But neither did the prosecution, which is interesting. His testimony regarding the 90-second call would have helped one side or the other, right?
My speculation: The defense knew he’d have testified in Trump’s favor re: the call (and so did the prosecution), but that would lead to some now-allowable incriminating lines of questions. Don’t ask me what. But there has to be a reason he wasn’t called. Isn’t that an obvious way to introduce evidence regarding the call to his @#$&ing phone?
Another A-lister, huh?
25 years ago I was helping a friend move to NYC. We were talking about about SNL while driving through NJ and he asked whatever happened to Joe Piscopo?
I said he was probably playing some dive bar in Jersey.
Not 15 minutes later we drive by a bar advertising “Joe Piscopo! One night only!”
It took a few miles to stop laughing.
Only the best people!
What I’m not entirely clear about is what exactly did the jury get to see of Costello’s contemptuous behavior and what - if anything - did they get to hear of the judge’s response?
Yes. What crimes will be included and which discarded - I think we can throw Tax crimes out. Prosecutors definitely appeared to have went all in with election related crimes. I have no experience and have never seen a jury charge that includes underlying crime(s) and how that would even generally look. Much less how it should look in this very novel case.
So I think they saw all of it. It happened during his witness testimony right?
They saw Merchan’s initial reaction to it I think. Though he cleared the court quickly before giving him a bollocking
They saw some of his reactions to objections being sustained, including muttered reactions, the “jeez”, and ultimately the loud sigh on a subsequent sustained objection that led the judge to have the jury leave the courtroom and lecture him and the defense team. So the jury almost certainly would have seen some of the judge’s reactions to the behavior, especially the part when he ordered them out of the room.
That’s on top of the reports stating he repeatedly spoke over the prosecutor and attempted to strike part of his own testimony, which is generally the purview of the judge.
So did this happen? I’ve not seen a transcript of this bit
They certainly knew he was going to get ripped a new one once they left.
Was he second billed to “Puppet show!”?
Yeah, there’s a lot of little things that happened. Here’s a link to the transcript of the day’s proceedings.
Page 278 has Costello telling the prosecutor to speak into the microphone. Seems innocuous but apparently it looked like a power play to observers. The next several pages has them talking over each other a bit.
Earlier during Bove’s time on page 252 is where the “Jeez” is reported and where Costello says to strike his testimony in response to the judge sustaining an objection (may have been sarcastically) and led to the jury being led out and getting ripped a new one.
Several of the reported mutters and sighs aren’t there, but the court reporter might not have been recording all of those.
Costello is being called a “killshot witness” on Fox.
Seems delusional. Like, that guy is a silver bullet that guarantees an acquittal?
they saw up until the second i’m sorry. he then got the jury out of the room.
from washington post:
Costello’s behavior, which included disrespectful gestures and answering questions despite the sustained objections, irked Merchan. At one point, Costello muttered “Jeez,” which prompted Merchan to clear out the jury to discuss proper courtroom decorum with the witness.
Merchan: So, when there is a witness on the stand, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say “Jeez,” okay? And then you don’t say “strike it,” because I’m the only one that can strike testimony in the courtroom. Do you understand that?
Costello: I understand.
Merchan: And then, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t give me side eye and you don’t roll your eyes. Do you understand that? Do you understand that?
Costello: I understand that. I understand what you’re saying.
As Merchan was about to bring the jury back, Costello appeared to further irritate the judge by fixing his gaze at him for an uncomfortably long time.
Merchan: Are you staring me down right now?
Costello: No. I’m just wondering how —
In a highly unusual move, Merchan ordered the courtroom to be cleared, drawing objections from reporters. Some journalists stood up and asked for the press attorney to have a chance to argue against the order.
An audience member: Your Honor, may I object on behalf of the press?
Merchan remained unmoved as people were moved out into the hallway. Members of Trump’s team, including his son Eric Trump, were not made to leave. Merchan then noted that the record would be made open to the press.
Merchan: And I can appreciate that the press wants to be present for every part of these proceedings. Therefore, this record is not sealed. The press will have access to this record.
Once the press had left, he went on to rebuke Costello and threatened to remove him from the stand.
Merchan: I’m putting you on notice that your conduct is contemptuous. If you try to stare me down one more time, I will remove you from the stand. I will strike his entire testimony; do you understand me?
Bove: Yes, Judge. I understand.
Merchan: Listen to the question and answer the question.
Costello: Can I say something, please?
Merchan: No. No. This is not a conversation.
Costello: Okay.
With Costello’s “okay,” the judge let the journalists, who had been corralled behind barricades in the hallway during the exchange, back in.
in other news court is back for the instructions. trump did his usual rant, no crime, the judge, biden, oil and border crossing.
Great that they get how he torpedoed the defense! Broken clocks and all that…
Did they specify for which side? 
I think that if he had favorable testimony for the defense, they’d have called him. Instead, I’m guessing that the best they’d get would be a lot of “don’t remember” and “not sure”.
There’s not much he could add, anyway. He was Trump’s bodyguard, so he was with him often. And he did take calls on his phone that sometimes were for Trump, or let Trump use his phone to make calls.
Fundamentally, the defense didn’t have anybody who could refute that Cohen was saying. Instead, they have an argument that Cohen is a dishonest man who cheated Trump because he felt disrespected, and is trying to cash in on his fleeting fame.
I don’t see how this invalidates evidence of the payoff and reimbursement, however. And, at least for me, I think that there’s ample proof that Trump not only knew about, but was managing, the entire scheme.
TIL that there’s someone called the “press attorney.” Interesting.
Just wanted to acknowledge that some of us caught the reference because I don’t think anyone mentioned it.
Would Schiller have been interviewed during the investigation and asked whether he was present for any discussions of the payoff?
I agree with both of you that he likely would not help the prosecution’s case and could be a liability to the defense – regardless if he heard anything.
cnn update:
Donald Trump’s attorney Emil Bove is up and they’re discussing campaign finance violations.
Bove says the defense wants Judge Juan Merchan to instruct the jury about the federal election law that there needs to be a willful violation.
Otherwise, “it would allow the jury to think about the predicate offense in civil terms.”
Trump has moved into the third chair at the defense table. Bove and fellow Trump attorney Todd Blanche are sitting next to each other for the charging conference.
Matthew Colangelo is arguing about the language regarding federal election law on behalf of the prosecution.
Colangelo responds, “The plain text of the statute provide that the election law conspiracy occurs when its intended results are executed through unlawful means. There’s no need to add the word willful.”
“The other crime here is the election law violation which becomes a criminal violation when two or more persons conspire to promote” a candidate for election by unlawful means, Colangelo added.
Remember: Prosecutors allege Trump was a part of an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election. They allege he was part of an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, including the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
Judge Juan Merchan says falsifying business records in the first degree “requires that there be an intent to defraud that includes the intent to commit another crime.”
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo says the other crime is the election law violation that is created through the alleged conspiracy.
But the prosecutor says the object crime doesn’t need to be completed. There just needs to be intent to commit the underlying crime.
Both sides are now discussing the language the defense wants to include in jury instructions.
The defense wants the jury to be told that in 2015 and 2016, there was no limit on a candidate’s ability to contribute personal funds to his or her campaign.
“It has nothing to do with the case and is extraneous and would probably be confusing to the jury,” Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argues with regards to the language on candidates’ personal contributions.
Merchan said he will not give the jury instruction on the issue.
He tells the defense they can say in closing arguments that “if your client has certain wealth he could have paid for this himself.”
Judge Juan Merchan says he’s reserving his decision on the willful issue.
The defense argued that any violation of federal campaign finance laws had to be wilful and that the word needed to be included in the jury instruction.
The prosecution said there was no need to add the word “wilful.”
rc: according to msnbc there was much discussion on the word “cause”. my understanding is that the defence is thinking direct cause very narrow, and procecution is thinking indirect cause should be considered.
according to cnn: Trump is leaning back in his chair, his eyes sometimes open and sometimes closed, as the lawyers go back-and-forth on the language that will be used during jury instructions. He’s reviewing sheets of paper from the multiple stacks in front of him on the defense table.