Steinglass doesn't care about that. He just wants the jury to hold Trump responsible for it.txags92 said:
Steinglass is all hung up about it being the law in NY State. Who is responsible for abiding by that law, the client or the attorney? Is it illegal for a client to pay an attorney without a retainer agreement in place? Or is it illegal for an attorney to perform legal services without an agreement in place?
*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***
617,046 Views |
6875 Replies |
Last: 6 days ago by Ellis Wyatt
That responsibility is always on the lawyer. Good lawyers are sticklers for precise agreements because it protects them even more so than their clients.Quote:
Steinglass is all hung up about it being the law in NY State. Who is responsible for abiding by that law, the client or the attorney? Is it illegal for a client to pay an attorney without a retainer agreement in place? Or is it illegal for an attorney to perform legal services without an agreement in place?
Analysis:
Add that one to the pile.
Quote:
Why does it matter that Pecker wasn't involved in that decision? Because the decision to pay the fine was evidence used against Trump at his criminal trial. That, in practical effect, made AMI a witness against Trump. The prosecution was effectively using Pecker to admit, on behalf of AMI, that AMI broke the law. But Pecker can't be cross-examined about something he didn't do. Neither AMI as an entity, nor its board, was called as a witness, so Trump was denied the right to cross-examine AMI about why it paid the $180,000 fine.
Via Hot Air.Quote:
That's a violation of Trump's rights under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause. Since Crawford v. Washington (2004), the Supreme Court has cracked down on the use of out-of-court statements by people who aren't called as witnesses, because the Constitution guarantees the right of the accused in every criminal case "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." That has specifically curtailed the use by prosecutors of guilty pleas as evidence unless they call the person who pled guilty ending the prior prosecutors' trick of obtaining such pleas, deferring sentencing, and then declining to grant immunity so that the guilty-pleading defendant would assert a Fifth Amendment right of self-incrimination against testifying. Now, the cost of that maneuver is to lose the plea as evidence.
Moreover, Crawford has particular significance when it's a corporation that pleads guilty or reaches a settlement, because corporations can't really be cross-examined unless there is an authorized corporate representative on the stand or someone who can testify about why they made the decision to plead guilty and that person may not have had any personal knowledge of the underlying crime.
Add that one to the pile.
ordinarily the prosecutor would be tying everything together and be putting a bow on it
Their whole case this go round they seemed to just want to present cloud of crimes with the glue being Cohen's testimony.
Will we conclusively hear a list of coherent charges matched to evidence?
Their whole case this go round they seemed to just want to present cloud of crimes with the glue being Cohen's testimony.
Will we conclusively hear a list of coherent charges matched to evidence?
no sig
Quote:
Prosecutors have reentered the courtroom following the lunch break. New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg is back, as well.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is expected to begin his closing argument soon.
Spoiler alert: no.pacecar02 said:
Will we conclusively hear a list of coherent charges matched to evidence?
no doubt
no sig
Ellis Wyatt said:
I don't think it matters.
And if somehow the jury were to acquit, Merchan would object and rule Trump guilty himself.
I know this judge is crazy, but can a judge even do that?
Question for the lawyers. If Trump is found not guilty, will there be any review of the case by a higher level court to asses if the judges decisions were correct or not, or does that only happen if Trump loses and appeals?
I briefly wondered this morning if Melania would make an appearance today. Just to give the prosecutors her special type of side eye. She's very good at that.Quote:
Donald Trump chatted with his attorney Todd Blanche before the judge entered the courtroom.
Tiffany Trump, Lara Trump, Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr. are back in court.
MISREAD!AustinAg2K said:
Question for the lawyers. If Trump is found not guilty, will there be any review of the case by a higher level court to asses if the judges decisions were correct or not, or does that only happen if Trump loses and appeals?
Sorry!
If not guilty, its all over.
I'm Gipper
I was joking. Kind of.SwigAg11 said:Ellis Wyatt said:
I don't think it matters.
And if somehow the jury were to acquit, Merchan would object and rule Trump guilty himself.
I know this judge is crazy, but can a judge even do that?
Only if he loses.AustinAg2K said:
Question for the lawyers. If Trump is found not guilty, will there be any review of the case by a higher level court to asses if the judges decisions were correct or not, or does that only happen if Trump loses and appeals?
So at the end of closing, Blanche said the jurors should "think twice" about convicting Trump.
Prosecution went nuts and so did Merchan.
He will give a curative instruction.
I'm Gipper
Prosecution went nuts and so did Merchan.
He will give a curative instruction.
I'm Gipper
My guess is that there will be multiple complaints filed on the judge with the state bar. A trial of this magnitude sort of has that as a matter of course.
I think the instruction will include "You must find Mr. Trump guilty."Im Gipper said:
So at the end of closing, Blanche said the jurors should "think twice" about convicting Trump.
Prosecution went nuts and so did Merchan.
He will give a curative instruction.
Reason being is that jury comes back with a verdict but sentencing is done the court and is not in their bailiwick, usually. (Florida has split procedure in death penalty type cases wherein the jury is on the sentencing phase. But otherwise in most cases jury does not sentence defendants.)Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan is back on the bench and court is in session.
Merchan begins by asking for prosecutors. He asked for their proposed curative instruction about discussing sending Trump to prison.
Assuming he will just be fine when the prosecution ends by saying, "No need to think about anything, we have done that for you, he is guilty. All you need to do is vote to convict and then you can go home."Im Gipper said:
So at the end of closing, Blanche said the jurors should "think twice" about convicting Trump.
Prosecution went nuts and so did Merchan.
He will give a curative instruction.
Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan and attorneys are discussing the issue of a curative instruction as to defense attorney Todd Blanche's remarks about sending Trump to prison.
During his closing arguments, Blanche talked about Michael Cohen's credibility and told the jury: "Then he came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly. You cannot send someone to prison you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen."
Prosecutors say they've drafted a curative instruction on the prison comment and the retainer agreement issue
Trump and his attorneys Emil Bove and Blanche reviewed the paper before Blanche speaks.
Blanche says they have no objection to the language of the curative instruction regarding the prison comment but says they don't believe he misstated the law as to retainer agreements in his closing argument.
Merchan says he will give the curative instruction on Blanche's prison comment as written. He says he will not give the instruction on the retainer agreement, saying while he understands prosecutors' frustration he thinks an instruction from the bench to the jury "would call more attention to it than it's worth."
Quote:
Attorney Joshua Steinglass is delivering the prosecution's closing argument in the hush money trial against Donald Trump.
The mic was not working at first, but was fixed.
He is expected to tie together text messages, phone logs, other witnesses' testimony, and the 34 allegedly falsified documents to corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony as the prosecution tries to appeal to the 12-person jury before they begin to deliberate.
Steinglass is the senior trial counsel in the Manhattan District Attorney's office and has worked on some of the office's more high-profile cases, including the Trump Organization's tax fraud conviction in 2022.
Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan instructs the jury about the defense's closing arguments.Quote:
"In the defense summation, Mr. (Todd) Blanche asked in substance that you not send the defendant to prison. That comment was improper and you must disregard it.
In your deliberations, you may not discuss, consider or even speculate as to matters related to sentence or punishment
Quote:
"In his opening, Mr. Colangelo told you that this case, at its core, is about a conspiracy and a cover up," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says, recalling prosecutor Matthew Colangelo's opening statement.
In his closing argument, Steinglass says the conspiracy was "to corrupt the 2016 election" and the a cover up was "an effort hide the conspiracy to falsify business records to disguise."
That's pretty weak sauce.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass focuses on Trump attorney Todd Blanche's accusation that evidence may have been manipulated, saying they only have records for two of Michael Cohen's 11 phones.
He says prosecutors don't have all the phone data for the parties involved so the jury should note that the absence of a particular phone record doesn't prove that a call did not happen.Quote:
"Some of the conversation in this case took place in person so there wouldn't be a phone call or record. The fact that there isn't a record of a particular phone call does not mean a particular conversation did not take place," he said.
That didn't take long.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says "it's just not reality" that Stormy Daniels was extorting Donald Trump.
How stupid.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is continuing his closing argument.
"The conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election you don't need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit," he says.
that the absence of a particular phone record doesn't prove that a call did not happen.
Wow, burden of proof is on whom?
If you want to make that argument, bury it in the smoke and mirrors. You don't lead with that.
Wow, burden of proof is on whom?
If you want to make that argument, bury it in the smoke and mirrors. You don't lead with that.
Then why the **** did you call him to testify?!!!Quote:
Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is continuing his closing argument.
"The conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election you don't need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit," he says.
Steinglass denying that Stormy Daniels was trying to extort Trump is hard to see what would be a more accurate description of selling a salacious story for money. Instead, Steinglass claims that Daniels was some sort of victim and was just trying to protect her family by demanding money. Laughable at best.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass calls David Pecker's testimony "utterly damning."Steinglass says that Pecker's testimony "eliminates the whole notion that this was politics as usual" and that you don't need Michael Cohen's testimony to prove there was a conspiracy.Quote:
"Mr. Pecker has absolutely no reason to lie here, he still considers Mr. Trump a friend and mentor and yet his testimony was utterly devastating," Steinglass says.
Quote:
Former President Donald Trump's eldest sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and his daughter-in-law and Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump railed against key figures in the hush money trial outside the Manhattan courtroom where closing arguments are taking place.
Trump's eldest sons attacked and tried to undermine the credibility of Michael Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, and New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case against Trump.
Donald Trump Jr. took aim at Robert De Niro, who spoke to reporters outside of the courthouse earlier on Tuesday on behalf of the Biden campaign.Eric Trump said, "I want to say sorry to the jury that's in there. This has been the greatest colossal waste of time."Quote:
"We understand that this is a political persecution. That was evidenced today by the Biden campaign themselves holding a rally here," Donald Trump Jr. said.
Lara Trump asked supporters to donate and plugged Trump's campaign website. Tiffany Trump also attended the trial on Tuesday but did not come to speak to reporters.
They did not take questions from reporters.
GMAFB. Poor Stormy.Quote:
"To be sure" some witnesses want to see Donald Trump convicted, says prosecutor Joshua Steinglass. "They've been attacked by the defendant on social media."
The prosecutor acknowledges that Stormy Daniels is one of them.Quote:
"They've shamed her. They've tried to suggest her story has changed over the years. It has not, at least not in any way that's significant.
"To be sure, there were parts of her testimony that were cringeworthy," Steinglass says.
Quote:
Before prosecution began its closing arguments, the attorneys on both sides and the judge discussed Trump attorney's Todd Blanche's comments about Michael Cohen's credibility during his closing argument.
CNN's Paula Reid explained why the comment was a "third rail."
What Blanche said about Cohen: "Then he came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly. You cannot send someone to prison you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen."
Why it's controversial: "The jury is not going to sentence the defendant if he is convicted. And the judge suggested that this was part of an effort to elicit sympathy, potentially, for the defendant. So that's why this is such an issue. They should not be bringing this up because this is not the jury's job right now to decide whether or not someone goes to prison," Reid explained.Quote:
"Their job is to look at the facts and the law and decide whether this is an acquittal or if this is a conviction. That's their task, and it has nothing to do with sentencing. And that's why prosecutors objected and the judge agreed," she added.
That seems like a bad argument to make. In effect they are saying it's ok to not believe his testimony, which makes them look bad because he was their star witness.aggiehawg said:That didn't take long.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says "it's just not reality" that Stormy Daniels was extorting Donald Trump.How stupid.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is continuing his closing argument.
"The conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election you don't need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit," he says.
Yep. Lack of evidence that it didn't happen is not proof that it did. Burden of proof is on the prosecution.aggiehawg said:Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan instructs the jury about the defense's closing arguments.Quote:
"In the defense summation, Mr. (Todd) Blanche asked in substance that you not send the defendant to prison. That comment was improper and you must disregard it.
In your deliberations, you may not discuss, consider or even speculate as to matters related to sentence or punishmentQuote:
"In his opening, Mr. Colangelo told you that this case, at its core, is about a conspiracy and a cover up," prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says, recalling prosecutor Matthew Colangelo's opening statement.
In his closing argument, Steinglass says the conspiracy was "to corrupt the 2016 election" and the a cover up was "an effort hide the conspiracy to falsify business records to disguise."That's pretty weak sauce.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass focuses on Trump attorney Todd Blanche's accusation that evidence may have been manipulated, saying they only have records for two of Michael Cohen's 11 phones.
He says prosecutors don't have all the phone data for the parties involved so the jury should note that the absence of a particular phone record doesn't prove that a call did not happen.Quote:
"Some of the conversation in this case took place in person so there wouldn't be a phone call or record. The fact that there isn't a record of a particular phone call does not mean a particular conversation did not take place," he said.
For an experiencd prosecutor, this is a crap closing.Troy91 said:
that the absence of a particular phone record doesn't prove that a call did not happen.
Wow, burden of proof is on whom?
If you want to make that argument, bury it in the smoke and mirrors. You don't lead with that.
Well, it's hard to have evidence of a crime that didn't occur. How are we even at this point in America?Quote:
That seems like a bad argument to make. In effect they are saying it's ok to not believe his testimony, which makes them look bad because he was their star witness.
Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is arguing that that some of the details in Stormy Daniels' story ring true, like what Trump's hotel suite looked like and the contents of his toiletry bag.
He says those are the "kind of details you would expect someone to remember" and notes that if Daniels didn't testify about them, it would have given the defense more ammunition to try to discredit her.
"In the simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive," Steinglass says.
Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is moving onto Michael Cohen and notes the fact that he has an interest in this case.
"Michael Cohen is understandably angry, that to date, he's the one one who's paid the price for his role in this conspiracy," Steinglass says.
"Anyone in Cohen's shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable," Steinglass says.
Cohen did Trump's bidding for years, "and when it went bad the defendant cut him loose, dropped him like a hot potato and tweeted out to he world that Mr. Cohen was as scumbag," Steinglass says.
Steinglass is not referring to Trump by name, just as the defendant.
aggiehawg said:Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is arguing that that some of the details in Stormy Daniels' story ring true, like what Trump's hotel suite looked like and the contents of his toiletry bag.
He says those are the "kind of details you would expect someone to remember" and notes that if Daniels didn't testify about them, it would have given the defense more ammunition to try to discredit her.
"In the simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive," Steinglass says.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is moving onto Michael Cohen and notes the fact that he has an interest in this case.
"Michael Cohen is understandably angry, that to date, he's the one one who's paid the price for his role in this conspiracy," Steinglass says.
"Anyone in Cohen's shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable," Steinglass says.
Cohen did Trump's bidding for years, "and when it went bad the defendant cut him loose, dropped him like a hot potato and tweeted out to he world that Mr. Cohen was as scumbag," Steinglass says.
Steinglass is not referring to Trump by name, just as the defendant.
But Cohen is a scumbag. That's been proven multiple times in this trial.
Quote:
Donald Trump wouldn't pay $130,000 twice that after it was grossed up for taxes just because he took a photo with someone on a golf course, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass tells the jury.
Remember: The jury was shown a photo on May 7 of Trump wearing a golf shirt alongside Stormy Daniels.
She testified that she met Trump in 2006 at a golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. "It was a very brief encounter," she said.
You idiot, Steinglass. Trump didn't find out about the Daniels payment until after the election?Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said Donald Trump's attorney Todd Blanche sounded like "he admitted" that at least as early as 2017, former President Donald Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels' payments.
"Remember, 2017 is when the checks were still rolling in every month. Of course the defendant knew much earlier than 2017," he said.
Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now addressing Michael Cohen's admission of stealing from Trump by overcharging the Trump Organization for the tech services.
The prosecutor says Cohen didn't tell Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg it was only $20,000 he should've been reimbursed rather than the $50,000 he claimed.
Steinglass adds: "And he should have, and that's stealing, we agree."
"It's true he was never charged with that. He's also the one who brought it to everyone's attention," Steinglass says.
Cohen is a liar and a scumbag for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump like the tax and taxis.
Quote:
Joshua Steinglass calls out Trump's attorney Todd Blanche on what he said was an inconsistency in the defense argument about Michael Cohen.
"You can call him a thief or say it wasn't a reimbursement but not both," he says.
"I don't know if anybody caught this," he tells the jury.Quote:
"Blanche said (Cohen) stole $60,000 because it was grossed up. So that means the defendant is trying to have it both ways, right. They're denying the $420,000 was a reimbursement at all. Claiming payment for legal services rendered in 2016. But if that's true, then there was no theft. He's getting paid for legal services in 2017. They can call him a thief and claim this wasn't really reimbursement, but not both."
That is exactly what would be expected when somebody who worked for you was charged with crimes that didn't involve his work for your organization (Taxi token fraud). You distance yourself lest it splash back on you. I can't remember, was the defense allowed to talk about the other crimes Cohen pleaded guilty to?Tramp96 said:aggiehawg said:Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is arguing that that some of the details in Stormy Daniels' story ring true, like what Trump's hotel suite looked like and the contents of his toiletry bag.
He says those are the "kind of details you would expect someone to remember" and notes that if Daniels didn't testify about them, it would have given the defense more ammunition to try to discredit her.
"In the simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive," Steinglass says.Quote:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is moving onto Michael Cohen and notes the fact that he has an interest in this case.
"Michael Cohen is understandably angry, that to date, he's the one one who's paid the price for his role in this conspiracy," Steinglass says.
"Anyone in Cohen's shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable," Steinglass says.
Cohen did Trump's bidding for years, "and when it went bad the defendant cut him loose, dropped him like a hot potato and tweeted out to he world that Mr. Cohen was as scumbag," Steinglass says.
Steinglass is not referring to Trump by name, just as the defendant.
But Cohen is a scumbag. That's been proven multiple times in this trial.