Immediately held in contempt, I imagine.
Defendant’s have a right to defend themselves pro se. Perhaps he’s waived it by getting this far down the road. (I haven’t seen it happen mid trial). Judges hate pro se defendants, as they don’t know or follow the rules. I don’t see Trump actually doing this, so it’s probably moot. But in theory, he could. (He shouldn’t --and needn’t-- do it in front of the jury though)
So based on the cross examination it seems the the defense is setting up two arguments. One that Cohen acted alone to send the hush money, (and Trump just coincidentally sent him that exact amount in legal fees), and two that Trump wanted Daniels silenced not for political purposes but for personal purposes, that it would ruin Meliana’s view of Trump as the pure devoted monogamist that she fell in love with (while he was another woman’s husband).
I can see how either of these being true defeats the prosecutions case, but I don’t see how the defense can argue both of them at the same time. If the entire plan was Cohen’s idea then Trumps motivation is irrelevant, since he didn’t initiate that payment. It would seem that in order to maintain any semblance of credibility they would need to pick one or the other. I am curious how they will try to paper over this contradiction in their closing arguments.
Indeed.
Let’s go back to the key part of the jury instructions
(My emphasis)
https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.docx
That’s what the jury is going go be asked to find. That the defendant, donald, caused a false business record, in the form of a payment for legal services that were never provided.
So the boring accounting stuff becomes useful if it shows that false records were made, and/or that donald caused that.
From CNN
We are on to re-direct which is expected to be quick. We’ll get someone new today probably after lunch.
Edit: And he is done and we will get someone new after lunch
I think Trump’s been operating under the assumption that no judge would dare put him in jail for contempt. Trump can scarcely stand to be at the trial and has no desire to spend any time in jail. Hopefully Merchan has made Trump see the light and he knows jail is on the table. But then I hope he can’t help himself and spends some time in behind bars.
No, you can’t. The Secret Service is there to protect him from others, no to protect others from him.
It couldn’t be that hard to just assign one guy to look the other way.
It would make the Secret Service look real bad.
My prediction is that it is
Oh, goody! She’s Trump’s good luck charm!
Yes, this is true – in a normal case. The jury would be tasked with finding boring accounting stuff about a false entry in the business records
But this is not a normal case.
And in the privacy of the jury room, they will probably realize it. They may spend more time discussing the ramifications of their decision, than discussing the boring facts which lead to that decision…
The jury is not just tasked with analyzing business records…those 12 average folks are tasked with making history.
If they send a very popular president to jail, their names will get discovered and blasted all over the internet, and into the history books. Their personal lives will be destroyed.
I imagine that at least one of those 12 average folks will get scared.
I expect a hung jury.
Sending a Six-Year old to bed without dessert is an appropriate punishment, so this seems to track.
What’s your evidence? Not necessarily disagreeing, but what have you seen/heard that supports this statement? Aside from common sense, of course, which doesn’t apply here.
Possible, but… the judge, even after the initial seating, did grant leave for those who felt too at risk, or too overwhelmed by the responsibility. Yes, things will be different once they are in deliberations, but the ones most at risk have probably already left. It doesn’t make me certain by any means, but I’m glad those who thought they couldn’t take it were able to speak their concerns and be let loose.
A hung jury is still IMHO more likely from someone who refuses, for “reasons” to convict Trump, if not because they’re a secret MAGA zealot, but because of some other personal reason is more likely still - but I have to trust that the lawyers involved have a good read on the jury. 
What happens if they don’t convict a very despised former president for crimes he obviously committed.
Trump is neither “President” nor is he “very popular”.
I am not going to assume that both sides would react the same way to a unwanted verdict.
Could they argue that, for purely personal reasons, Trump often mused aloud that he sure wished the story would go away so as not to threaten his marriage or whatever, and that’s why Cohen deduced that making the payment in question would sure make Trump happy and be in his best interests as a private citizen and thus and such?
So, y’know, kind of like claiming it was a steady stream of Will No One Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest statements — but, they add, each was only ever paired with a Because He Might Piss Off My Wife rider?
Not to mention, the jury had no problem in Trump’s civil trial. I think the myth of Teflon Don is ignoring recent history.