Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (3 Viewers)

Trial observers have been getting signals that closing arguments will begin this coming week - which means that Trump isn't testifying.

Certainly he shouldn't and it's his right but we all know what he has said over and over in the past both about him testifying because "I tell the truth" and what he says about people who don't testify.

I'd say that it's a certainty, like 100%, that at some point in the future he's going to lie and say that his lawyers refused to let him testify - but he wanted to. Under the right circumstances, that could lead to some interesting developments, if they're smart they're covering their arses on that.

After brashly declaring he wanted to testify in his criminal trial, it appears increasingly unlikely that Donald Trump will do so, as the jury seems poised to hear closing arguments next week.

Defendants rarely testify in their own defense, because their lawyers advise them that the risks of doing so, particularly when it comes to being questioned by prosecutors under oath, are simply too great.

Even so, defense attorneys often try to hold out until the last possible minute to say whether their client will testify, hoping to keep prosecutors guessing. In Trump’s case, the judge’s discussions with lawyers in recent days indicate that even if the defense calls a small number of witnesses, they do not expect Trump to be one of them.

Four people close to the former president said next week’s plan does not include him testifying, and they expect the jury to start deliberating later in the week.

Click to expand...

superchuck500 said:

Trial observers have been getting signals that closing arguments will begin this coming week - which means that Trump isn't testifying.

Certainly he shouldn't and it's his right but we all know what he has said over and over in the past both about him testifying because "I tell the truth" and what he says about people who don't testify.

I'd say that it's a certainty, like 100%, that at some point in the future he's going to lie and say that his lawyers refused to let him testify - but he wanted to. Under the right circumstances, that could lead to some interesting developments, if they're smart they're covering their arses on that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/18/trump-trial-testifying/

Click to expand...

What is your assessment of whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof? I was convinced they had until it appears that Cohen may have lied on the stand of this trial. I think he lied by denying that he wanted a job in the whitehouse, since there is a text stating he wanted a job, and the limited time of the Oct 2016 call to give details about the payoff scheme. I also heard that the charges of records falsificación to influence the electorate is wrong since those records came out after the election. In general, I’ve heard that they should’ve indicted on other crimes. I’d love to hear your and other attorneys’ perspectives.

Lapaz said:

What is your assessment of whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof? I was convinced they had until it appears that Cohen may have lied on the stand of this trial. I think he lied by denying that he wanted a job in the whitehouse, since there is a text stating he wanted a job, and the limited time of the Oct 2016 call to give details about the payoff scheme. I also heard that the charges of records falsificación to influence the electorate is wrong since those records came out after the election. In general, I’ve heard that they should’ve indicted on other crimes. I’d love to hear your and other attorneys’ perspectives.

Click to expand...

I think it would really hard for anyone who isn't very familiar with the evidence, the allegations, and the defenses to assess whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof. We have had several weeks of trial and a number of key pieces of evidence introduced. I would say that unless a person is knowledgeable about criminal trials (e.g. a lawyer or legal correspondent) and has sat through all of it, I'd be hesitant to put that much credence into their assessment.

And I certainly don't fall into that group - I haven't read any transcripts and have only superficial knowledge of what has been happening. It's also essential to point out that juries are known to interpret and respond to elements of the evidence that aren't always apparent in the written transcript.

I think especially in a case like this, where nobody really has much credibility, the documentary evidence becomes paramount - and as this case is about records (they are the very foundation of the case) those records are going to be very important in how the jury views the case. And the witnesses that aren't seen to have a credibility issue may end up having their weight amplified.

I think that the prosecution did a good job of establishing the scheme of 'catch and kill' and that Trump directed Pecker to catch and kill stories that Trump thought would harm his campaign. And I think there's pretty good evidence that Pecker expected Trump to pay for the Daniels effort - and that Trump did so through Cohen.

Beyond that, I think it would take a more intimate knowledge of the records and the timeline to weigh against the charges and their legal elements. I don't think it's accurate that many of the records in question were falsified after the election - but I don't really know which ones are more compelling than others (and when those were made).

My instinct in looking at it from what I have seen is that if the jury takes a simplistic view and applies the elements of the charges to the records themselves - and their purpose in accordance with the testimony - they are likely to convict unless there's juror(s) who simply refuse and hold-out for a hung jury. And I think the prosecution's closing will likely try to hammer on that: these charges are pretty simple and they're about the records, not whether Cohen is generally a credible person. And what he has said is actually consistent with the documents that have been authenticated by others, and that makes his testimony believable . . . so in applying the law to the conduct, they have to convict.

On the other hand, the defense will likely try to paint it as a convoluted history of conduct involving untrustworthy people who have admitted personal goals of seeing Trump convicted but the activity itself wasn't unlawful - people are free to contract in this fashion, Cohen's activities as Trump's lawyer may be legitimately seen as legal expenses, someone voluntarily accepting money to sell the rights to their story isn't illegal and it isn't election interference.

I can see it going either way - but I just don't know enough about the finer details to attempt any more refined assessment. My gut is that he's going to be acquitted - and it's only going to inflate his messiah complex.

Donald Trump would be committing an “act of near-insanity” to testify in his own defence at his hush money trial, according to a leading criminal defence barrister.

Over the last few weeks, the former president touted that he would “absolutely” testify in his criminal trial “if necessary”, adding that he would probably do so.

Interrogation of the prosecution’s final witness, Michael Cohen, will continue on Monday for a fourth – and likely final – day before Trump’s lawyers get an opportunity to present his defence.

But one thing remains ambiguous: will Mr Trump take the stand?

The US constitution guarantees the right for one to testify in their own defence. Mr Trump might desperately want to rise to the stand to address his accusers and to allege his innocence.

Defence lawyer Todd Blanche, who is representing Mr Trump at his criminal trial, said that the former president was undecided whether he would testify in his own defence as of Thursday.

Four people close to the Trump team said the plan does not include him testifying, The Washington Post reported on Sunday.

Mr Blanche will likely be working tirelessly behind the scenes to dissuade Mr Trump from testifying, legal experts have said.

Tony Wyatt, a leading criminal defence barrister at Ewing Law and author under the sobriquet Tony Kent, believes that it would be “all downside with almost zero up” if Mr Trump did so, he exclusively told The Independent.............

Optimus Prime said:

Mr Blanche will likely be working tirelessly behind the scenes to dissuade Mr Trump from testifying, legal experts have said.

Click to expand...

you mean on his knees praying and begging trump not to testify?

fooferdoggie said:

you mean on his knees praying and begging trump not to testify?

Click to expand...

Trump isn't going to testify and he never was - and he never wanted to because he's a coward and can't handle when he has to abide by rules he has no control over.

But what I think is far more interesting is that he's almost certainly going to say at some point either in the near future or later this year that his lawyers "refused" to let him testify. No good lawyer would ever let that be the actual truth, it's always the defendant's final choice - but that doesn't keep Trump from saying it.

If he's acquitted, its not really a big deal - he'll just be lying and his lawyers would probably not say much about it. If he's convicted, it's a problem for them if the defendant is saying they refused to let him testify. I suppose the question would then be to Trump, "If they refused to let you testify, that's grounds for a new trial, why haven't you filed the motion?"

Of course the answer would be that if he files the motion, he has to attest that to be the case - and it almost certainly isn't the case, it could present him with additional jeopardy (for filing a false attestation). So he would never actually file such a motion, he'll just say it - which is basically what he always does (lies repeatedly while refusing any forum that would adjudicate the truth).

So, the phone call to Trump’s aide’s phone where Cohen said he handed the phone to Trump and the defense has been acting like they caught Cohen lying in this trial? Well, there’s a picture of Trump with the aide at the time of the phone call.

Cohen was ready for this question. And I think he’s correct.

MT15 said:

So, the phone call to Trump’s aide’s phone where Cohen said he handed the phone to Trump and the defense has been acting like they caught Cohen lying in this trial? Well, there’s a picture of Trump with the aide at the time of the phone call.

Click to expand...

Trump's drama queen lawyer even complained to the judge about the prosecution not having their witness ready to testify because the defense were being jerks and wanted to force the CSPAN guy come back to authenticate the picture. Judges response was perfect, lol.

===========

Trump attorney complains trial has adjourned several times because prosecution didn't have witnesses ready​

Trump attorney Todd Blanche says the trial has adjourned early several times because the prosecution hasn't had witnesses ready.

"That’s not the way a trial is supposed to work," he says.

Judge Juan Merchan smiles and says "OK" in response.
============

It's apparent that Trump's defense only bought this witness in to perjure himself and try to cause enough disarray in the trial to prompt a mistrial. He certainly seems to be a lot more animated and motivated to lie than Cohen was in his 16 hours of testimony. They must not have much faith in the defense they've presented so far and feel that their only option is to muddy the waters as much as possible.

==========

Judge Merchan to Robert Costello: "Are you staring me down?"​

Judge Juan Merchan has asked to "take a minute" and told the jury to step out.

"Mr. Costello you're to remain seated," the judge told witness in a raised voice.

After another sustained objection, witness Robert Costello rolled his eyes and let out an audible sigh side, glancing at Merchan.
"I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom," the judge says.

Merchan also said, "You don't give me a side eye and you don't roll your eyes."

"When there’s a witness on the stand, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say 'jeez,' you don’t say strike it," Merchan says.

Then Costello held a long glare at the judge.

"Are you staring me down?" Merchan said.

Then Merchan said "clear the courtroom."
===========

coldseat said:

It's apparent that Trump's defense only bought this witness in to perjure himself and try to cause enough disarray in the trial to prompt a mistrial. He certainly seems to be a lot more animated and motivated to lie than Cohen was in his 16 hours of testimony. They must not have much faith in the defense they've presented so far and feel that their only option is to muddy the waters as much as possible.

Click to expand...

a mini trump? thats funny. quality legal minds right there.

Yes - it happens all the time jackass.

When a party offers an expert who is either unqualified or intends to testify about something that experts aren’t allowed to testify about they are denied.

coldseat said:

It's apparent that Trump's defense only bought this witness in to perjure himself and try to cause enough disarray in the trial to prompt a mistrial. He certainly seems to be a lot more animated and motivated to lie than Cohen was in his 16 hours of testimony. They must not have much faith in the defense they've presented so far and feel that their only option is to muddy the waters as much as possible.

==========

Judge Merchan to Robert Costello: "Are you staring me down?"​

Judge Juan Merchan has asked to "take a minute" and told the jury to step out.

"Mr. Costello you're to remain seated," the judge told witness in a raised voice.

After another sustained objection, witness Robert Costello rolled his eyes and let out an audible sigh side, glancing at Merchan.
"I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom," the judge says.

Merchan also said, "You don't give me a side eye and you don't roll your eyes."

"When there’s a witness on the stand, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say 'jeez,' you don’t say strike it," Merchan says.

Then Costello held a long glare at the judge.

"Are you staring me down?" Merchan said.

Then Merchan said "clear the courtroom."
===========

Donald Trump’s hush money trial | CNN Politics

Defense witness Robert Costello, a lawyer who advised Michael Cohen, is expected to resume his testimony Tuesday in Donald Trump’s New York criminal hush money trial.

www.cnn.com

Click to expand...

I was going to post about this, I guess trumps layers are trying to paint Cohen as a liar:
Robert Costello contradicted Michael Cohen's sworn testimony regarding Trump's knowledge of the Stormy Daniels hush money payment, saying Cohen told him numerous times that "Trump knew nothing about those payments."

When, in the early days, Donald Trump’s diehard fans failed to show up in front of 100 Centre Street at the Manhattan courthouse to clamor about the rank injustice of the case of The People of the State of New York v Donald J Trump, the lonely defendant roused himself from his fitful slumbers to choreograph a dance of the marionettes.

The political delegations that started appearing on 14 May attired for perfectly flattering cosplay in Trump matching red ties was a refrain of surrogates echoing insults and imprecations that if the former president were to mutter himself would earn him further contempt of court citations.

Trump assembled around him a miniature court and hierarchy that populated a desolation row. In the front row were seated Eric Trump and his wife, Lara Trump, now installed as the co-chair of the Republican National Committee.

There were the senators and congressmen, the failed presidential candidates and hopeful running mates who repeated Trump’s scripted talking points against the judge, the prosecutors and the justice system.

There were the Fox News anchors, Jeanine Pirro, who exchanged smiles and nods with Trump, and Laura Ingraham, reprimanded by court officers for staring through forbidden binoculars as though she were on safari. There was former Trump White House adviser Boris Epshteyn, indicted in the Arizona fake electors scheme.

The carnival of the Trump vassals was a pop-up court society that formed below the authoritarian ruler. Their ranked serfdom revealed the status pyramid. Like the witnesses, whoever they have been, the trial has dramatized the web of the only kind of relationship Trump knows: master and servant.

Day after day, Trump’s underworld has been peeled away. His main line of defense is that the people he has chosen to associate with are sleazy, corrupt and dishonest, and therefore cannot be believed. Illustrating their rotten characters proves Trump must be innocent.

Their offense is that they no longer serve him. The reams of hard physical evidence, meanwhile, must be ignored. Trump’s projection reached its risible apogee when his lawyer accused Stormy Daniels of profiting from selling merchandise, which she batted away with a quip: “Not unlike Mr Trump.”

The courtroom drama has more than legal implications. While the testimony and evidence may nail Trump on 34 felony charges of business fraud, the trial has painted a vast canvas of human bondage.

As the prosecution has built its case, each and every person called to the stand has described their own strange master-servant relationship with Trump.……..

zztop said:

I was going to post about this, I guess trumps layers are trying to paint Cohen as a liar:
Robert Costello contradicted Michael Cohen's sworn testimony regarding Trump's knowledge of the Stormy Daniels hush money payment, saying Cohen told him numerous times that "Trump knew nothing about those payments."

Click to expand...

I’m not positive, but I think this is the guy that Cohen already testified about - that he didn’t trust him from the very beginning, and he wasn’t truthful with him. If so, not sure this really helps the defense.