This case will not be thrown out because the law is unconstitutional per se,

It could potentially be turned over, and I think there's a good argument for it, if the "another crime" that was being covered up is a federal crime.

I believe the state knows this is a high potential, it may go with the New York State election law and tax law violation.

Note: this is not an endorsement of the evidence showing any violation of law. I don't think they have shown a cover-up of "another crime". I also don't think they have shown a violation of this law beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not clear that Trump ever falsified any business records

Question for the lawers:

Generally, in any case it today's world....what percentage of jurors do you think actually follow instructions to not read about or research the case their on? I just have a hard time believing more than maybe 10% follow that instruction.

normalhorn said:

---

I'm a dumb oilman, so pardon my ignorance of the law.
Doesn't the 6th Amendment state something about a defendant has the right to know the charges being brought against them, and doesn't waiting until both parties have rested to discuss the alleged crimes violate said 6th Amendment? (Tongue firmly in cheek)

---

I didn't write the law.

Honestly, I think when they wrote the law they assumed the second crime would be obvious. Maybe you falsified a timesheet to try and provide your buddy an alibi for a murder. Something like that. At the time the law was written, I think they missed that it could be used to cover up "a crime" in general, with no specifics attached as to what the crime is. It just seems common sense that all the charges should be fully laid out before the trial starts.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the prosecution says the second crime was misuse of the secret service for threatening to send them out against the 14 year old kid.

That's dumb.

We all know the truth here which is that Merchan's job is to get a conviction regardless of how infirm it may be and subject to vacation on appeal.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

We all know the truth here which is that Merchan's job is to get a conviction regardless of how infirm it may be and subject to vacation on appeal.

---

Would love to see the records of calls/emails he's received from some people in powerful positions about "expectations" in this case.

What's the standard for refusing to let experts testify? Is that an abuse of discretion standard?

Now that both sides are essentially done, here are my thoughts.

Did Trump sleep with Stormy? 100%

Was Trump aware of the NDA? 100%

Did Trump agree to the NDA to protect his wife or for the campaign? I think he most likely did it for the campaign. I find it unlikely Melania didn't know he's a cheater. I suppose there's a chance he did want to protect his family, but I think mostly he was worried about the campaign.

Did Trump falsify documents? I haven't seen any evidence of this. The most I've seen is that they were filed as a legal expense, because everything Cohen does is filed as a legal expense. I didn't see any evidence that Trump was even aware how they were filed. We saw he wrote checks to pay Cohen, we did not see that he said, "File these as a legal expense."

Did Trump attempt to cover up another crime? I guess we still need to understand what the other crime was.

Since the crime is specifically falsifying documents, then I think Not Guilty.

my pleasure

Hungry Ojos said:

---

What's the standard for refusing to let experts testify? Is that an abuse of discretion standard?

---

The only reason I can think is that the prosecution never alleged an election crime, therefor he has no reason to testify. This whole case is so weird. The crime wasn't an election crime, it was falsifying documents. However, the entire case was about an NDA, which both sides seem to agree was legal.

You're way more generous than I am. Most of your thoughts are assumptions.

Nothing was proven. Not even that Trump slept with Stormy. Did he? Maybe. This whole case was bull***** It is appalling that the state of New York has so little regard for the rule of law and the constitution.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

You're way more generous than I am. Most of your thoughts are assumptions.

Nothing was proven. Not even that Trump slept with Stormy. Did he? Maybe. This whole case was bull***** It is appalling that the state of New York has so little regard for the rule of law and the constitution.

---

Definitely assumptions, but based off Stormy's testimony. I think there was enough in Stormy's testimony to think he slept with her. Now beyond that, Stormy is definitely out to get Trump. Her statements about "wanting to get her story out" were lies. She wanted money. She probably slept with Trump as a career move, and now she's using all of this to stay in the news. Whether or not they slept together, doesn't really matter though. We know she demanded money and I think Trump knowingly paid the money. They never made it clear that is a crime, though. In fact, I think they were all in agreement that isn't a crime.

Merchan getting paid through his daughter to deliver….sad times

Well that didn't take long. CNN has already pivoted. From their live blog.

Quote:

---

Robert Costello's testimony seemed to backfire for the defense, several legal experts said on CNN.
Costello's demeanor toward Judge Juan Merchan caused the courtroom to be cleared on Monday and his back and forth with prosecutors may not be working in the defense's favor.
"It's just terrible the way it went down and the weird thing is is that Costello knows better, right?," David Oscar Markus, a criminal defense attorney, said. "He's a lawyer, he's been in that courtroom, that courthouse. He knows better so just an awful, awful day. And you know the defense took a big risk here and struck out very badly."

Quote:

---

CNN chief legal analyst Laura Coates noted that Costello's purpose was to go after Michael Cohen's credibility by calling him a liar, but didn't succeed.

---

"The prosecutor is undermining through this, Coates said, "and not allowing him frankly, on this very tight leash, to try to talk his way out of what the documents say. Now the idea, the color we had in the courtroom before about him telling her to 'speak up, talk louder' not going over maybe well with the juror," Coates said.
"He is now not able to explain away what the documents say. That's where you want your witness to be if you want to undermine them," she added.
The district attorney is "gradually but surely turning Bob Costello into a prosecution witness," CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said, because Costello is talking about a crucial moment in time" in April 2018 where the emails indicate that Costello was trying to keep Cohen in the fold and not flip. "This shady effort to keep Michael Cohen from not flipping is coming back to the floor. It's bad for the defense and good for the prosecution."
William J. Brennan, former Trump Payroll Corp. attorney, also said that Costello's testimony is not in favor of the defense. "It's just really sad for the defense that this is what we're focused on now when you had a couple of days that don't often happen in a criminal trial. You know Cohen was just you know a gift."
Brennan continued, now they put Costello on, "he's imploded, he fought with the judge, he's dancing with her (Susan Hoffinger), it's just not a great way to end."

---

So CNN is running stories that the jury will inevitably see/hear regardless of their efforts not to.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No doubt those are the talking points they were given to put out for a long weekend plus. The whole thing is psychotic.

---

I think it's a fair analysis of Costello's testimony, actually.

He's a witness, not a judge. He's not a party. He's not entitled to anything other than answering the questions the judge allows to be put to him.

Given both the restrictions on what the judge allowed him to get into and Costello's behavior, I think putting him on the stand was a net negative for the defense.

The defense knew they were taking a gamble, especially with how narrow the judge was going to limit Costello's testimony, and it backfired.

The top story on FoxNews website says "Trump jury dismissed"....I read it too quickly and only saw "Trump" and "dismissed" thinking holy hell Merchan really did it LOL

aggiehawg said:

---

Well that didn't take long. CNN has already pivoted. From their live blog.

Quote:

---

Robert Costello's testimony seemed to backfire for the defense, several legal experts said on CNN.
Costello's demeanor toward Judge Juan Merchan caused the courtroom to be cleared on Monday and his back and forth with prosecutors may not be working in the defense's favor.
"It's just terrible the way it went down and the weird thing is is that Costello knows better, right?," David Oscar Markus, a criminal defense attorney, said. "He's a lawyer, he's been in that courtroom, that courthouse. He knows better so just an awful, awful day. And you know the defense took a big risk here and struck out very badly."

Quote:

---

CNN chief legal analyst Laura Coates noted that Costello's purpose was to go after Michael Cohen's credibility by calling him a liar, but didn't succeed.

---

"The prosecutor is undermining through this, Coates said, "and not allowing him frankly, on this very tight leash, to try to talk his way out of what the documents say. Now the idea, the color we had in the courtroom before about him telling her to 'speak up, talk louder' not going over maybe well with the juror," Coates said.
"He is now not able to explain away what the documents say. That's where you want your witness to be if you want to undermine them," she added.
The district attorney is "gradually but surely turning Bob Costello into a prosecution witness," CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said, because Costello is talking about a crucial moment in time" in April 2018 where the emails indicate that Costello was trying to keep Cohen in the fold and not flip. "This shady effort to keep Michael Cohen from not flipping is coming back to the floor. It's bad for the defense and good for the prosecution."
William J. Brennan, former Trump Payroll Corp. attorney, also said that Costello's testimony is not in favor of the defense. "It's just really sad for the defense that this is what we're focused on now when you had a couple of days that don't often happen in a criminal trial. You know Cohen was just you know a gift."
Brennan continued, now they put Costello on, "he's imploded, he fought with the judge, he's dancing with her (Susan Hoffinger), it's just not a great way to end."

---

---

lmao that's quite the spin.

DTP02 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No doubt those are the talking points they were given to put out for a long weekend plus. The whole thing is psychotic.

---

I think it's a fair analysis of Costello's testimony, actually.

He's a witness, not a judge. He's not a party.

---

And the judge was a party, not a judge.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

No doubt those are the talking points they were given to put out for a long weekend plus. The whole thing is psychotic.

---

I think it's a fair analysis of Costello's testimony, actually.

He's a witness, not a judge. He's not a party.

---

And the judge was a party, not a judge.

---

But you knew that already.

This whole idea that Costello should have fought with the judge even more and "had his bail money ready to go" is just silly. He's not a party or a party's attorney. He's a witness.

The jury had a big negative impression of Cohen, and that's what they should have been left with.

Instead they put Costello on, didn't really accomplish anything, and just muddied the waters and made Cohen look more reasonable by comparison.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think it's a fair analysis of Costello's testimony, actually.

He's a witness, not a judge. He's not a party. He's not entitled to anything other than answering the questions the judge allows to be put to him.

Given both the restrictions on what the judge allowed him to get into and Costello's behavior, I think putting him on the stand was a net negative for the defense.

---

How Costello came across is all on the judge's horribad rulings. I think Merchan was trying to reach a Guinness World record in reversible decisions throughout the trial and this morning decided to add several more to his resume.

---

The jury has no idea about any of that. They just know the witness for the defense was fighting with the judge and prosecutor and bleeding credibility.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

At one point yesterday, Trump's attorney started to ask Costello "do you recall…" only to have the other side immediately object to which Merchan immediately sustained. Didn't even get the question out.

Yeah, that's fair.

---

Depending on the wording of the partial question, it could be fair. We'd need to see exactly what was asked.

Is the transcript available yet?

AustinAg2K said:

---

Now that both sides are essentially done, here are my thoughts.

Did Trump sleep with Stormy? 100%

Was Trump aware of the NDA? 100%

Did Trump agree to the NDA to protect his wife or for the campaign? I think he most likely did it for the campaign. I find it unlikely Melania didn't know he's a cheater. I suppose there's a chance he did want to protect his family, but I think mostly he was worried about the campaign.

Did Trump falsify documents? I haven't seen any evidence of this. The most I've seen is that they were filed as a legal expense, because everything Cohen does is filed as a legal expense. I didn't see any evidence that Trump was even aware how they were filed. We saw he wrote checks to pay Cohen, we did not see that he said, "File these as a legal expense."

Did Trump attempt to cover up another crime? I guess we still need to understand what the other crime was.

Since the crime is specifically falsifying documents, then I think Not Guilty.

---

Nice summary. Allow me to give my thoughts as a supplement to yours:

Did Trump sleep with Stormy? 100% I'm going with about 60% at best. Why? First, I'm inclined to give credence to the theory that as we all know Trump is such a germaphobe that he avoids shaking hands and had his people always have Purell at the ready. Yet, we're to believe - primarily because Trump made an ill advised lockeroom comment on a bus - that he's ready and willing to drop trou and have unprotected sex with a porn star? I find it almost as likely that Daniels made the sex story up to bolster her own notoriety and get into Trump's pocket... If not more likely.

Was Trump aware of the NDA? 100% Agreed. But not illegal. Trump's only mistake in this trial imo was to deny the NDA. He should have allowed his counsel to say "Daniels wanted money to go away. I paid her money to go away and not have to deal with the circus she would likely bring to the election process".

Did Trump agree to the NDA to protect his wife or for the campaign? I think he most likely did it for the campaign. I find it unlikely Melania didn't know he's a cheater. I suppose there's a chance he did want to protect his family, but I think mostly he was worried about the campaign. Personally, I think both were possible. At least enough to provide reasonable doubt from a legal perspective.

Did Trump falsify documents? I haven't seen any evidence of this. The most I've seen is that they were filed as a legal expense, because everything Cohen does is filed as a legal expense. I didn't see any evidence that Trump was even aware how they were filed. We saw he wrote checks to pay Cohen, we did not see that he said, "File these as a legal expense." Agree 100%

Did Trump attempt to cover up another crime? I guess we still need to understand what the other crime was. Not at all. The coverup theory is a farcical fantasy concocted by the prosecution to bootstrap onto a time limited weak misdemeanor charge in order to magically transform it into a felony. Nothing more.

Since the crime is specifically falsifying documents, then I think Not Guilty. Agree 100%

Im Gipper said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

At one point yesterday, Trump's attorney started to ask Costello "do you recall…" only to have the other side immediately object to which Merchan immediately sustained. Didn't even get the question out.

Yeah, that's fair.

---

Depending on the wording of the partial question, it could be fair. We'd need to see exactly what was asked.

Is the transcript available yet?

---

From everything I've read, no one knows the question that was going to be asked bc that's literally all they Costello got out before the objection, "do you recall".

An objection to the witnesses recalling anything?

Do you have a link to what you read that shows that?