cohen lamented to him, "I don't understand why they're trying to put me in jail" over nondisclosure agreements, and disclosed that he'd arranged one with Daniels.

But, Costello said, Cohen told him Trump "knew nothing" about the hush money paid to the porn actor.

"Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments, that he did this on his own, and he repeated that numerous times," Costello testified.

---

…. then ALL 12 jurors have to believe every Cohen lie over Costello's very brief, very detailed testimony in order to convict Trump, correct?

I mean, I learned back in October 1995 to never trust a jury of partisan imbeciles to do the right thing, but ALL 12 believing Cohen over Costello?

How is that possible?