Only if they have evidence in support of the musing aloud.
I 100% get this would be a horrible move on Trump’s part but, in a criminal trial, doesn’t he have the right to represent himself (regardless if it is a bad idea)?
Of course he does. And he can fire his lawyers at any time, if he chooses.
But he won’t.
Trump likes others to do his dirty work, and then he likes to blame them when things don’t go as his delusions make him think they should.
Good observation. If Trump is convicted, it will be because he had the worst lawyers in the world, nobody’s ever had such incompetent lawyers, yada, yada, yada. But if Trump is not convicted, it’s because he had the best legal team, nobody’s ever been represented by such capable lawyers, yada, yada, yada.
But if he fires them and represents himself (a very bad idea IMHO), he has only himself to blame if things go south. And he hates blaming himself.
I think that there is a genuine factual issue at play, which they will need to analyze.
So far, the trial has been pretty definitive about the intentions and desires of paying hush money to women who could sink Donald’s campaign.
But the key ingredient to the prosecution is that donald next, with the intent to hide these payments, repaid Cohen under false pretenses, and with falsified records.
I don’t think it’s hard to demonstrate that the repayments were made. And I do think the DA will establish that Cohen wasn’t providing legal services at the time.
But the showing of Donald’s knowledge and intent is going to get a little murky. Cohen is, I’m guessing, going to testify to it. But he may be the only one who takes the jury “into the room where it happened.”
So his credibility on this issue is going to be paramount. And he’s clearly a shady person.
I think the case is going to turn on whether he is believed.
I think he will, based on his sincerity and the fact that he happens to be telling the truth.
But it is an issue the jury will have to decide.
Oh, I have no doubt he’ll find someone else to blame. If the judge limits how long he can ramble on, he was prevented from making his best arguments which he was just about to make. If the judge lets him ramble on, then the judge was setting him up with a perjury trap. If the jury deliberations don’t take very long, they rushed to judgement, and just rubber stamped the witch hunt. If the deliberations take too long, they clearly couldn’t reach agreement, and the pro-Trump jurors had to be threatened into voting to convict.
Ironically, I don’t think the Stormy Daniels story would have sunk his campaign. He probably should have just let it be published. Certainly it coming out since then hasn’t caused even a blip in popularity.
Don’t you watch One America News? 
Well that oughtta be hoot – associating with criminals is pretty much all that Trump does! Many of whom are current or former jailbirds.
Only if a clip of it shows up on Cody’s Showdy (Some More News).
I fully agree. It’s what he does. Hell, he should have put a sign on the Resolute Desk that said, “The buck starts here.” 
But I think he’s finally come to the realization that in this matter, the lawyers—that is, all the lawyers in the room—know more about what they’re doing than he does. There are rules of court to be followed, rules of evidence that must be adhered to and so on. He doesn’t know any of these, and hopefully now realizes that he could only make things worse if he tries to “play lawyer.”
Remember, in the New York civil trial, Trump insisted on delivering part of the closing arguments. A very unusual request, but the judge allowed it. Trump’s spoken remarks were the usual bluff and bluster, and the judge cut him off, before hitting him with a $450 billion fine. Correlation is not causation, but I think that it was then that he began to think that he’s not a legal expert, he doesn’t know the rules about what can and cannot be said in court, and it’s in his best interests to just shut up in court.
(bolding mine)
If “that exact amount” is $130,000, then note:
If I’m not mistaken, Cohen used a HELOC to pay the $130,000. Then he was paid $420,000 for “legal expenses”.
Nonsense! If he loses, it will be because he had “the worst jury in history, composed of Trump-hating New York liberals, who ignored all the facts proving my complete innocence”!
It’s very easy to predict what Trump will do or say in any situation. Just mentally substitute a typical 6-year-old in that same situation, and you can’t go wrong!
One thing I full agree with here. Every time Trump opens his pie-hole, he makes everything worse. I would dearly love for this ignorant blowhard to insinuate himself directly into these proceedings, whether it’s offering to testify or involving himself in closing arguments.
I wish.
Well, I guess it’s interesting that you didn’t immediately say “absolutely not, no way no how,” as if this is utterly verboten regardless of the jurisdiction.
I’m still curious about whether the defense’s tactics being overruled and quashed is legit fodder for the prosecution to mention, just as a general matter, and this is a very fast-moving thread so my original question is now buried like 70+ posts back, so I’ll re-ask (once!) in hopes for some comment by a US-based attorney. The beginning of the original post is above; here’s the rest:
(If nobody wants to address it, that’s fine, I’ll leave it alone.)
I think it would be considered improper to do so. In Washington, for example the jury is told not to consider such things. Arguing that they should be be against what the Judge just told them:
One of my duties has been to rule on the admissibility of evidence. Do not be concerned during your deliberations about the reasons for my rulings on the evidence. If I have ruled that any evidence is inadmissible, or if I have asked you to disregard any evidence, then you must not discuss that evidence during your deliberations or consider it in reaching your verdict.
The law does not permit me to comment on the evidence in any way. I would be commenting on the evidence if I indicated my personal opinion about the value of testimony or other evidence. Although I have not intentionally done so, if it appears to you that I have indicated my personal opinion, either during trial or in giving these instructions, you must disregard it entirely.
The comments of the lawyers during this trial are intended to help you understand the evidence and apply the law. However, it is important for you to remember that the lawyers’ remarks, statements, and arguments are not evidence. You should disregard any remark, statement, or argument that is not supported by the evidence or the law as I have explained it to you.
You may have heard objections made by the lawyers during trial. Each party has the right to object to questions asked by another lawyer, and may have a duty to do so. These objections should not influence you. Do not make any assumptions or draw any conclusions based on a lawyer’s objections.
Correct
I have a quibble with this. If Trump is not convicted there is no way that he is going to give his lawyers any credit. It will be because despite the terribly unfair biased judge and prosecutor, even a jury entirely made of Democrats could see that it was a partisan witch hunt and he was totally and completely innocent of everything.
Edit: nm, don’t want to derail
He managed to talk over 74 million people into voting for him in 2020. Why wouldn’t he think he could talk to 12 people and get one to go his way?