It will definitely continue tomorrow. IIRC the judge wanted to wrap it up well before the weekend to give both parties time to prepare for summation before the long weekend.
So far as I understand, it’s in place until the judge lifts it – which will probably be post sentencing. The gag order also protects the attorneys, the jurors and the families of everyone involved, so there are reasons to keep it in place.
We only imposed gag orders a few times in my personal experience, though, and defendants never violated them. So I’m really not sure.
I stand corrected! I thought they’d finished with instructions. Thanks for that.
Happy, Happy! Joy, Joy!
Could be a fun few days.
For the people who dislike Individual-ONE, there must be some satisfaction that at least he gets to enjoy the Memorial Day Weekend with a cloud of dread hanging over his head.
Maybe I missed it in this thread
(it’s long and I’ve not read everything, although I truly appreciate the work that other posters have done to keep us informed),
but I just realised something:
Costello is Rudy’s former lawyer who is suing Rudy for a million bucks in unpaid fees, right?
I recommend that Trump spends the next six days pulling a “Ted Nugent Avoids The Draft”. Should not be difficult for him.
What better place for him to spend the holiday weekend than Rostov-na-Don?
Right- I have heard instructions that tell the Jury that just because the suspect took the fth, that is not to be held against them, etc…etc…
Mene mene Tekel Upharsin - can be loosely translated as “You are weighed in the Balance and found wanting”.
Would a mistrial be declared if, during summations, Trump’s lawyers raised the argument that Trump was relying the advice of his lawyers?
This whole ‘blaming the lawyers’ thing, are they trying to put this on Cohen? Ever since he took the stand, it seems like Trump (and by extension, his lawyers) think Cohen is the one on trial. My WAG is that their closing arguments will be a mix of “President Trump didn’t know anything about any of this” and “President Trump fully trusted Mr Cohen to handle his legal affairs” and whatever other BS they want to throw against the wall.
And as I say that ‘outloud’ if that’s what they’re planning to do…that sounds like Trump treating this like a civil trial. One of those lawyers is going to, at Trump’s direction, try to show that there are other ways this could have happened (civil) instead of trying to show that it couldn’t have happened the way the prosecutors said it did (criminal).
I think that makes sense.
Also, WRT Merchan almost tossing Costello out of court and striking his testimony. How would that have played out? Would they get to start the questioning over? Would the other side still be allowed to cross? If they can, what can they ask if the direct part is stricken?
When Merchan warned him about that, my initial thought was that Trump’s lawyers would get to question him for a while, then he could get himself tossed out of court without prosecutors questioning him. But I have to assume that’s not how this works.
No. If that would work the tactic would be used all the time. The lawyers would be cut off and likely personally punished. The jury would be told to disregard.
I think you’re misunderstanding their burden here. All they have to establish is that the prosecutors haven’t proven their case, and they can (potentially) do that by pointing out flaws in their evidence and/or logic. They don’t need to suggest some other way this could have happened. From what I’ve seen, their whole argument will be “This entire case turns on the testimony of a known liar and convicted criminal, who has a well-established antipathy for Trump.” If they can convince the jury to not believe Cohen, then a critical piece of the prosecution’s puzzle fails, and Trump walks.
The prosecution’s case lies in, “Everything that Cohen has said which can be corroborated by another witness has been so corroborated. Everything that hasn’t been corroborated by another witness is consistent with Trump’s behaviour in similar cases. There is no reason to suppose that Cohen is lying about any of it.”
I hope that’s not exactly it, because I think the defense has established a reason to think that Cohen is lying: they’ve established that:
- Cohen has a history of lying freely to advance his self-interest, even in contexts where he’s legally bound not to lie; and
- Cohen sees self-interest in Trump’s conviction in this trial.
So if it comes down to the word of Trump (a known liar) vs. Cohen (a known liar), I would have a hard time voting guilty. Even if it comes down to the word of Cohen vs. nobody, I’m not sure I could vote guilty.
I believe the prosecution instead is making the case that the uncorroborated parts of Cohen’s testimony are unnecessary for a finding of guilty.
Yeah, if it was Joe Smith (Cohen) and Henry Jones (Trump) I might have doubts too.
It’s clear the defense is that Cohen is a liar and you should not believe a word coming out of his mouth….
Except, when it’s good for the defense. When Cohen admitted to stealing $30k from Trump, and all the many other bad things he admitted to that only he can corroborate, Cohen is a truth teller and is absolutely 100% telling the truth.
So jury, when it’s bad for Trump, Cohen is a liar. When it’s good for Trump, Cohen is truthful.
And that’s the fundamental problem here. Key evidence lies in the testimony of people who were involved in the crime itself. They’re already inherently scumbags, so no matter how this played out, you’d have someone saying, “Why are we expected to believe this scumbag?” So at some point you have to just put it out there, and then let the jury decide which scumbag to believe.
correct. i don’t believe mr costello will be helping rudy with his arizona troubles.
the judge stated that he hoped to have the instructions printed out on thursday. so there may be some action on thursday.
if trump’s lawyer tries to bring in “advise of counsel” in any form on tuesday, i believe the hammer of justice will fall on him.
interesting how trump’s lawyers are say cohen speaks the truth when he is saying good things about trump, but not when he is saying bad things about trump.
I think the prosecution did their damnedest to set a case so that, even if you think Cohen is lying, the case stands without him. He’s there to tie everything together, and because if he’s not there, the jury will wonder why you didn’t call him; but the stuff without corroboration doesn’t ultimately determine the case.
I’m not sure about that. The key point is if Trump was personally involved in the payoff to Stormy Daniels. And there’s no direct evidence that he was.
But, they have established that Trump was personally involved in the earlier catch and kill plans. So Trump expects us to believe that, even though he has a history of being directly involved in these payoffs, this one time, Cohen just went off the rails, and did everything himself, and never even informed Trump what was going on. And then Trump paid him a large sum of money that just happens to have been calculated based on the exact value of this payoff that Trump knew nothing about.
So it really comes down to Cohen saying, “I did this on Trump’s orders, just like before”, and seeing if the jury believes that. I’d be inclined to believe it, personally. Trump’s version is just too implausible.
Even if Cohen didn’t testify to that, I’d have a hard time believing anyone in Trump’s orbit would spend that much of their own money on their own on the assumption they’d be repaid.