Once the jury goes into deliberations, I’m going to hazard a guess that a relatively quick return (less than a day) will be bad - very bad - for Trump. The longer deliberations go on, the more chance we’ll see a hung jury IMO.
Thanks all for the responses re: deference to the jury. I’m curious how that works - getting any 12 people to agree as to scheduling preferences. Can imagine 1-2 saying, “Let’s stick around all night if that’s what it takes,” or “I put in my 8 hrs and have nothing on my schedule for tomorrow…” But not worth a hijack.
Is the gag order still in place? If so, amusing to think that Trump’s lawyer is allowed to call Cohen a liar for 2 hours, but Trump himself can’t…
Pretty sure that it is. That’s always a big part of the Daily Rant: “They can say all kinds of things about me, but I’m not allowed to say anything about them. Gag order. First amendment, unlawful and unconstitutional gag order, election interference, conflicted judge, corrupt prosecution …” You know, the usual.
That is almost always how these things play out - quicker is good for the prosecution. However in cases with a shit ton of documents to sort through “quicker” can become difficult to gauge. A thorough jury may take awhile on even a foregone conclusion.
Per cnn:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says, “It’s no surprise” the payoff happened 10 years after the encounter between Trump and Stormy Daniels.
“And that’s because the defendant’s primary concern was not his family, but the election,” he says.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is ticking through another flurry of calls on November 4, 2016, when the Wall Street Journal story on the Karen McDougal payment came out, including calls involving Michael Cohen, David Pecker and Hope Hicks.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is making a point of saying that Trump lied in his statement that he had no knowledge of the AMI deal with Karen McDougal.
Steinglass tells jurors they know it’s false because there’s a tape of him from September talking about it, and AMI CEO David Pecker testified they had a phone call about it in June.
Steinglass reminds the jury that Pecker testified Trump was upset when the McDougal story came out.
He says Pecker “establishes unequivocally that Mr. Trump was in on the McDougal deal” and was upset that it wasn’t kept under wraps well enough that it got out in November 2016.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is still moving day-by-day through the timeline.
He’s now showing text messages between Stormy Daniels’ attorney Keith Davidson and National Enquirer Dylan Howard on election night 2016, when Davidson texted Howard: “What have we done?”
This text was previously shown during testimony.
The court is taking a short break, according to Judge Juan Merchan.
“We’re trying to figure this out as we go,” Merchan tells the jury, thanking them for making arrangements to stay later.
“I was watching the jurors, they look pretty alert to me,” Merchan says, noting that jurors have made arrangements until 7 p.m. ET or 8 p.m. ET.
“I don’t think we’re losing anyone. I think right now we’re going to try to finish this out if we can,” he added.
Merchan said the jury seems pretty intent on finishing closings tonight.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says after the 2016 election, Michael Cohen went around complaining that he still hadn’t been repaid for the $130,000 he fronted to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Steinglass showed the jury more testimony from David Pecker who said in December of 2016 that Cohen complained to him about it.
”I understood he was complaining that he has not been repaid," a portion of the transcript shows.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now showing jurors the bank statement from Michael Cohen that he brought in to Allen Weisselberg.
“Right on the bank statement, Weisselberg and Cohen calculated all the money that was owed to Cohen,” Steinglass says.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is reading to the jury excerpts from Michael Cohen’s testimony describing the Trump Tower meeting.
In his testimony, Cohen agrees that it was described as a retainer agreement in front of Trump.
Cohen testified he and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg went into Trump’s office to get his approval on the repayment plan. Cohen testified, "He approved it and he also said, “This is going to be one heck of a ride in DC.”
“We don’t have to prove that the defendant made and created the false entries himself,” he says, adding that Trump is guilty of false business records when he makes or causes a false entry in his business records. Steinglass says the "reimbursement scheme. That is causing false entries. Period.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass brings up the handwritten notes by former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg and former Trump Org. controller Jeffrey McConney**.**
“They are the smoking guns. They completely blow out of the water the defense claim that the payments [are for] legal services rendered. I’m almost speechless that they’re trying to make this argument,” Steinglass says.
Steinglass referenced a passage from one of Trump’s book “Think Like a Billionaire” in which Trump called Weisselberg “a loyal employee” and “one of the toughest people in business when it comes to money.”
Steinglass says Trump’s lawyers have to tell the jury “with a straight face” that the handwritten notes from Weisselberg and McConney do not prove that the payments were for a reimbursement to Cohen in part for the Daniels hush money payment.
Steinglass is now walking jurors through Weisselberg’s notes, saying that the documents stated explicitly that the $130,000 and $50,000 reimbursements would be “grossed up” for taxes.
Jurors are all quite alert, mostly looking directly at Steinglass.
Steinglass notes again that the $50,000 Red Finch repayment was more than Cohen should have been paid. “That may matter for his character but it does not matter for the crimes the defendant is charged with,” he says.
Steinglass, pointing to the handwritten scribbles, says that “Weisselberg details just how he, the defendant and Cohen are going to commit this crime. They are acting in concert.”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is explaining the concept of “grossing up” to the jury.
Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg “disguised the reimbursement as income so that means (Michael) Cohen will have to pay tax,” Steinglass says.
“Did anything you’ve learned about Donald Trump at this trial make you think he would pay someone double what he owes them?” the prosecutor asks.
“These documents are so damning, you almost have to laugh at the way Mr. (Todd) Blanche tries to explain to you that this wasn’t fraud,” Steinglass says.
Steinglass says Trump Org. submitted false 1099s forms to the Internal Revenue Service and reported the reimbursement to Cohen as income.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says Michael Cohen “probably did more legal work in the first three months of 2018 then he did in all of 2017,” but he still wasn’t paid at all in 2018.
“If he was still doing legal work, why wasn’t he paid a dime in 2018?” he asks.
Steinglass says, “When the reimbursement was done, the payments stopped.”
“Cohen spent more time being cross-examined in this trial than he did doing legal work for Donald Trump in 2017,” Steinglass says.
Yes. And a high-profile case. Even if you know the outcome early, you might for appearances, take your time and be thorough. Go through things again and again “to be super sure” for such a high profile case they know the world is paying attention to.
Yes it is. Should he violate it, he could spend time waiting for the jury in the courthouse lock up.
Back to the summary.
Just following up on @Spoons ’s jury experience. My understanding is that in criminal cases in Canada, jury sequestration is rare during the trial process, but once the case is in the hands of the jury, the jury is sequestered until they make their decision.
We had a case in my province several years ago where the jury verdict was set aside because during deliberations, some jurors went out on a smoke break and were seen talking to court staff who were also on a smoke break.
That was enough to breach sequestration and result in a mistrial.
Per cnn:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says Michael Cohen got a “pretty cool title” and used the title of personal attorney to the president to generate millions in consulting business.
“He was getting paid to provide access” to Donald Trump.
“He was making way more money than any government job would pay – and don’t I know that,” Steinglass quipped.
If jurors still have any doubt, “the defendant has himself repeatedly admitted that the payments were reimbursements,” the prosecutor says.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass pulls up a footnote from the 2018 Office of Government Ethics form, laughing mockingly that Trump attorney Todd Blanche used the form to suggest everything was above board.
The footnote says, "ln 2016 expenses were incurred by one of Donald J. Trump’s attorneys, Michael Cohen. Mr. Cohen sought reimbursement of those expenses and Mr. Trump fully reimbursed Mr. Cohen in 2017."
Steinglass raises his voice as he knocks the defense argument Cohen was paid for legal work, noting all of the documents match up to what Cohen was promised to be reimbursed.
“Despite this mountain of evidence … the amount he was paid just happens to magically match, down to the penny, the reimbursement shown in evidence. Does anyone believe that?” Steinglass says.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going over the vouchers and check stubs that show the payments to Michael Cohen in the Trump Organization system as generated by Accounts Payable employee Deborah Tarasoff.
Steinglass says Tarasoff is “not in on it – she does what she’s told” and enters the payments as retainers as she was instructed.
But he says these are falsified business records.
“He didn’t really pay a lawyer. He paid a porn star by funneling money through a lawyer.”
The prosecutor added: “I know what you’re thinking, is this guy gonna go through every” month of checks?
Some jurors smile at that comment.
Steinglass says he is not. He’s just going to show one set of checks paid by the trust and one signed by Donald Trump.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is showing the jury a December 2017 check cut to Michael Cohen. He points out Trump’s signature he signed “by hand using his distinctive sharpie.”
“It’s easy to throw just a bunch of mud on the wall and see what sticks but what is the defense actually saying here,” Steinglass says.
He says that they argue Trump didn’t know about the reimbursement, it was all cooked up by former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and Cohen.
“That’s crazy,” Steinglass says, noting that Weisselberg could only approve invoices up to $10,000 and “no one could sign the Donald Trump checks besides Donald Trump.”
Steinglass points out that the December 2017 check to Cohen was notated for services rendered in the month of December and yet was cut on December 1 at 9:11 a.m.
The prosecutor then asked rhetorically how someone can do that much work to earn $35,000 in 11 minutes.
It’s said over and over again that juries generally understand and take their responsibility seriously. And in my limited experience I would agree. You are being asked to come to a decision of fact that will impact somebody else’s life. I think most people take the idea of the rule of law more seriously than the politicians seem to, especially these last few years.
This gave me a chuckle.
He has hit his stride and it getting smiles and chuckles from the jury.
From cnn:
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass challenges why Donald Trump would go through a complicated multistep workaround to get his personal checks to him for signing at the White House through employees’ personal home addresses.
“Because Mr. Trump wanted to retain control over his $80 cable bill because that’s who he is.”
Steinglass added: “He’s frugal.”
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has pulled up excerpts from one of Donald Trump’s books, reading to the jury testimony they heard earlier about the former president’s views on his finances.
“Always look at the numbers yourself. If things turn grim you’re the one left holding the check book,” the excerpt reads.
“It’s this combination of frugality and attention to detail that led Mr. Trump to keep tight reins on his checks in particular,” Steinglass said.
Jurors are still all focused on Steinglass.
A New York City jury, in particular, is likely to be familiar with past cases in which mob bosses were convicted. They may well have followed one or more such cases closely enough to know that mob boss practice is to avoid doing anything that could later become evidence. Nothing explicit, nothing in writing, nothing tying them to a crime that they, nonetheless, ordered done.
As you say: intelligent people know how it’s done. Furthermore, they know that people have been held accountable for it.
Well, he’s not boring them, that’s for sure.
Some of CNN’s talking heads are speculating that Steinglass is taking too long, walking through all the documents, cheque stubs, etc., but if he’s making it interesting enough to engage the jury’s attention, then I guess it’s all good.
At the risk of jinxing it…
While it is always prudent to qualify any prediction re juries with, “There’s never any way to know for certain what a jury will do,” I think what you pointed out is the case for this jury. I’d add a couple more observations:
The fact that the jurors are, as Judge Merchan put it, “pretty intent on finishing closings tonight,” tells me they are more than ready to be done with this case. That kind of certainty tends to come from jurors who already have a pretty good idea about what they’re going to do.
I haven’t heard one single thing offered by the defense sufficient to offset the truly solid case put on by the prosecution, independent of the testimony of Michael Cohen. Andrew Weissman said something a few days ago to the effect of, Michael Cohen may be a liar, but after all the other evidence put on by the prosecution, you’d have to conclude he is lying were he to testify to anything other than what he told this jury.
Were I a betting girl (and I’m not), I’d say we’ll have a verdict by Friday afternoon. After lunch. And it will be guilty on most if not all counts.
So would I. It’s always possible to get a squirrel, but I don’t think we have one on this jury.
This is non-verbal communication between jurors about what they think about the case. I’m sure they’ve never spoken to each other about how they’re leaning. But they know. I’d be worried about any juror sitting back in their seat with their arms crossed at this point. Haven’t heard about anything like that. The fact that Steinglass is still holding their attention at this late hour is a really good sign for those of us hoping for guilty verdicts.
Per cnn:
Prosecutor Joshua. Steinglass calls Hope Hicks’ testimony about the conversation she had with Donald Trump “devastating.”
Steinglass was pointing to Hicks’ testimony about the conversation she had with Trump about the Wall Street Journal story on Jan 12, 2018, breaking the story that Michael Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels: “I think Mr. Trump’s opinion was it was better to be dealing with it now, and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election.”
Steinglass then suggests that Hicks, once a longtime trusted aide in Trump’s inner circle, burst into tears right after testifying to this because she realized how bad the testimony was for Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan overrules Trump lawyer Todd Blanche’s objection to this suggestion.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass pulls up texts from Michael Cohen to Maggie Haberman of the New York Times in February 2018:
“Big boss just approved me responding to complaint and statement. Please start writing and I will call you soon."
Steinglass says this shows Trump approved the misleading statement that stated Trump Org. and the Trump campaign was not a party to the transaction between Cohen and Stormy Daniels.
Steinglass also raising again a text from Jay Sekulow sent to Cohen over Signal: “Client says thanks for what you do.”
Per msnbc, Andrew Weismann says that Blanche talked down to the jury in his summation; steinglass is talking up to the jury.
I don’t like the way that point was made. Ignoring that Trump is involved, it’s not exactly unheard of to pay for something in advance. And with Trump involved, Cohen could bill him at the beginning of the month so that he’s not out a month’s pay if Trump stiffs him.
That’s the other one that bugs me. Don’t get me wrong, I love that they’re using his own book against him, but ISTM if they can argue that Cohen was lying then, but not now, it could be argued that Trump, too, has changed his outlook on certain things.
But since this is closing and the defense won’t be back, I’m guessing some of these nuances won’t be discussed too deeply by the jury.
Whenever he asks them a rhetorical question ie “Do you really believe…?” I assume he’s doing that, at least in part, to gauge their reaction and decide if he needs to dwell a bit longer on a certain point or if he can move on to the next thing.
Steinglass is an experienced enough prosecutor that he will shift gears quickly and end his summation if he senses he’s exhausting them.