Manhattan Prosecutors file criminal charges for Trump re Stormy Daniels case - ongoing discussion here (Guilty on all 34 counts, May 30, 2024)

It sounds like they’re saying about several potential witnesses, in effect, “This person wasn’t called as a witness, so you should assume that means their testimony would have contradicted the prosecution’s case.”

Is that a fair summary of what they’re saying about Schiller and Graff and whatever that skeezy guy getting paid to keep quiet is named?

If so, isn’t that a stupid argument? Like, if their testimony would have contradicted the prosecution’s case, shouldn’t the defense have called them as witnesses?

It’s certainly a fine line to tread.

They need the jury to buy it (or one of the other defenses) at least to the extent of raising sufficient doubt without the prosecution pointing out the holes while also reminding the jurors of all the other evidence.

per cnn:

Trump attorney Todd Blanche continues to speak about the “catch and kill” stories that prosecutors have brought up in the hush money trial through witness testimony and exhibits.

“So again we’re here talking about a conspiracy between Mr. Pecker, President Trump and Michael Cohen to catch and kill stories…and here you have Ms. Daniels coming forward right after Access Hollywood, this is our chance… this is it and David Pecker says ‘nah, I want nothing to do with it.’ That’s our conspiracy? That’s the three catch and kills?” Blanche says.

“‘I want nothing to do with it. I’m not buying that story.’ That’s what they’re telling you.” Blanche continues, raising his voice, pacing in circles, raising his arms as he acts exasperated to the jury.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is watching defense attorney Todd Blanche as he talks about the “Access Hollywood” tape.

Blanche describes that tape as “an extremely personal event for President Trump.”

according to msnbc the defence has moved on to the costello testimony.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now arguing that Stormy Daniels’ story was “not a doomsday event” for the Trump campaign.

“It was one of many stressful stories that came up during the 2016 campaign. It was not a doomsday event,” Blanche says.

Blanche says Trump “never thought it was going to cause him to lose the campaign, and indeed, it didn’t.”

“Michael Cohen, however, had a different view,” Blanche adds.

Nothing was criminal in entering into this NDA," Trump attorney Todd Blanche says, referring to the nondisclosure agreement with Stormy Daniels.

“It doesn’t mean when Trump was out campaigning that he knew about it. The only person at trial who told you President Trump knew about it in October, September, August, was Michael Cohen,” Blanche continues.

Blanche poses the question to the jury, “why did prosecutors call Stormy Daniels, when there was no dispute that there was an NDA settlement and she knew nothing about Trump’s internal business practices?”

“Why? I’ll tell you why. They did it to try to inflame your emotions, they did it to try to embarrass President Trump,” Blanche says.

Judge Juan Merchan overruled an objection from Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass over this statement.

“That’s why,” Blanche says again.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche is playing a recording of Michael Cohen speaking to Keith Davidson in October 2017 where Cohen says “who else would do that for somebody? Who else? I did because I care about the guy. I wasn’t going to play pennywise pound foolish. And I’m sitting there and I’m saying to myself what about me?”

He argues that the phrase gives insight into Cohen’s state of mind.

“It made perfect sense for Mr. Cohen in 2016 to make payment without telling President Trump about it,” so he could get a fancy job if Trump won, and a better job internally if Trump lost, Blanche says.

Blanche reminds the jury that Cohen said, “what about me.” He suggests that recording is telling as to Cohen’s state of mind when he brokered the settlement with Daniels.

Blanche reminded the jury that Cohen testified about his personal wealth and said:

“So the idea that Cohen never would have made that $130,000 payment without getting approval from President Trump is something you should question.”

Todd Blanche is addressing the Stormy Daniels agreement, which Donald Trump never signed.

“What President Trump knew in 2016 you only know from one source, and I said that a few times but it matters and that’s Michael Cohen,” Blanche says.

“They showed the phone records and they showed him calls between him and others to help his testimony seem more corroborated and more credible. But we all know how that ended,” he says.

oop, we have the first bench meeting of the day!

reporting is that bragg is taking notes on his tablet, sounds like team nyc will have a meeting during lunch.

per cnn:

Defense attorney Todd Blanche has zeroed in on the cross-examination moment involving Michael Cohen’s testimony about the October 24 phone call to Trump’s former bodyguard Keith Schiller’s phone.

“That was his sworn testimony. It was a lie… This isn’t little lie. This was a lie about the charged conduct involving Ms. Daniels. He told you he talked to President Trump on October 24 at 8:02 p.m., updating him about the Daniels situation. That was a lie and he got caught red handed,” Blanche said as he raised his voice and emphasized each word.

“We all know that he called Keith Schiller to talk about the fact that a 14-year-old had been harassing him for several days and forgot to block his number, and Mr. Cohen wanted to fix that,” Blanche said.

On redirect, Blanche said, “they showed you a picture with unremarkable fact that everybody already knew that President Trump’s bodyguard was with him on October 24. No kidding. Thanks.”

Blanche told the jury that it was clear they were talking about the teen prankster because he hung up and texted Schiller about the situation, then followed up the next morning. Blanche raised his voice again and said, “That is perjury” emphasizing each syllable of the word perjury.

“They’re perfectly happy to have a witness commit perjury, to lie to you,” Trump attorney Todd Blanche says to the jury, raising his voice.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass objects, and the judge sustains.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche says when prosecutors “conveniently” showed the jury the phone records during Michael Cohen’s testimony on direct examination about the October 24, 2016, call record, they left out the texts between Cohen and Trump’s bodyguard Keith Schiller that Blanche says gives the appropriate context.

“We put them into evidence and now you know what happened,” Blanche says.

“Is there the same absolute proof of lies for every single thing that man told you? No, no there’s not. For that, we have what’s called an oath,” Blanche says.

michael cohen is literally like the mvp of liars.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is now giving 10 reasons why the jury should have reasonable doubt.

“Each one of these reasons makes a not guilty verdict a very easy path and a very quick path,” Blanche says.

The first reason he lists is that Cohen created the invoices.

Yes. When all you have is stupid arguments, that’s what you go with.

I’m most definitely not a lawyer but from my own juror experiences there is no way I would give any credence to such an argument. Yes, the burden lies with the State. Yes, the defense doesn’t have to do a damn thing on its turn. But considering that they did spend time giving defense witnesses, and didn’t call any of these ones that are being named, I would totally ignore the idea that the prosecution not calling them meant that they would have been bad for the State.

Perhaps that’s not actually the right response. But my take on it is that I can only decide on the evidence presented and the absence of those witnesses is not any sort of actual evidence.

i’m hoping the list will be a bit more organized.

right now it is bits and bobs.

And speaking of evidence, I saw somewhere else (it might be upthread here, but those posts while much appreciated are long and easy to miss a specific in) that claimed that Daniels, Avenatti, and Rodriguez were lying about threats to Daniels and that a recording makes it clear they were lying. Was such a recording ever entered into evidence?

ah, here we go, per cnn:

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is presenting the jury with 10 reasons they should have reasonable doubt.

Here’s the full list, according to Blanche:

  1. Michael Cohen created the invoices.
  2. There’s no evidence Trump knew the invoices were sent.
  3. There was “absolutely” no evidence of any intent to defraud.
  4. There was no attempt to commit or conceal another crime.
  5. There was “absolutely” no agreement to influence the 2016 election.
  6. AMI would have run the doorman’s story no matter what if it was true.
  7. Karen McDougal did not want her story published.
  8. Stormy Daniels’ story was already public in 2011.
  9. There was manipulation of evidence.
  10. Michael Cohen. “He’s the human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”

blanche then came up with "michael cohen is the gloat. (greatest liar of all time). per msnbc.

The NY Times live take on this list:

Todd Blanche listed 10 reasons that he believed the jury should have reasonable doubt as to Trump’s guilt. But the list was hard to follow. He misstated the fourth point, which he then broke into three parts. And he gave all of the points equal weight, even as he only glanced over some of them in the rest of his summation.

and blanche is done.

The court is taking a lunch break until 2 p.m. ET.

Joshua Steinglass is expected to deliver the prosecution’s closing argument when the court returns.

steinglass is asking for curative instructions on the retainer agreement and blanche’s prison comment.

the judge agreed that the prison comment was outrageous, and not allowed.

According to the judge’s instructions, after the prosecution’s summation, neither side may speak to the jury.

This seems like Trump talking through his lawyers.

“He’s literally the greatest liar of all time,” Blanche adds, calling Cohen “the GLOAT.”

I get hyperbole is part of this kind of speech. But this right here would be enough for me to say “no he’s not, you are full of shit” if I were a juror. I mean Cohen may not be the must trustworthy human being on the planet, but he’s not the greatest liar of all time. Hell I’d have trouble saying that about Trump and he lies A LOT.

Well, of course it’s hyperbole. A truly great liar wouldn’t be so very easily caught out on lies.

Perhaps “most habitual” may be closer to the truth but not so well turned a phrase.

I tend to disagree - this is the kind of pithy and slightly humorous statement that is likely to stick in a juror’s mind after a long morning of testimony. It’s like a summary of their summation: COHEN = LIAR, ergo TRUMP NOT GUILTY. I think it is rhetorically effective, even if it is extreme hyperbole.

What was the prison comment? That doesn’t seem good for the defense?

And it’s not actually about publishing the good stories, it’s about suppressing the bad ones. “Trump is an amazing lover!” is a fluff piece you can laugh about while grocery shopping. “Trump paid off a porn star” is something else, something a more reputable news source may latch on to, and amplify.

I was wondering about this. Did Blanche open the door when he used Weinstiens lack of testimony? Can Steinglass now bring up that he did not testify because Trump paid him for his silence?

This is an interesting point to consider, from the perspective of trying the case in the court of public opinion. From the perspective of “which side has the burden of proof?”, my sense is that since the defense didn’t call these guys as witnesses to provide exculpatory testimony, the most that can legally be said about that (by the prosecution) is that they’re not required to.

Not that it might not make some good copy for an enterprising journalist to query Messrs. Schilling and Graff on the points.

Isn’t it even stupider than that?

It’s one thing for the prosecution to not be able to say, hey, the defense didn’t have Trump testify, so draw conclusions appropriately. But if the defense hits this argument oh so hard about how lawyers would surely have called X to the stand unless it’d contradict their case, and then they look meaningfully at Trump, and then at the jury, and then back at Trump…