Right. Objectionable.
But my point is that you want the jury to understand that donald also committed a crime, along with Cohen. I mean, by the end of the trial I think it will be obvious, but that’s the message you want to impart to assure that they find him guilty.
Then couldn’t the prosecution call the entities responsible for making that decision (not to prosecute trump because he was a sitting president) to go through their decision-making process regarding Individual One? It isn’t a secret to pretty much anyone paying attention.
It’s almost certain that the defense will “open the door” by bringing up Cohen going to jail already for the crimes that now they’re trying to “pin on” their poor, innocent client.
I don’t think they’ll need to open that door, as I expect that Cohen’s testimony with the DA will prominently feature his convictions related to these campaign contributions.
When you strip away all of the efforts at corroboration, this case is really just Michael Cohen getting on the stand, confessing to a crime, and then saying that Donald Trump orchestrated, benefited from, and tried to cover up That crime.
If the jury believes Cohen, Trump is guilty.
All of the additional evidence Is intended, I think, to establish that Cohen is telling the truth.
But at the end of the day it comes down to whether or not the jury believes Michael Cohen’s story.
(And while the defense is going to argue that Cohen is a liar, Cohen’s rebuttal is going to be that he was convicted of lying, and went to jail, because of his loyalty to Donald Trump. The defense is going to say he has sour grapes. He is going to say that he finally saw the light.
That’s part of why it’s useful to reinforce what kind of an asshole Donald Trump really is. Cohen was rotten to the core, but he’s trying to reform himself. Donald Trump Is unrepentant and irredeemable).
As I speculated earlier, it appears that Trump, unsurprisingly, is indeed micromanaging his lawyers, according to New York Times reports:
At the conclusion of the second week of the trial where the former president is charged with 34 felony counts, it is increasingly apparent that Trump is “hamstringing” his legal team by not allowing them to admit he’s not perfect, according to a deep dive by the New York Times.
As The Times report notes, the praise the former president’s lawyers have been lavishing on him in front of the jury “reflected specific input from Mr. Trump, people with knowledge of the matter said, and it echoed his absolutist approach to his first criminal trial.”
At issue is what appears to be restrictions on the ex-president’s legal team that cannot in any way admit he may have made mistakes when attempting to keep information about his alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels quiet before the 2016 election.
The story doesn’t really give any hard facts, just speculation. Seems plausible, though.
It’s certainly in line with what we know of Trump – think back to that ludicrous letter from his doctor during the 2016 election lauding what an amazing physical specimen he was.
Or “covfefe” - what gave that legs wasn’t that Trump made a silly typo. It was that he wouldn’t let Sean Spicer shrug it off as a silly typo. Instead, no, Trump never makes mistakes, it obviously had some super important meaning (but we can’t tell you what it is).
Or forcing Sean Spicer to lie that his inauguration crowd was the largest in history, even as TV broadcasts showed vast empty spaces. The man is clearly a pathological narcissist, and that’s a hard fact. It’s why his lawyers have never been able to control him, much to their dismay. Instead, he controls them, because in what passes for a brain underneath that orange marmoset pelt he wears atop his head, this Duning-Kruger specimen sees himself as the perfect genius.
It’s worth saying again: Worst. Client. Ever.
This is the kind of case high profile lawyers dream of having. Its easily one the most important cases in modern times. The fact the best law firms in the world are not queuing up to take this case is indicative of how bad a client he is. His criminal lawyers (unlike his civil ones) are perfectly good but they are not the best in the world (and they are not a large firm of lawyers that he’s hired en masse with countless junior partners willing to track down every last document that might give him an advantage in court)
That would unusual for a criminal firm, even those who practice white collar defense. They don’t have the same business model as the big corporate firms. The best are in small firms with a small number of capable assistants.(and that’s perfectly sufficient for this kind of case. It’s not that complicated. They are just lacking a coherent defense)
The “defense” that their client is demanding they use boils down to:
“WITCH HUNT! BIDEN CRIME FAMILY! UNFAIR! UNFAAAAIRRR!”
Even the best criminal defense lawyer can’t out-litigate bad facts.
As I heard one once say “If you come to the hospital with 6 bullet wounds, even the best doctor might not be able to save you.”
But, here, if you had a compliant client, you might try to argue that, yes, he paid off these mistresses. And, yes, he’s a scoundrel. But it was a personal matter, unconnected with running for office.
I’m pretty sure that’s what John Edwards used in his trial involving the payment of hush money by a rich donor. He was acquitted because he was willing to admit that this was a dastardly thing to do to his wife, and he was so ashamed of his personal, not-at-all-campaign-related behavior.
Whereas donald’s lawyers are only able to argue either a) this is all invented out of whole cloth, or b) he had no idea of what was happening while others were committing these crimes.
Sometimes you have to be able to stand up and tell the jury
No, I didn’t mutter anything under my breath your honor!
Is there court today?
Edit. Oops. Restarts tomorrow morning
there are murmurings on the judge ruling on the first of the gag order hearings today.
Nah, he will rule that there will be another hearing a week on Thursday.
No way in hell will Loser Donald ever allow his lawyers to admit that he isn’t the greatest human being to ever live.
norm eisman on talking feds podcast mentioned the five things that the prosecution needed to show to get the criminal conspiracy enhancement. he said that David pecker’s testimony hit all 5 points.
the scheme - the trump tower meeting pecker, trump, cohen. the scheme was agreed on by all three.
execution of scheme - buying and killing of stories.
remove obstacles - doorman payoff, karen mcdougal payoff and employed by enquirer.
crises - access hollywood tape
solution - paying off daniels then falsifying business records.
very logical, step by step, the rest of the witnesses will enhance one or more of the points.
I’ve read too many pundits talking about how Cohen is the star witness and because of credibility issues, it’s going to be a tough case for the prosecution. That’s very wrong. Pecker is the star witness, is very credible, and everything else is confirmation. It’s really an open and shut case.
Nice summary, thanks. I imagine Trump’s lawyers are already planning the appeal, or at least, setting up their fee schedule for how much they will hose the newly consecrated Orange Felon when they appeal.