Mornin' folks.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan told jurors he would give them their instructions this morning.
Merchan previously said his jury instructions would take about an hour.
Yesterday's closing arguments: Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass addressed the jury for more than 4.5 hours on Tuesday, rehashing much of the evidence presented at trial.
He told the jury the prosecution has proved Trump had intent to commit, aid, or conceal a violation of the election law and he paid Stormy Daniels' hush money because of the 2016 election.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche addressed the jury for just under three hours, maintaining Donald Trump is innocent and slamming Michael Cohen's credibility.

---

CNN live blog feed is HERE

These jury instructions will be difficult to follow and understand with this limited format wherein we cannot hear the judge delivering them but will do the best I can. You folks on twitter can help out posting from Inner City Press or other twitter sources that will have mor verbatim accounts. Any assistnce with these would be appreciated.

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.

---

As ridiculous as this sounds, the MarXists are posting the other judge who said even though the jury said Trump didn't rape Carroll, he actually did. He also changed the jury award from $2MM to $5MM.

I don't know how a judge gets away with being so openly biased.

Quote:

---

The defense and prosecution debated jury instructions during the charge conference last week, discussing the language around intent, an alleged conspiracy and more.
Both sides received the final jury instructions from Judge Juan Merchan on Thursday last week, a source familiar confirmed. These are instructions that will be read to the jury today.
Here are the key points from last week's proceeding:
Alleged conspiracy: The parties debated language about the jury's requirement to find the prosecutors proved that Donald Trump participated in an alleged conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election. The prosecution argued that Trump's meeting with former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker at Trump Tower in 2015 went toward Trump's participation in the conspiracy, while the defense called the meeting a "series of pretty standard campaign activities that were not criminal."

Quote:

---

Remember: Trump was first indicted in March 2023 by the Manhattan district attorney on state charges related to a hush-money payment to an adult film star in 2016. Prosecutors allege Trump was a part of an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election. Further, they allege he was part of an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, including the $130,000 payment. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

---

Intent: Originally, the defense proposed a second line about intent, which meant people must establish beyond a reasonable doubt two separate intents, the intent to defraud and the intent to commit or conceal the aid of another crime. Due to concerns with this section, Judge Juan Merchan opted to keep the standard, criminal jury instructions language around the issue of intent.
Here are some other topics discussed around jury instructions:

• Both sides debated instructions around tax crimes relating to Cohen testifying that former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg was "grossing up" the money Cohen was paid.
• The defense asked the judge to instruct the jury that hush money is not illegal. Merchan said he doesn't think it's necessary, as that came out in testimony.
• Merchan said he thought his limiting instructions on Cohen's guilty plea, American Media Inc.'s non-prosecution agreement and others "were appropriate" and that he would give the same instruction he did during the trial.
• There was a debate around New York legal precedent on if retainer agreements are required between an attorney and a client. The judge said he would look into this and get back to them.

Asking for another deviation: Defense attorney Emil Bove requested another deviation from the standard criminal jury instructions language when he asked the judge to be as specific as possible when describing the statutes as they are applied in this case, noting there wasn't much of a precedent.
"What you're asking me to do is change the law and I'm not going to do that," Merchan said.

---

Juror #1.

“You realize this guy looks like he’s going to win in Nov regardless of this case. That gives him control of the FBI and IRS. He’ll know all our names. Are you sure you really want to play a stooge for the DA?”

Jurors #2-12:
“ When you put it like that…. “

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) May 29, 2024

Quote:

---

How the jury will hear its instructions before going to deliberate is very important in this case, CNN commentators and former prosecutors say.
Donald Trump is facing 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the payment to Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime but they didn't have to prove that Trump committed that crime.
"I've always thought the most difficult part of this case for the prosecution to prove is that connection to any underlying crime that they have to show that Donald Trump was intending to violate by falsifying records," said Carrie Cordero, the former counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security.
The presence of an underlying crime is what makes these charges felonies, instead of misdemeanors, she said.
Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor, also emphasized the importance of jury instruction in this trial.

Quote:

---

"The more broad that jury instruction is, which is the way that the judge is going, the easier it is for them to make that connection evidentiary," Wu told CNN, referring to the connection between falsifying the business records and a second underlying crime

---

---

Since the beginning I've fully expected a guilty verdict. Not because Trump is guilty but because the Dems need him to be guilty of something prior to the election as the other lawfare shams have started to crumble.

Nothing this judge has done has dissuaded me from that. His extreme bias towards the prosecutors including what will likely be overly broad instructions will ensure it. I'd be shocked at a hung jury and flabbergasted at an acquittal.

I expect our resident leftists will finally join this thread with glee and for Biden to run on "convicted felon Trump" from this point forward -- he can't run on his record, that's for sure.

4stringAg said:

---

Since the beginning I've fully expected a guilty verdict. Not because Trump is guilty but because the Dems need him to be guilty of something prior to the election as the other lawfare shams have started to crumble.

Nothing this judge has done has dissuaded me from that. His extreme bias towards the prosecutors including what will likely be overly broad instructions will ensure it. I'd be shocked at a hung jury and flabbergasted at an acquittal.

I expect our resident leftists will finally join this thread with glee and for Biden to run on "convicted felon Trump" from this point forward -- he can't run on his record, that's for sure.

---

We'll see how fast they reach a verdict today. And I do think they will reach a verdict today but could be a mixed bag with the 11 counts wherein Michael Cohen created invoices are not attributed to Trump but the actions of Trump employees in making ledger entries and cutting the checks and Trump signing them are a verdict of guilty.

This might as well be trial by judge, not jury. Judge will get a conviction however he has to. I don't understand why there is no recourse against a judge that denies constitutional rights of the defendant and flaunts the law. I guess the answer is New York.

There needs to be more than one vote for acquital. Not for legal reasons, but to give support to each other against the pressure of the "get Trump" group.

aggiehawg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Since the beginning I've fully expected a guilty verdict. Not because Trump is guilty but because the Dems need him to be guilty of something prior to the election as the other lawfare shams have started to crumble.

Nothing this judge has done has dissuaded me from that. His extreme bias towards the prosecutors including what will likely be overly broad instructions will ensure it. I'd be shocked at a hung jury and flabbergasted at an acquittal.

I expect our resident leftists will finally join this thread with glee and for Biden to run on "convicted felon Trump" from this point forward -- he can't run on his record, that's for sure.

---

We'll see how fast they reach a verdict today. And I do think they will reach a verdict today but could be a mixed bag with the 11 counts wherein Michael Cohen created invoices are not attributed to Trump but the actions of Trump employees in making ledger entries and cutting the checks and Trump signing them are a verdict of guilty.

---

But the checks were to pay Cohen invoices, correct? So legal fees? This entire case is a farse. No proof of any thing illegal by Trump.

Quote:

---

There are no immediate plans to increase security around the Manhattan courthouse amid Trump's historic criminal hush money trial, law enforcement officials tell CNN.
However, when the New York Police Department (NYPD) learns that a verdict is in, the department will likely move more personnel into the area.
The NYPD does expect to get some heads up from the court before the verdict is read, though exactly how much is unclear.
In the meantime, NYPD is monitoring social media, looking for any calls for rallies, demonstrations or threats. They can mobilize quickly should the need arise, according to officials.

---

Have to say, I'd be floored if they reach a verdict today!

My guess is a mixed bag of guilty and not guilty on Friday afternoon.

General consensus here is a verdict today is bad for Trump?

I'd think that is the case. Means they have already been talking and guilty vote is just a formality.

Quote:

---

The defense and prosecution gave their closing arguments Tuesday in Donald Trump's New York hush money trial, spending many hours late into the evening offering the jury opposing stories about the payment made to Stormy Daniels in October 2016 and the subsequent reimbursement to Michael Cohen the following year.
Prosecutors told jurors they've seen a "mountain of evidence" to prove that Trump falsified business records in order to cover up a damaging story about an alleged affair at the end of the 2016 election. The defense said the prosecution's criminal case against the former president is wholly reliant on the testimony of Michael Cohen the "MVP of liars" who is out to get Trump. Which narrative the jury believes could ultimately decide Trump's legal fate.
Here are takeaways from Day 21 of the Trump hush money trial:
Defense argues jurors cannot convict on Michael Cohen's words: Todd Blanche was up first, and he spent much of his two-hour closing argument attacking the credibility of Cohen, Trump's former fixer.

• He accused Cohen of lying directly to the jury, on top of the lies he was convicted of telling. Cohen lied so much, Blanche alleged, that he should be considered the Tom Brady of lying the "GLOAT," or the "Greatest Liar of All Time."
• Blanche focused on Cohen's claims about his phone call with Trump on October 24, 2016. Cohen testified that Trump's bodyguard Keith Schiller put Trump on the phone so Cohen could tell him he was going forward with the Daniels payment.
• Blanche told the jury it's clear they were talking about the teen prankster because Cohen hung up and texted Schiller about the situation then followed up the next morning.

Prosecution defends Cohen but argues there's more to the case: Over four hours and 41 minutes, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass pushed back against Blanche's attacks, arguing there was plenty of corroboration of Cohen's testimony, both from documents and the testimony of others, particularly former AMI chief David Pecker.

• Steinglass tried to rebut Blanche's allegation about the October 24, 2016, call with a bit of role-playing and acted out a theoretical call Cohen could have made where he talked to both Schiller and Trump. "These guys know each other well. They speak in coded language, and they speak fast," Steinglass said of Cohen and Trump.
• Steinglass also focused on testimony from Pecker to help bolster Cohen's credibility, such as showing that Cohen's story was corroborated by Pecker's description of a phone call with Trump about the Karen McDougal story in June 2016.
• He also walked jurors back through all of the documents and testimony they had heard or seen during the trial, beginning with the 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

What's next: Now that closing arguments are done, the panel of seven men and five women is expected to begin deliberations today.

---

The facts don't matter. The evidence doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. If you have any doubt about that, remember that Trump was found guilty of a crime in which the only evidence was the recollection of the purported victim whose story paralleled the plot of Law and Order, her favorite show.

Trump will be found guilty. They threw 34 counts do they can pick a few to convict him of and make it appear generous and fair. The only thing left to determine is how this will affect the upcoming election.

FIDO95 said:

---

The ends justify the means.

---

Yep, this is what happens when a group of people (liberals) have no god. Instead, they worship self and politicians. We's so screwed.

FIDO95 said:

---

The facts don't matter. The evidence doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. If you have any doubt about that, remember that Trump was found guilty of a crime in which the only evidence was the recollection of the purported victim whose story paralleled the plot of Law and Order, her favorite show.

Trump will be found guilty. They threw 34 counts do they can pick a few to convict him of and make it appear generous and fair. The only thing left to determine is how this will affect the upcoming election.

---

As long as they can get 1 count to stick, they will beat that drum all the way to November.

7 men and 5 women? Surely there has to be at least 1 or 2 of what the UK media call "white van" men on the panel. "White van" guys = working class people that tend to be relatively conservative.

To me, it looks like regardless of the facts and law here, the fix was in from the start. Anti-Trump judge, in an anti-Trump venue makes me think anything less than "guilty" would be a stunner.

SwigAg11 said:

---

General consensus here is a verdict today is bad for Trump?

---

Any unanimous verdict is bad for Trump regardless of when it arrives. Hung jury is his only shot

DannyDuberstein said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

General consensus here is a verdict today is bad for Trump?

---

Any unanimous verdict is bad for Trump regardless of when it arrives. Hung jury is his only shot

---

Acquittal would be great for Trump?

My point is he's not getting 12 people to agree on acquittal. If a verdict comes back, it's going to be guilty

SwigAg11 said:

---

General consensus here is a verdict today is bad for Trump?

---

I think the general consensus is that a verdict on ANY day will be bad for Trump.

Quote:

---

After closing arguments Tuesday in his Manhattan criminal trial, former President Donald Trump posted on social media to repeat his misleading complaint that Judge Juan Merchan has prevented him from employing a certain defense.

Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social: "THE GREATEST CASE I'VE EVER SEEN FOR RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, AND JUDGE MERCHAN WILL NOT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LET ME USE THAT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS RIGGED TRIAL. ANOTHER TERM, ADVICE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!"

Facts First: Trump's claim remains misleading. He didn't mention, again, that the reason Merchan will not allow Trump's legal team to invoke "advice of counsel" during the trial is that, when Trump was asked before the trial whether he would be using an "advice of counsel" defense, his lawyers told Merchan he would not.

An "advice of counsel" defense typically requires the defendant to waive attorney-client privilege. Trump's lawyers told Merchan before the trial that instead of a "formal" defense of "advice of counsel," Trump wanted to use a different defense in which he would not waive attorney-client privilege but would still "elicit evidence concerning the presence, involvement and advice of lawyers in relevant events giving rise to the charges in the Indictment."

Merchan rejected this proposal. He wrote in March: "To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it. The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This Court can not endorse such a tactic." Therefore, Merchan ruled, Trump could not invoke or even suggest a "presence of counsel" defense in the trial.

Last week, during courtroom discussions about Merchan's instructions to the jury, Merchan rejected an attempt by Trump's defense to invoke the "involvement of counsel." Merchan notedhe had already made his stance on the proposal clear.

Merchan said: "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."

---

This is confusing to me. Cohen has repeatedly violated attorney client privilege anyway. And on cross tried to defend his recording of Trump as a crime/fraud exception. Yet the only person committing anything on that recording could be Cohen himself, not Trump.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

"White van" guys = working class people that tend to be relatively conservative.

---

white van guy typically means pedo in the US

---

Wait. So you're saying the free candy guys are lying to me?

trump's attorneys filed a statement saying they would not be using the "advice of counsel defense." by doing so, this protected trump from certain discovery and having to turn over additional documents to the prosecution.

if trump had said he was intending to use this defense. he would have had to turn over additional documents.

BMX Bandit said:

---

trump's attorneys filed a statement saying they would not be using the "advice of counsel defense." by doing so, this protected trump from certain discovery and having to turn over additional documents to the prosecution.

if trump had said he was intending to use this defense. he would have had to turn over additional documents.

---

He can't waive attorney client privilege as to a specific lawyer? Such as Cohen alone?

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump is in the Manhattan courtroom ahead of jury deliberations in his historic criminal hush money trial.
Donald Trump Jr. is seated next to Alina Habba in the first row behind Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is giving the 12-person jury instructions on the law, their duties and the charges they must consider against Donald Trump before the panel of New Yorkers deliberates on a verdict.
"Members, of the jury, I will now instruct you on the law," Merchan says.

Merchan previously said his instructions to the jury will take about an hour.

Prosecutors accuse the ex-president of "a conspiracy and a cover-up" and of betraying 2016 voters by illegally falsifying financial records to hide a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the election.

Trump denies having an affair with Daniels and has pleaded not guilty in this first of four looming criminal cases which may be the only one to go to trial before November's election. In order to convict Trump, jurors must first decide that he falsified financial documents and did so with the express purpose of committing another crime.

What happens next: After the jury receives its instructions, the panel will then consider the evidence presented at trial and charges against the defendant. The jury must be unanimous in its decision.
The jury will receive a copy of all the evidence admitted at trial and can ask to hear witness testimony read back to them. They can communicate with the court and ask questions about the case with the court through handwritten notes.
When the jury poses a question, the parties gather to determine how best to respond.
The jury will notify the court that they've reached a verdict.

---