Probably a few more boring folks that most of us have never heard of, too, to continue methodically building up the solid foundation of the case.
That’s the fundamental contradiction in Trump’s defense. “Cohen is an awful awful person, who decided to do something nice for me, for no benefit to himself.” The prosecution can stick with “He’s an awful person who never does anything without benefit to himself - so when he did this, he must have expected a paycheck”
And then they can bring Cohen to the stand, to say “When I did this, I expected a paycheck”.
Thank you.
I’d think they are ready to bring McDougal. I’m not thinking she necessarily provides anything new, but confirms the details regarding her deal. In this case, it feels like the DA is just layering overlapping stories to establish, incontrovertibly, that Donald’s affairs were being hushed to enable the campaign.
Daniels would be next, right? Or perhaps her manager? McDougal is still just background. Daniels’ payoff was the one that provides the false records.
If we get somebody in between I’m guessing it’s another investigator for the DA (perhaps to show phone communications??). I find it interesting that they used their own forensic analysts to introduce recordings and texts from Cohen; the jury is going to have a very detailed picture of what he said and did before Cohen ever gets on the stand to testify. I just don’t see how the defense will be able to show that he’s a total liar.
But before Cohen I’d expect some people from within the Trump organization who will testify to the fake attorney invoices.
From the annotated list of involved people that I had linked to earlier, we have
There’s also a possibility of an “expert witness” who might describe the elements of the federal campaign finance law.
nice. I hadn’t looked at this list of witnesses, but these are exactly the type of witnesses I would expect. Plus Cohen of course. I don’t see a need for McDougal, but you could be right. A prosecutor would rather call an unnecessary witness than neglect to call a questionable one. (sometimes to their detriment)
Has Allan Weisselberg flipped? Did he ever make any sort of deal?
I’m not sure if they’ll call him or not.
I don’t expect that Cliffords’ or McDougal’s testimony would actually add much to the case, but I think that, if either of them were not called as witnesses, the jury would be wondering why they weren’t. So they’ll probably be called up and just questioned briefly to confirm the things we already know.
Wouldn’t this be something the judge would do himself?
Do you figure they’ll try to split that hair? Arguing that it could’ve made sense for Cohen to have done this on his own initiative, in anticipation of later bringing it to Trump’s attention when expecting a paycheck then?
I listened to the “prosecuting Donald trump” podcast this morning, one of the questions they answered was about the contempt charge. In ny contempt is a bit of a hybrid thing. It is civil with an incarceration component. So it doesn’t violate his release conditions as the hybrid thing kicks in. It may be different in other states and commonwealths.
It is at around the 6:30 mark.
At this point the candidate for president has been found to run a fraudulent “university “, charity, business, liable for assault and defamation, and now is a contemnor.
This is an unusual case, in that the underlying crime that the DA is alleging is being covered up is a federal crime.
This judge is not a federal judge. The jury instructions don’t provide for, and the jury will not be asked to determine, whether a federal crime occurred. But they will be asked if records were doctored to cover up a federal crime. In that case, it would make sense for the DA to offer up an expert to explain that, yes, this did violate federal law (even though the jury won’t be asked to make that specific determination).
Weird, huh?
(This is, in my estimation, the thing that trump apologists are grasping on to: it’s unprecedented. But, as I saw it mentioned, New York will prosecute people who falsify business records to cover up terrorist activities, even though those are also enforced at the federal level).
Even without an expert’s testimony, I’d think that Cohen saying “I went to prison for this” would be compelling.
…
In terms of additional witnesses, the executive assistants for donald (as president), and Weisselberg, are also likely. I’d bet they help show how involved donald was with controlling his organization, as well as confirm meetings.
I think this is the kind of thing the phrase, “That dog won’t hunt” was made for. Cohen was intimately familiar with Trump’s legal and financial dealings, and so he’d know full well that Trump never pays anything he doesn’t have to pay. There’s no way he’d have laid out this amount of cash without at least some guarantee that Trump would pay him back.
And subject to comments from my learned friends Moriarty and Procrustus, who know trial procedure way more than me, I would think that Cohen will be placed somewhere at the front of list of remaining witnesses, with the rest to follow.
My thinking is that Trump’s lawyers will do whatever they can in cross to demonstrate that Cohen is a lying scumbag (which he is; question is just how big of a lying scumbag). Prosecution doesn’t want that to be the last thing the jury hears, so they’ll want to call a couple of other witnesses after him.
I think it’s a given that Trump will never testify. But will the defense call ANY witnesses?
Well firstly you don’t get to work for DJT unless you are. a literal “yes man”. He’s a competent lawyer who know that is utter bullshit. But knows enough about the guy paying his bills to know that he needs to nod when he says that, if he has any chance of getting his bills paid. That’s one of the many reasons, that a former POTUS in one of the highest profile cases in US history isn’t being represented by the best lawyers on the planet.
Secondly Trump saying (and maybe believing) this suits his lawyers very well indeed. It ensures be won’t testify (which they really really don’t want him to do) and gives him something to rant about that won’t break the gag order. Of course they are going to nod
I didn’t consider the babysitter angle!
Yeah presumably his lawyers have to walk a line here. I would guess actually flat out telling their client something that they know to be untrue(“the gag order stops you from testifying”) would be an ethical violation that could get them disbarred. They are doing enough to imply they agree with him on this without crossing the line into ethical violations.
Which is again why Trump is not being represented by the best of the best lawyers-wise
He just mis-heard, what with all the screaming trump fans there.
I would think that listening to his cult followers would make him want to take the stand, since all they yell out is “testify!”
Could the prosecution call Trump as a witness even if all he does is take the fifth? Just for the optics of it and on the chance that he may actually be unable to STFU.