C-SPAN? I wonder if they are going to introduce video of Donald’s statements from the campaign.
yes, that is why he is here. the defence refused to stipulate, so the prosecution has to bring the video in this way.
Stipulating evidence is a legal term used to refer to an agreement made between opposing parties during the course of legal proceedings1. Parties may stipulate to certain conditions or facts for a variety of reasons, including to avoid delays, and to eliminate the need to use valuable time proving facts that are not in dispute1. By stipulating to certain items, the non-requesting party waives objecting to any foundational issues, which may have been raised prior to the admission of such items2.
just another way to delay.
Yep. Now a bunch of video is in evidence. No cross. On to the next.
Prosecutors have called their fifth witness to the stand. Phillip Thompson works for a court reporting company.
Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold is questioning Thompson.
moving on, to get transcripts into the record. once again defence did not stipulate.
I understand that refusing to stipulate certain documents and videos might be a delaying tactic, but isn’t Trump complaining about being stuck in the “freezing” courtroom and not campaigning? Wouldn’t he prefer a quicker trial? It’s not like this one is going to drag out past the election.
Also, can any trial lawyers opine on whether refusing to stipulate this kind of stuff might backfire? It’s not like they are attempting to undermine the veracity of any of it - they didn’t even cross-examine the witnesses. Seems like it might annoy the jury more than anything.
Or is it just that they want to be able to appeal the admissibility of the evidence, which may be lost if you stipulate?
Have either Cohen or Pecker made public statements about Trump (other than on the witness stand)? And if they have, would that lend credence to his claims of merely “defending himself?”
I keep returning to his defense being before the jurors whereas he seems to want to defend himself solely on the courthouse steps.
He won’t take the stand to testify. He’s a Stupid Bomb waiting to be detonated.
(emphasis added.)
That’s not being aggressive with the jury.
I worked for a prominent defense attorney for a few years who refused to stipulate to anything.
I personally find it obnoxious, especially when something is clearly going to be admitted.
Moreover, I want the jury to feel like I (and my client) have nothing to hide. If I’m constantly objecting, I think I give the wrong impression.
That, too. The defense wants the jury to feel like the government is wasting everybody’s time, asserting a crime when the evidence doesn’t justify it. It’s not good if they find the defense to be boring or tedious.
I’m sure, in this instance, there’s serious pressure from the client to never agree. (But, yeah, if you stipulate to something, you’ve generally waived your right to appeal the issue of admissibility).
with lawyers on the jury they will know this trick. all this could add up to a day’s worth of evidence witnesses.
trump has now opened his eyes as video of him at the deposition is being played.
this is from the e jean deposition.
keith davidson is up now. former lawyer for daniels and mcdougal.
Former President Donald Trump has closed his eyes and leaned back in his chair several times during testimony on Tuesday, according to CNN reporters in the courthouse.
At about 10:20 a.m. ET, Trump’s eyes were closed as his lawyer started the cross-examination of Gary Farro, Michael Cohen’s former banker who testified about the paper trail.
At about 10:30 a.m., Trump slumped back in his chair with his eyes closed.
And just before noon, Trump again leaned back in his chair with his eyes closed during testimony of Phillip Thompson, who works for a court reporting company.
Cohen has talked shit (literally)
Pretty sure he tried that “loophole” the last time he got hit with gag order sanctions. Didn’t work then, either.
What? You expected him to learn something?
If you’re going to play that game, you have to be at least as smart as Monty Python. Spoiler: Trump is not at least as smart as Monty Python.
Finally the juicy stuff. Texts about the affairs.
Did the defense just hand the prosecution a nearly unassailable confirmation of a major part of the fraudulent acts? Are they allowed to walk back testimony that they themselves solicited?
I don’t think so - isn’t their entire gambit that Cohen was working alone, committing crimes on his own, and Trump was completely in the dark?
Looks like someone still hasn’t figured out why they keep losing at rock, paper, scissors.
Yes, but the jury doesn’t have to believe that defense. So when they conclude, “Man, Cohen really was working for Trump!”, this testimony pretty much automatically means they were caught falsifying the bank records. That’s a major part of the cover-up, which is a big part of what Trump is guilty of.
lunch break for the trial.
this witness is a bit more exciting than the evidence witnesses. per cnn:
The jury is now seeing texts that Keith Davidson sent to former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard.
The first text is sent June 7, 2016.
Davidson texts: "I have a blockbuster trump story”
Howard responded: “Talk 1st thing. I will get you more than ANYONE for it. You know why…”
Keith Davidson explains why he went to ABC News as well as the National Enquirer.
“At the time, as if often the case with negotiations, I was trying to play two entities off of each other," Davidson says, adding that the objective was to “create a sense of urgency, if you will.”
His goal was to get the best deal for his client with whichever outlet, Davidson said.
Howard said he told Davidson "we need to talk urgently.” Davidson says he assumes that message was conveyed to former AMI CEO David Pecker.
In a July 22 text, Keith Davidson texted Dylan Howard: “Don’t forget about Cohen. Time is of the essence. The girl is being cornered by the estrogen mafia.”
Testifying about the “estrogen mafia” comment, Davidson called it “a very unfortunate regrettable text I sent.”
“That phrase is not one I used or came up with, that was a term I think by one of Karen’s associates at that first meeting,” Davidson said.
Keith Davidson is testifying that Karen McDougal “did not want to tell her story.”
Davidson says McDougal’s goals were to "rejuvenate her career, to make money and to avoid telling the story and being termed the scarlet letter.” She didn’t want to be termed “the other woman,” he said.
On July 23, 2016, former National Enquirer editor Howard texted Davidson: “Get me a price on McDougall (sic). All in. Consulting gig perhaps as a fitness expert thrown into the mix.”
The ABC deal required her to tell her story, so she liked the AMI deal that wouldn’t force her to do that, Davidson says.
“That was one of her stated goals” not to have to tell her story, he says.
Keith Davidson is testifying about his first offer to former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard.
Davidson’s offer to Howard over text was: “How about 1m now,” meaning $1 million, he explained. “And 75k per year for next 2 years as a fitness corresponded for ami & ur related pubs.”
“I’ll take it to them but thinking it’s more hundreds than millions,” Howard responded over text on July 23. Davidson said he interpreted that warning to mean, “I should expect a counter offer that was substantially less.”
Davidson responded by offering $800,000 now and $100,000 per year for a total of $1 million.
Howard’s response “leave w/ me” suggested they were not “in the same ballpark,” he testified.
“We are going to lay it on thick for her," Howard texted Davidson on July 28, 2016.
Davidson replied, “Good. Throw in an ambassadorship for me. I’m thinking Isle of Mann.”
Davidson noted that was a joke.
“It was sort of in jest,” Davidson said. “That was just a joke.”
Davidson said that the joke was a reference to “Mr. Trump’s candidacy.”
“That somehow if Karen did this deal for AMI, that it would help Donald Trump’s candidacy,” he testified.
Keith Davidson testified that at that point in the conversations with former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard, “Karen (McDougal) was teetering between two competing deals.”
“And we had requested meetings where each entity could make a pitch as to why they were the correct avenue for Karen,” he added.
Former National Enquirer editor and AMI executive Dylan Howard texted Keith Davidson on July 28: “She’ll get more out of a deal with AMI than ABC.”
“I need this to happen,” Davidson responded over text.
More on this: Earlier, Davidson confirmed he was in discussions with ABC News about a possible deal for Karen McDougal’s story.