I don’t understand that ruling… Surely, the fact that Trump is paying someone to not talk is completely apropos to this case?
I predict our next witness is
Oh, the closing statement is going to be a thing of beauty.
Visual aids, reference to plenty of documents like emails and text messages…it’s going to take us through the entire crime, point by point.
I’m looking forward to it.
…
Re: Weisselberg.
My understanding of what the judge ruled is that he can be called as a witness, but the DA can’t just introduce his severance agreement, as that would give the jury the false impression that the agreement was the reason he wasn’t testifying, when the reason was that neither party had called him.
Now, if he was called as a witness, I still think that the severance agreement could be used to show that he has bias. But they need for him to testify first, because if he came in and confirmed the details the DA is presenting then the severance agreement is irrelevant.
But I’m sure that the DA has tried to get his cooperation, and didn’t get it.
So is he a defense witness? The defense usually has to endorse their witnesses before trial, but I’m not sure if this was done here, or even required.
In terms of defense witnesses, I still think a wildcard is somebody like Ivanka or Jr to testify to how much their dad cared about his wife, or perhaps how busy he was when he became president, so he didn’t know what these payments were for
I really don’t think there is a coherent counter narrative, though. The DA has absolutely provided evidence for their case - whether it was beyond a reasonable doubt is the question.
Personally, I think it was. One of the things I find most compelling (and frankly shocking) was how much the Trump org’s business function was to take care of donald, and how much “executive time” he spent micromanaging his money (shout out to @steronz for putting ramshackle in my head). It must be nice to have bookkeepers watching your checkbook, but donald was so dependent on their service that he still needed them to send him his checks even when President. With all that in mind, it’s simply implausible to me that money was being spent, via checks he signed, in ways he didn’t approve.
…
Something else I noticed that I find interesting. Hope Hicks had tried to minimize Cohen’s involvement in the Trump campaign. Yet there are documented communications between him and her concerning the Trump scandals during the campaign. It just reinforces how deep Cohen was in the campaign. It’s simply implausible that he was acting on his own.
Let’s say I commit a crime. And there are 5 solid witnesses to my crime. Would it be just fine if I paid each one of them a $5 million “bonus”, with a non-disclosure agreement that ensured that they would not get paid if they talked about me to anyone at anytime for whatever reason?
And then in my trial, these agreements to make the witnesses keep quiet were not allowed to be shown to the jury?
That sounds just fine, does it?
That struck me too. He’s polite and deferential, and is answering questions as they are put to him without embellishment. I would expect that of a lawyer though. At any rate, he seems to be calm on the stand, according to the reporting.
Compare that with Trump’s unhinged desperate rant after court today. No matter how many media items he cited so-called facts and opinions from, they’re not the ones on the stand under oath. Cohen is. And he’s handling it well.
Oh, and I like one of the questions that was yelled at Trump as he turned and walked away. Paraphrased, “Mr. Trump, if you weren’t here, would you really be campaigning, or would you be hosting wealthy donors at dinners?”
I think it’s fair for the judge to make you call them as witnesses before you can introduce their contracts.
I wonder if the prosecution is afraid that if they call him, he might not just plead the 5th all day, but might rather perjure himself over and over again. Throw Cohen under the bus and say it was entirely his idea, and Trump knew nothing about the payment, and anyway he was only concerned for his very, very Christian marriage.
I don’t think that NDA would be legal, since forcing witnesses not to testify would be obstruction of justice.
As always, IANAL. But if you Google the question if an NDA can cover up a crime you get a bajillion “no” answers from various sources so I’m somewhat confident of my suggestion.
It would seem to me that this is exactly what Trump’s payments to Weissleberg are - obstruction. But I understand Moriarty’s point above.
The idea that Trump did this to keep Melania from finding out and it’s therefore unrelated to the campaign has been a big part of their defense. But has the prosecution floated the idea that it could be both?
ISTM “maybe he didn’t want Melania to find out about Stormy, but he also didn’t want the public to find out because he was worried he would lose the election” would neuter that argument.
That seems obvious enough to me that I assume I’m either missing something or that’s what they said when it came up and I missed it.
Is there any audio or video of the trial? Will we ever get to see or hear exactly how it played out. Since the beginning, in my head, this has been like a courtroom drama with everyone yelling at each other “you can’t handle the truth” style. When I hear that he was calm and relaxed, similar to what I heard about Stormy, it’s almost jarring.
Once this is all done and over with, I’d be interested in a Ryan Murphy/American Crime Story miniseries.
The current thinking is he would simply plead the 5th and not provide any useful answers. It’s quite likely he’s complicit in a lot of the activities, so that’s not exactly far fetched.
Judge Merchan seemed to be open to having him show up (without the jury present) to at least get that formally out of the way, so we’ll just have to see if the prosecution re-thinks that. If he did just show up and pled the 5th, they would just send him back to jail without having him in front of the jury.
If you paid off witnesses to your crime, they could all plea the fifth and attempt to keep the money. It would be on the state to prove the money was related to your crime. Probably they could try that in Weisselberg’s case, but that would be a separate (and likely expensive and lengthy) case. And probably wouldn’t help either way in the Trump prosecution.
From what I understand from the various lawyer types on cnn and msnbc, the burden of proof is not as heavy on the underlying crime.
In this case that the misdemeanor of committing false business was a conspiracy to defraud the voters, skirt ny tax laws, and violate federal campaign finance regulations.
From the Washington post:
Anna Cominsky, associate professor at New York Law School, said focusing on the state election law statute is a way for prosecutors to present the most straightforward case to jurors. Bragg’s team does not have to prove Trump violated the statute but merely demonstrate that he was falsifying internal Trump Organization records as part of a broader scheme to improperly influence the 2016 election.
The prosecutors “don’t have to prove an underlying crime was committed. They have to make clear enough what their basis is — what that alleged crime is — but not get too deep,” Cominsky said. “They do not want the jury to think they have to find him guilty of another crime, also. That’s definitely a dance they’re playing right now.”
The jury could find both, that he was trying to hide these stories to protect the campaign and his wife. It would depend on which they think is the biggest factor.
The jury in the Edward’s case found that he did it to protect his wife who was in cancer treatment. A very compelling argument.
In this case there is more evidence that trump protecting melania was not a big factor. May be a bit of a factor, but other testimony has saving the campaign as a bigger factor.
Today’s testimony has cohen saying trump wasn’t worried about that (how long do you think I will stay on the market?) and that melania came up with the “locker room” defence.
The dramatic readings of the transcripts is interesting on various news shows. Does obermann still do puppets?
And that the court room was depressing.
Perhaps it needs a trump makeover.
Why? It sounds like many of the witnesses, like the guys from AT&T and Verizon, were there for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of records and documents being introduced into evidence. Is there any doubt that this document is legitimate, since Weisselberg would have had to sign it? Or is it that Weisselberg’s testimony would be needed to establish the relevance of the contract?
I understand the principle of excluding evidence that’s not materially relevant, because if in one case it helps the prosecution convict a guilty party, in another case it could help to falsely convict an innocent party. But this contract seems extremely relevant to the case since it helps to establish a consistent pattern of malfeasance directed by Trump.
Agreed. It wouldn’t help the prosecution if Weisselberg got on the stand and pled the 5th. At best it does nothing for their case and at worst it makes some jurors wonder if he is pleading because he was the prime mover.
But you still have to get your hands on the contract or substantial evidence of if. Sage_Rat showed us the law which makes it a felony to receive a bribe to not testify. Any NDA that prevents a witness from testifying is equivalent to a bribe, but you cannot compel the witness to testify against themself by admitting that they accepted a bribe: 5A comes into play here.
Now, if the bribe is a conditional promise (“if you stay quiet, I will give you lots of money”), that is much more difficult to approach. If there is no known evidence of the bribe, can you compel a witness to incriminate themself for a crime that they have not yet committed?
Are you all reading what @Moriarty wrote? The contract could potentially be relevant if Weisselberg refused to testify. But that hasn’t happened because neither side has attempted to call him as a witness. And unless/until that happens, it is not relevant.
This is off topic, but if you have not seen it, you should.
IANAL but “It’s unfair how you’re prosecuting our client differently for the same crime other people have committed” is almost certainly not a winning strategy, given the implicit admission of guilt. But it could be used to appeal what is felt to be a disproportionate sentence, if and when the time comes.