He's not getting jail time, period. He would classify as a first time offender under New York law, which would mean probation given the sentencing that would be typical under this law. And that's assuming he's convicted, which I'm leaning won't happen.

Quote:

---

The parties are now talking about an instruction the defense wants to told to the jury as to how they should consider testimony about reactions from outsiders to moments like the "Access Hollywood" tape.


Specifically referencing testimony from Hope Hicks, Trump attorney Emil Bove says they need a curative instruction because evidence of the reactions of others is not coming in for the fact of the matter, it's meant for the impact on Trump's state of mind which Bove says might not be clear to the jury.

Merchan says he'd think about it, but was inclined to side with prosecutors who said there was no prejudicial effect and the evidence's purpose was clear enough to the jury.

---

This should have been such a simple trial, assuming it should have been brought at all. It is a documents case over ledger entries in a private business.

But Merchan allowed the state to mushroom cloud that simple case into an amorphous mess. Seeing how these arguments over jury instructions on matters that should have never been allowed into evidence in the first place.

I don't think even Merchan understands the state's theory of the case at this point.

Quote:

---

Defense attorney Emil Bove is now asking for a limiting instruction as it relates to Michael Cohen's guilty plea, American Media Inc.'s non-prosecution agreement and the Federal Election Commission settlement.
Judge Juan Merchan said he thinks his limiting instructions throughout the trial "were appropriate."
The defense proposed an instruction that AMI did not admit to any violations of the law in the agreements.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said it's "outrageous." Bove said, "I wasn't trying to be outrageous."
Bove went on to say that he wants to make it clear to the jury that the non-prosecution agreement is in evidence to go to former National Enquirer boss David Pecker's credibility not to go to Trump's guilt like Cohen's guilty plea that's also in evidence.

"This is a crucial issue," Bove said of his concern that prosecutors will cross the line in summations.

Steinglass said AMI's non-prosecution agreement and Cohen's guilty plea are also meant to offer context to the facts in the case, not just Pecker and Cohen's credibility.

Merchan said that his intention is to give "substantially the same instruction I gave during the trial" related to AMI's non-prosecution agreement.

---

Such BS.

what was the point of even having this conference? Prosecution is literally getting EVERYTHING they've asked for.

Quote:

---

The judge says he doesn't normally give this instruction but that he will include the government's modified version.

---

No way!

Hungry Ojos said:

---

what was the point of even having this conference? Prosecution is literally getting EVERYTHING they've asked for.

---

And the defense is making their record on appeal. Screwing up jury instructions almost always results in an appellate court vacating the conviction and sending it back down.

Quote:

---

Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that he wanted the judge to instruct the jury that hush money is not illegal.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass opposed Bove's request and went on to say the defense was asking the judge to make their legal arguments for them.

Shortly after, Judge Juan Merchan weighed in and said he would not include it because it came out several times in testimony that hush money is not illegal.

---

No way!

So are we still talking about a felony conviction here? Very confusing.

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Emil Bove wants to be able to argue that because Michael Cohen testified that ex-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker told him the agreement was "bulletproof" and Cohen communicated that to Trump, that they should be able to argue it goes to Trump's state of mind and intent to defraud.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo says it was a "retread" of previous arguments the judge had rejected about a presence of counsel of defense.
Judge Juan Merchan agrees. He says he never heard of presence of counsel and now the terms has "morphed" to "involvement of counsel."

Merchan tells Bove to sit down.

"My answer hasn't changed, and honestly I find it disingenuous to make it at this point," Merchan says before Bove tries to speak.

Colangelo also says Pecker did not give adequate testimony to show that a lawyer adequately vetted the agreement with Karen McDougal, because he testified the lawyer who looked at the McDougal agreement didn't know all the facts surrounding the situation.

"I'm telling you my ruling is the jury will not hear that instruction from the bench nor are you permitted to make that argument. Period," Merchan says.

"I understand. I just want to complete the record," Bove says.
"Go ahead," Merchan says.

Quote:

---

Before moving on, Merchan says: "This is an argument that you've been advancing for many many many months. This is something you've been trying to get through to the jury for many, many, many months. It's denied, it's not going to happen, please don't raise it again."

---

Trump muttered something, shaking his head and looking down, as Merchan said it's not going to happen.

---

Quote:

---

Trump's legal team wants to instruct the jury about Michael Cohen's phones being factory reset.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says he's never seen anything like this charge and says that Trump's team wants the jury be instructed as those their arguments are facts in the record. He quips that he'd prefer the facts not be based in the "imaginary record" rather than the real one.

Trump attorney Emil Bove argues that Cohen loaded something onto his phone in 2016 after resetting it and they don't know what it was. And he also points to apps that delete messages like Signal and Dust to support the proposed instruction.

Judge Juan Merchan says Bove effectively questioned the district attorney's technical records custodian who testified about Cohen's phones and says Trump's defense is free to argue about it in summations but he will not instruct the jury about it.

---

Rockdoc said:

---

So are we still talking about a felony conviction here? Very confusing.

---

I think in the jury instructions, they have upgraded it from a felony to 34 capital offenses. Merchan agrees.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass citing New York legal precedent asks that Judge Juan Merchan clarify for the jury in a curative instruction to combat the defense's notion that there's "nothing improper about not having a retainer agreement."

Steinglass said, "It is in fact the law."

"We don't think that's right, judge," Bove says in response, pointing to different New York case law.

---

Ducks4brkfast said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The defense and prosecution have moved onto an instruction about tax law.
Defense attorney Emil Bove again reiterates that tax crimes should not be permitted to go to the jury as one of the underlying crimes Trump sought to conceal when he falsified business records.

He goes on to quote Michael Cohen's testimony when asked about Allen Weisselberg's "grossing up" of the money he was paid. Cohen said, "I didn't really even think of that I just wanted to get my money back." Bove said that prosecutors are trying to say Cohen was trying to intentionally evade taxes by disguising the reimbursement as income and gross it up to cover his tax obligations.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argues that the language on tax crimes should be read to the jury because the money that was paid to Cohen was grossed up for tax purposes, which was written on notes from Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney in evidence.

Colangelo notes that they were falsely identified corporate payments rather than reimbursements and they were then submitted to the Internal Revenue Service as income through 1099s.

Defense attorney Bove says, "An agreement after the election to do these things is not an agreement to promote Trump's candidacy in the 2016 election."

Bove now argues they weren't allowed to ask Cohen about his own tax handling of the money and that there's no evidence of Trump or Trump Organization's tax handling of the payments.

---

---

I don't follow how any ot this helps anyone avoid paying income tax.

"Bove said that prosecutors are trying to say Cohen was trying to intentionally evade taxes by disguising the reimbursement as income and gross it up to cover his tax obligations."

I don't understand how this helps Cohen evade paying taxes.

---

It doesn't

Quote:

---

Court is adjourned for the day, but first Judge Juan Merchan said he'll try to get the final instructions to the attorneys by the end of the day Thursday so they have the long weekend to prepare for summations.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Defense attorney Emil Bove is now asking for a limiting instruction as it relates to Michael Cohen's guilty plea, American Media Inc.'s non-prosecution agreement and the Federal Election Commission settlement.
Judge Juan Merchan said he thinks his limiting instructions throughout the trial "were appropriate."
The defense proposed an instruction that AMI did not admit to any violations of the law in the agreements.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said it's "outrageous." Bove said, "I wasn't trying to be outrageous."
Bove went on to say that he wants to make it clear to the jury that the non-prosecution agreement is in evidence to go to former National Enquirer boss David Pecker's credibility not to go to Trump's guilt like Cohen's guilty plea that's also in evidence.

"This is a crucial issue," Bove said of his concern that prosecutors will cross the line in summations.

Steinglass said AMI's non-prosecution agreement and Cohen's guilty plea are also meant to offer context to the facts in the case, not just Pecker and Cohen's credibility.

Merchan said that his intention is to give "substantially the same instruction I gave during the trial" related to AMI's non-prosecution agreement.

---

Such BS.

---

Now that the jury is out of the room, is it totally inappropriate to remind Mr. Steinglass that what is outrageous is the prosecution's use of Mr. Colangelo - on loan from Biden's DOJ - to play these games and utilize novel interpretations of law in an election year against Biden's actual opponent in the upcoming election?

That, imo should be on the record.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass citing New York legal precedent asks that Judge Juan Merchan clarify for the jury in a curative instruction to combat the defense's notion that there's "nothing improper about not having a retainer agreement."

Steinglass said, "It is in fact the law."

---

---

So this is another crime they'll try to pin on Trump.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass citing New York legal precedent asks that Judge Juan Merchan clarify for the jury in a curative instruction to combat the defense's notion that there's "nothing improper about not having a retainer agreement."

Steinglass said, "It is in fact the law."

---

---

So this is another crime they'll try to pin on Trump.

---

If that was a crime, it was done by Cohen, their lawyer.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The defense wants the jury instructions to include a line: "for the purpose of influencing any election requires proof that the activity clearly and unambiguously related to President Trump's campaign."
Defense attorney Emil Bove says they were seeking to provide this type of content through the testimony of campaign finance expert Brad Smith had they been allowed to, so they are asking Judge Juan Merchan to include it.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo disputes Bove's claim that the phrase is a fact of law.
Colangelo says the jury probably needs less not more when it comes to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) terms.

Quote:

---

"We think the jury probably needs less not more on FECA instructions, and we think the term 'for the purpose of influencing an election' is a pretty straightforward term that jurors can understand," Colangelo says.

---

What Merchan ruled: He says he won't include it, noting that some of these issues related to FECA are confusing enough for the jury.
He says other portions of the instructions will accomplish what Trump's attorneys are looking to do with that phrase.

---

Yet defense wanted a witness to clear up that confusion, you dolt!

---

This is maddening. They know if the jury hears from an expert that says no campaign finance violation was committed nor was Trump charged federally for one that it majorly damages the case against him with the jury. Both the judge and prosecutors know this which is the very reason they aren't allowing clarifications from an expert witness for the defense.

The scale of justice has this judge's finger, hand, entire body sitting on one side of it against Trump.

aggiehawg said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass citing New York legal precedent asks that Judge Juan Merchan clarify for the jury in a curative instruction to combat the defense's notion that there's "nothing improper about not having a retainer agreement."

Steinglass said, "It is in fact the law."

---

---

So this is another crime they'll try to pin on Trump.

---

If that was a crime, it was done by Cohen, their lawyer.

---

Close enough.

Trump is guilty.

Quote:

---

To wit: Merchan took his legal scalpel to do surgery on Team Trump's federal elections law expert's allowable testimony, and the only thing left behind was a patch of Brad Smith's hair. Team Trump didn't bother putting the box of hair on the stand.

The battle over Smith has been going on since pretrial motions, as I explained in a previous piece entitled, "Trump Isn't the Only One Silenced at His Trial."

---

Quote:

---

There was a logical explanation. Honest. The judge told the defense that he didn't want to confuse the jurors' understanding of federal election law with an expert on federal elections law and the judge's own interpretation of federal elections law. Gee, we wouldn't want to confuse jurors with accurate information, now would we?

---

Quote:

---

So while Team Trump wrote down yet another reversible error in its Lizzo-sized binder of reversible errors, the judge explained "that allowing Smith to testify expansively on that topic would supplant the judge's role to determine what the law is," Politico reported.

And we can't have an expert countermand the judge who was chosen not in a randomized selection process, but explicitly to hear this case. It just might ruin everything.

And we don't have to wonder what animated the judge's decision, according to Stephen Miller, the founder of America First Legal and former Trump White House top aide. He wrote on X:

Quote:

---

The Biden-donor judge in NYC ruled that Trump's defense *cannot* have expert witness Brad Smith former FEC head testify that using private funds to resolve a private legal matter is not and could never be a campaign finance violation (meaning there is no crime).The fake campaign finance violation is the entire foundation of the phony case (the felony that gets Bragg around the statute of limitations for his bogus misdemeanor booking charge). Under Bragg's "interpretation," Trump would have been *obligated* to use campaign funds for private business expenses. Had Trump done so, DOJ would have prosecuted Trump for NOT using private funds. All of this lunacy underscores a single point: this is raw communist political persecution of Joe Biden's opponent.

---

---

Quote:

---

What Smith would have said, had he been allowed, was that the FEC and the Department of Justice refused to bring charges because the acts weren't illegal.

Quote:

---

Bragg's theory hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through "unlawful means." To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence.
If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in.

---

---

LINK

It's still not entirely clear to me, but based off the jury instructions, it sounds like the prosecution may be moving to a tax crime instead of an election crime.

AustinAg2K said:

---

It's still not entirely clear to me, but based off the jury instructions, it sounds like the prosecution may be moving to a tax crime instead of an election crime.

---

The prosecution needed a forensic accountant or some other expert to testify as to the tax implications, if any of how it was structured. They did not do so.

aggiehawg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

It's still not entirely clear to me, but based off the jury instructions, it sounds like the prosecution may be moving to a tax crime instead of an election crime.

---

The prosecution needed a forensic accountant or some other expert to testify as to the tax implications, if any of how it was structured. They did not do so.

---

But they want to leave loose ends out there that can be considered as possible crimes in the jury's deliberations, just to make sure there is a conviction for SOMETHING. Stalinist.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

It's still not entirely clear to me, but based off the jury instructions, it sounds like the prosecution may be moving to a tax crime instead of an election crime.

---

The prosecution needed a forensic accountant or some other expert to testify as to the tax implications, if any of how it was structured. They did not do so.

---

But they want to leave loose ends out there that can be considered as possible crimes in the jury's deliberations, just to make sure there is a conviction for SOMETHING. Stalinist.

---

Further, the state had their own campaign finance expert listed on their witness list but never called him.

Usually that means the expert submitted a report that they didn't like OR that when they tried to prep him he came across as a dodgy witness with a droning voice or some other characteristic that they thought the jury would either sleep through or ignore altogether. Not all expert witnesses can relate to a jury.

Gouveia stream started a bit ago going over today's events.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

To wit: Merchan took his legal scalpel to do surgery on Team Trump's federal elections law expert's allowable testimony, and the only thing left behind was a patch of Brad Smith's hair. Team Trump didn't bother putting the box of hair on the stand.

The battle over Smith has been going on since pretrial motions, as I explained in a previous piece entitled, "Trump Isn't the Only One Silenced at His Trial."

---

Quote:

---

There was a logical explanation. Honest. The judge told the defense that he didn't want to confuse the jurors' understanding of federal election law with an expert on federal elections law and the judge's own interpretation of federal elections law. Gee, we wouldn't want to confuse jurors with accurate information, now would we?

---

Quote:

---

So while Team Trump wrote down yet another reversible error in its Lizzo-sized binder of reversible errors, the judge explained "that allowing Smith to testify expansively on that topic would supplant the judge's role to determine what the law is," Politico reported.

And we can't have an expert countermand the judge who was chosen not in a randomized selection process, but explicitly to hear this case. It just might ruin everything.

And we don't have to wonder what animated the judge's decision, according to Stephen Miller, the founder of America First Legal and former Trump White House top aide. He wrote on X:

Quote:

---

The Biden-donor judge in NYC ruled that Trump's defense *cannot* have expert witness Brad Smith former FEC head testify that using private funds to resolve a private legal matter is not and could never be a campaign finance violation (meaning there is no crime).The fake campaign finance violation is the entire foundation of the phony case (the felony that gets Bragg around the statute of limitations for his bogus misdemeanor booking charge). Under Bragg's "interpretation," Trump would have been *obligated* to use campaign funds for private business expenses. Had Trump done so, DOJ would have prosecuted Trump for NOT using private funds. All of this lunacy underscores a single point: this is raw communist political persecution of Joe Biden's opponent.

---

---

Quote:

---

What Smith would have said, had he been allowed, was that the FEC and the Department of Justice refused to bring charges because the acts weren't illegal.

Quote:

---

Bragg's theory hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through "unlawful means." To do that, he'll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he's got to show it on his own evidence.
If that's the case, isn't it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury's fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won't allow that in.

---

---

LINK

---

This is the most blatant partisan aspect of all of this. Just a bizarro clown world of justice.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Make no mistake, when the Stalinist court declares Trump guilty of offenses they never proved, but just declared, this place will be crawling with leftists.

---

It will be a thread bump fest as they all circle jerk that "we told you he would be perp walked." If any of you idiots are reading this I sure hope you're proud of the Banana Republic your side created.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Make no mistake, when the Stalinist court declares Trump guilty of offenses they never proved, but just declared, this place will be crawling with leftists.

---

You are likely correct in that assessment. And they will crow they have beeen correct on the law the entire time and I, among others, were dead wrong.

I an no con law scholar but if my company is Turley, Dersh, McCarthy, Yoo and the like, I'll take my chances with them as being on the correct side of the multiple due process issues in this trial.

But as we have seen over the last eight+ years, due process and the rights of the accused have given way to the threats of Mob Rule against an unpopular defendant. (Chauvin, Rittenhouse was only able to squeak by because nearly every second of his encounters were captured by cameras, without that? He would have been convicted and sentenced to life.)

How many times did The Teflon Don, John Gotti, walk without people losing their crap in the streets? Multiple times before Guiliani finally brought him down. The literal Mob influenced Gotti's early trials.

The BLM/Antifa/Dem Mob rules now. And the Manhattan cocktail circuit.

But this verdict form on the underlying crime(s) for elevating this to a felony will be a fill in the blank choice for each juror. They do not have to be unanimous on that. #7,897 examples of reversible error here.