The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today
-
More Turley:
“I am out of the courtroom. It was quite a morning to have someone admit to stealing money from his client and then confirm that he wants to run for Congress. It will be a novel campaign: people usually wait to get into Congress before they commit major felonies...“
-
Defense rests without calling Trump up to testify. Likely a good move.
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Defense rests without calling Trump up to testify. Likely a good move.
No kidding. Can you imagine what a shit-show that would have been?
-
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
The fact that Trump didn't demand to take the stand might imply that his level of narcissistic imbalance is exaggerated.
Or they have him sedate to keep him quiet.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
Or they have him sedate to keep him quiet.
Between the stimulants that Biden needs and the sedation Trump could use, there might be a balance there.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K
Maybe in the spirit of bi-partisan, President Biden told President Trump to take whatever he needed of the sedates that President Biden already had. I am imagining a medical cabinet with two shelfs - one labeled "Joe's stuff" and the other shelf - "Don's stuff". -
President Trump on why he did not testify in his trial.
“Because he made rulings that makes it very difficult to testify,” Trump said. “Anything I did, anything I did in the past they can bring everything up. And you know what, I’ve had a great past.”
LOL
-
He's not wrong.
There is no requirement for a defendant to testify at trial. The judge's obvious prejudice against the defense would be a shit-show.
OTOH, it might have caused more reversible errors on the part of the judge.
Explain how Stephanie Clifford's testimony about what Trump was wearing when she left the bathroom is relevant to a business fraud case.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K Agree. I just thought his statement was funny.
anything I did in the past they can bring everything up. And you know what, I’ve had a great past.”
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
@George-K Agree. I just thought his statement was funny.
anything I did in the past they can bring everything up. And you know what, I’ve had a great past.”
He’s just too humble to want to bring up anything that’s “great” in his past.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Trump "Hush Money" Trial starts today:
And you know what, I’ve had a great past.”
Forget his obnoxious personality for a second.
- Real estate mogul - surely with some questionable honesty.
- Multimillionaire
- TV star
- President of the United States
Yeah, that's a "great past."
Remember, I don't like the guy. But can you point me to another person with those achievements?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
-
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Turley's thread on jury instructions
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1795799848416952421.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
I am back in the courtroom for the instructions.
...This judge has stated that he wants to stay close to the standard instructions. The problem is that this case is anything but standard. We will be looking for some of the outstanding issues, particularly on the standard of proof for key elements like "unlawful means." ......Yesterday was chilling as the judge allowed the prosecutors to engage in what some of us view as highly improper arguments. That included effectively testifying on facts not in the record. Merchan's view of "argument" was considerably broader for the prosecution than the defense. For the prosecutors making objections, the strike zone seemed like it stretched from dugout to dugout. For the defense, it seemed the size of a postage stamp...
...Judge Merchan is now instructing the jury...
...He has ruled that the jury will not be given copies of the instructions but can ask for them to be read to them again.
...Judge Merchan is giving the standard instruction that they can reach inferences based on facts such as inferring that it rained from seeing people in raincoats. It is a rather quaint instruction after Merchan allowed the prosecutors to state as a "fact" that federal election violations occurred in this case. There is no such violation in this case, but Merchan did nothing to correct the erroneous impression. To carry forward the analogy, Steinglass was just yelling at the jury that there was a virtual hurricane on a perfectly sunny day but the judge remained entirely silent.
......Merchan is telling them that they can only consider Cohen's plea to a federal election violation was only allowed to judge his credibility and offer "context." That is mere meek after the prosecutors said repeatedly that such violations were committed as an indisputable fact and that Trump ordered them to be committed...
......Judge Merchan just said that if they find that any witness has testified with regard to any material fact, they can disregard the entirety of his or her testimony. It could be called the Michael Cohen charge. It seems clear to some of us that Cohen clearly lied about the key call that he cited for telling Trump about the completion of the Daniels deal and his ridiculous claim that he secretly taped Trump for his own benefit...
......Merchan also instructed that they may consider the interests of the
witness in the outcome of the case. One of the least convincing parts of the closing argument of the prosecution was the claim that Michael Cohen was attacking Trump and selling merchandise to feed his family. Steinglass portrayed Cohen as struggling in his luxury multimillion dollar condo while making millions. It was a far cry from pushing a food cart down Broadway to support his family......Merchan instructed that Cohen is an accomplice and, as such, there is a special concern over such testimony particularly when there are benefits for testimony. There must be corroborating evidence. In other words, you may not convict the defendant solely on the basis of the testimony of Cohen.
...Merchan has instructed that the first count of falsifying business records in the first degree must show that Trump made or causes a false entry to be made. Intent means conscious or purpose to defraud. Intent does not require an intent to defraud any particular person or entry but a general intent to defraud.
...Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous...
...Merchan just noted that, if the money would have been paid regardless of the campaign, it is not a contribution.
...After the federal election violation, Merchan says that the second crime is falsifying other documents. This creates a redundancy with the NY election violation on the falsifying documents. It allows the government to allege the falsification of documents as a felony and then allows such falsification to be also the unlawful means for certain documents. The third is the violation of tax laws.
...So a dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records was zapped back into life by alleging that under NY election law 17-152 it was done to influence the election by the unlawful means of falsification of business records. It is so circular as to produce vertigo. So the jury finds some documents were falsified to use the unlawful means of falsifying other documents. That is only one of three possible crimes and the jury does not have to agree on which was the basis for their conviction.
...The absence of a witness on media practices is becoming more and
more significant. Such a witness could have discussed how stories are often killed or planted by campaigns in light of the press exception for common practices by the media. Instead, the prosecutor was allowed to state as a fact what the common practices of the media are in a campaign.
