I’m a little surprised that this trial seems to be so similar to every other Trump trial. Not shocked, but a little surprised. We just see the same pattern of out-of-court bloviating, attacks on judges, prosecutors, and family members, a weak or nonexistent defense, and promises that Trump will testify. The only thing different about this case is Trump got some sycophants to show up and his lawyers have given him an activity book to play with during the boring parts of the trial. Once again I marvel that people look at Trump and think he’s the best person to lead the country.
I too appreciate @rocking_chair 's hard work. I also am thankful for the lawyers here explaining procedure to us laypeople. I watch all the talking heads at MSNBC as well.
Last night on Lawrence O’Donnell I found out that Andrew Weissmann is the guy who uncovered this whole case. He (as part of the team) uncovered it during the investigation for Special Counsel Mueller’s team to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
I’m sure y’all already knew it, but I didn’t!
I agree, these jurors want to get back to their lives. They can appreciate the fact that things can take a while, but don’t deliberately waste an entire day with pointless jabs at a witness.
The prosecution has already said that Cohen will be their last witness
Without a doubt and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise
This has very much been a ‘how the sausage is made’ situation for a lot of us, I think.
Has that been made known to the jury? If they actually know then I’d expect their patience to start getting tried.
/rimshot
same here! i was fascinated. “hey boss, we have a blue dress situation”.
it is a bit frustrating that the court did not go with audio like the supreme court does. unless you read the transcripts, there is only bits and bobs from news crawls or web updates, and then one can’t just copy and paste the entire web page, so it gets further filtered.
i am glad that there is a bit of “colour commentary” happening with regard to defendant, jury, and witness.
on to (kelce voice) new news (kelce voice).
from wash. post:
Prosecutors told New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan on Tuesday that Cohen would be their last witness, and defense lawyers signaled they may call no witnesses — though they continued to hold out at least the theoretical possibility that Trump may testify.
rc:
i am interested on how they deal with the weisselberg thing. i’m sure the jury will be wondering why they haven’t heard from him. both sides appear not to want him on the stand.
prosecution wants to bring in the agreement somehow. defence doesn’t.
weisselberg and howard are names that have been thrown about, neither have been seen on the stand. the jury will be wondering.
cnn just announced june 27th! biden just accepted, stating “over to you, donald”.
for those wondering, that is a thursday, not a wednesday.
Does the jury know that he’s in jail? Or was that one of those things that got excluded because it’s too prejudicial?
Trump not having any witnesses for his defense is hilarious to me. He can’t find anyone who can describe being anywhere near him without also making him sound guilty of something.
Sorry if this question has been previously asked and answered… Trump is on trial for what … 32? 34? charges of falsifying business records? Does the jury vote guilty/not guilty on each charge, or on the whole ball of wax? If each charge is voted individually, we only need one of those to be “guilty”, right?
34 charges, I think.
The jury votes guilty/not guilty on each charge, so he will be found guilty/not guilty as to each individual charge. However, the evidence presented applied to all 34 charges, so if they find the evidentiary threshold has been met for one, then it will presumably have been met as to all 34 counts. I can’t think of a way it would be otherwise.
And yes, we need only one of those to be guilty – but it will be much better if all 34 are!
It’s pretty hilarious how badly Trump has screwed himself here (and IMO it is Trump’s doing, his lawyers are too competent to do this without being ordered to do so)
There was an obvious chance for the defense to get acquittal. The prosecution depends on showing Trump not only did it, but did it as part of a conspiracy to influence the election.
I was fully expecting a laser tight focus on that by the defense. Asking every witness “did you hear Trump explicitly say he was doing this to influence the election not to shield his family from hearing about the affair?”. To which they would have all answered no, except Cohen at which point they would point out the fact he is a convicted perjurer who has an axe in grind with trump and said repeatedly they want to see Trump in jail. That guy coincidentally remembers Trump saying exactly what is required for Trump to be convicted. Is it not reasonable to think he might have twisted his recollection of what Trump said to ensure he gets revenge?
IANAL but that seems like a decent defense to me. Instead they pulled this deny everything! Attack everyone! It’s all lies every last bit of it! Defense which seems doomed to me (and also right out of the Trump playbook given his history in civil trials).
But as others have said it only takes one jurer to screw it up. Though I’m cautiously hopeful
Thanks @Aspenglow. I was thinking the same thing, especially if all of the falsified records are pretty much the same type. If there were one or two oddballs in the mix it’s conceivable they could be voted on differently, but I’m guessing it will be all or none (and hoping for ALL!)
It’s common for the defense not to call witnesses. It’s not that they couldn’t find someone, it’s that they are saying that the prosecution didn’t prove their case so we’re not going to bother.
Am I ever going to see this man in jail?! This thread was started in March of 2023. How long can all of this take? I’m getting frustrated.
I think there’s one potential odd ball. One of the counts was a double entry or something. I’ll take 33 though.
Exactly. Plus, when they put on a witness the jury is naturally comparing the evidence put on by the two sides instead of just considering whether the state met its burden.
Last trial I was on the defense counsel made a big deal in voir dire about the burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and the right of the accused to not testify without it being seen as prejudicial. All of which I very much agree with. So I was stunned when the defendant got on the stand and exposed himself to a cross that made him look worse considering that the questions on direct were just flat denials of the charges. I was already ready to say that the State had met the burden and I was floored that he testified because the cross was not good for him.