NY: Trump on Trial!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

--snip--

Up now for the prosecution:

— Daniel Dixon, another custodial witness who works as a compliance analyst AT&T

We're starting to see phone records.

Why are phone records important to this case? It's been clear since the case has been charged.

On Oct. 26, 2016, Michael Cohen opened his shell company to funnel a $130,000 home equity loan to Stormy Daniels' lawyer — "shortly after speaking on the phone" with Trump

From the exhibits, it's clear that the phone records have Cohen's name, but it's not immediately clear it's the same call.

We'll wait for the release of today's exhibits later.

On cross, Trump's lawyer Emil Bove presses the witness on alternative explanations for the records.

Q: You're familiar with the concept of a pocket dial, right?
A: Correct.

Q: There's a lot of data here, but the data has limits, right?
The witness says they are logs.

--snip--

Thanks for posting in this format, it makes it a LOT more readable.

Yes, I strongly agree with this, thanks!  My major issue with all the tweets posted here is not with the content, but that it makes the thread much more difficult to read and follow.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don’t see how this can be true.  The case involves several very complicated and thorny issues of statutory and regulatory intepretation, constitutional rights of the criminally accused, and state versus federal jurisdiction that even progressive election law scholars are thoroughly divided on.  I’m a progressive election law scholar myself who has been skeptical of these charges from the outset, and the prosecution has done almost nothing the address my concerns.

Typically the job of juries is to decide "questions of fact," whereas it is the job of judges to decide "questions of law." This is partly because most jurors are non-lawyers and are not expected to be able to decide, or to decide, questions about things like statutory interpretation (although funnily enough, this particular case has 2 lawyer-jurors).

Juries are typically thought to be supposed to take the judge's interpretation of law as a given, and to follow the instructions given to them by the judge as to what the law is.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/question_of_law

A question of law is an issue that is always resolved by a judge, not a jury, including:

    A question regarding the application or interpretation of a law
    A question regarding what the relevant law is, if there are two or more mutually exclusive laws, a judge determines which law is relevant
    A question that has been authoritatively answered by law, or
    A question of fact that nevertheless has been reserved for judges, not juries, to resolve

Questions of law are distinct from questions of fact, which are questions for a jury in a jury trial or a judge in a bench trial when acting as the factfinder. Mixed questions of law and fact are also often resolved by juries.

The judge's interpretation of the law can be debated, but if so, that is normally a matter for an appellate court to deal with, not a jury.



Of course, the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is not exact and cannot always be cleanly separated. But at the same time, it is not like there is no distinction that can be made most of the time for practical purposes. Bottom line, it is not really the jury's job to wade into the sorts of questions that "legal scholars" worry about.



For example, suppose you have a murder case. The jury is supposed to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of murder, after the judge explains to them what exactly murder is and what facts they would need to find to find the defendant guilty. On the other hand, the jury is not supposed to sit there and say, "but hey, I am reading the text of this murder statute with my fine-toothed comb, and under my interpretation it looks like murder is not a crime at all in the first place."

Juries can do that if they want in extreme circumstances and they can't be stopped if they choose to do so because of double jeopardy etc, but that is effectively jury nullification.

Yeah, I suppose much of my skepticism derives from issues that would need to be hashed out by an appellate court. It’s just striking to me how little the actual law seems to be coming into play in this trial when the law is so unclear as to its application to such an unusual set of facts.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It won't take a whole day to explain why Trump's actions violated the law. Establishing what Trump did takes way more time, how those actions were illegal could probably be summed up in about 10 minutes.

Michael Cohen's testimony will probably make this clear. After all, he actually went to prison on charges related to this incident.

[brucejoel99]

It won't take a whole day to explain why Trump's actions violated the law. Establishing what Trump did takes way more time, how those actions were illegal could probably be summed up in about 10 minutes.

Michael Cohen's testimony will probably make this clear. After all, he actually went to prison on charges related to this incident.

Rly funny Trump wants the jury to see he can be normal & relatable by forgiving Westerhout for her disrespectful "youthful indiscretions" when, if anything, he's incentivized to be himself against her testimony for verifying the Feb. 8th Oval Office meeting where Trump & Cohen allegedly confirmed Trump (& the Org. handling his expenses) would reimburse the $130K:

(I)t looks like Cohen's testimony is critical to the DA's establishing the essential "causes a false entry" element of the [34] felony 175.10 counts charged in connection with [the documents related to the 34 counts]. What evidence corroborates testimony by C[ohen] that T[rump] was fully aware of how the reimbursement of C[ohen] would be logged on the T[rump] Org[anization]'s books -- falsely as "legal expenses"? DA must establish that T[rump] knew that the payments to C[ohen] were going to be falsely recorded on T[rump] Org[anization] books as "legal expenses."

[W]ithout evidence establishing, B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt], that T[rump] had this knowledge, can a guilty verdict be returned on any felony count?

Obviously, Weisselberg has intimate knowledge of why the payments to Cohen were falsely recorded as "legal expenses." And he may know that Trump knew that the payments were going to be falsely recorded. But there's no way he testifies unless the DA immunizes him. And they aren't going to do that without having him locked into statements that implicate Trump. What's C[ohen] going to testify to re: W[eisselberg]'s knowledge of the false recording of the payments as "legal expenses"? Defense is going to have to try and decimate C[ohen]'s credibility. And DA's going to have to present everything it can to corroborate testimony by C[ohen] that T[rump] knew the payments would be falsely recorded as "legal expenses."

Who told McConney [on or around Tues., Feb. 14th, 2017] to direct Tarasoff to "post to legal expenses"?

[emailking]

Yeah I think Cohen's testimony is going to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting here (falsification of records, why it was illegal) and a lot of the witnesses so far have been geared at corroborating him on the whole scheme so the jury will believe him.

[brucejoel99]

Yeah I think Cohen's testimony is going to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting here (falsification of records, why it was illegal) and a lot of the witnesses so far have been geared at corroborating him on the whole scheme so the jury will believe him.

Yep, as Cohen can directly testify to the reimbursement & false invoices: he's well-corroborated by everybody else, but he's the direct evidence needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was aware of the scheme to have Weisselberg falsify the business records by recording the reimbursement as legal expenses (on top of Weisselberg's severance package-for-silence, which will presumably be brought up in summation after he pleads the 5th to remind jurors that Weisselberg wouldn't have executed the scheme without Micromanager Trump's knowing approval). Watch attacking Cohen on cross go about as effectively as attacking Stormy did since it's no secret that his dirty laundry was for the benefit of Donald Trump.

[Meclazine for Israel]

What sort of chicken raffle can Americans dream up next?

(What is his next trial after this?)

[emailking]

Michael Cohen Was Paid to Fix Trump’s Problems. Now He’s One of Them.
Mr. Cohen once called himself Donald J. Trump’s “designated thug.” Will he help bring about the ex-president’s downfall?

Donald J. Trump has always surrounded himself with lawyers — all types of lawyers. There are the television-friendly talking heads. The polished criminal practitioners. The pit-bull litigators, the corporate suits and the legal advisers with their own legal troubles.

And then there was the singular Michael D. Cohen, lawyer by trade and enforcer by nature. With the loyalty of a surrogate son, he kept Mr. Trump’s secrets and cleaned up his messes. He was the fixer.

This week, however, Mr. Cohen is poised to unfix Mr. Trump’s life. When he takes the stand as a vital witness at Mr. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, Mr. Cohen will unearth some of the secrets he buried, revealing a mess that prosecutors say his former boss was desperate to hide.

It will represent a pivotal moment of the trial, and the climax of a decades-long relationship between two New York loudmouths who used each other, betrayed each other and will now face off on the biggest stage: The first criminal trial of an American president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/12/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump-trial.html

[brucejoel99]

Michael Cohen Was Paid to Fix Trump’s Problems. Now He’s One of Them.
Mr. Cohen once called himself Donald J. Trump’s “designated thug.” Will he help bring about the ex-president’s downfall?

Donald J. Trump has always surrounded himself with lawyers — all types of lawyers. There are the television-friendly talking heads. The polished criminal practitioners. The pit-bull litigators, the corporate suits and the legal advisers with their own legal troubles.

And then there was the singular Michael D. Cohen, lawyer by trade and enforcer by nature. With the loyalty of a surrogate son, he kept Mr. Trump’s secrets and cleaned up his messes. He was the fixer.

This week, however, Mr. Cohen is poised to unfix Mr. Trump’s life. When he takes the stand as a vital witness at Mr. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, Mr. Cohen will unearth some of the secrets he buried, revealing a mess that prosecutors say his former boss was desperate to hide.

It will represent a pivotal moment of the trial, and the climax of a decades-long relationship between two New York loudmouths who used each other, betrayed each other and will now face off on the biggest stage: The first criminal trial of an American president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/12/nyregion/michael-cohen-trump-trial.html

Opinion: I've grilled Michael Cohen. The jury may be surprised by this star witness | Critical witness Michael Cohen has lied, but prosecutors' effective strategy has significantly shortened the leap of faith the jury will have to take to believe him, writes Norm Eisen, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for the first impeachment and trial of then-President Donald Trump.

Michael Cohen, the erstwhile lawyer and fixer of former President Donald Trump, was one of the first witnesses I interviewed as part of the first Trump impeachment: That was because I was investigating the identical 2016 alleged election interference now at issue in the former president's hush money criminal trial.

The hard-charging Cohen had been by Trump's side since 2006, had negotiated the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels to benefit the Trump campaign and was about to report to prison after pleading guilty in 2018 to campaign finance violations for that payment and to other crimes.

I expected someone very different from the person I met, who was candid, remorseful and funny, if profane and possessed of a hatred of Trump. Cohen has never wavered since in the key details he provided me about the election scheme and its cover-up that will also be at the center of his testimony in Trump's Manhattan criminal trial starting Monday. As we approach his keenly anticipated appearance, I think he, like Daniels did last week, will exceed expectations in how he presents to the jury.

The District Attorney's Office has set that up with their work throughout the trial. They have methodically bolstered Cohen's upcoming testimony with a series of credible witnesses and corroborating documents, gradually narrowing the universe of uncorroborated evidence that Cohen will provide.

Cohen will undoubtedly be the subject of a vigorous cross-examination that will likely include the many lies he now admits having told when he was associated with Trump, as well as Cohen's guilty plea for perjury. But the prosecution's effective strategy has significantly shortened the leap of faith the jury will have to take to believe him (as I did when I interviewed him).

Here is how the prosecution has supported Cohen's testimony in advance across three major aspects of the case.

Trump's intent was to benefit his campaign

[...]

The Trump Tower meetings: Formulating the scheme

[...]

The White House meeting: Reimbursing Cohen

[...]

To be sure, the defense will come after Cohen on cross with his prior lies in service of Trump, his perjury conviction and more. But because Cohen is so strongly corroborated, believing him will not require a leap of faith for the jury – more like a short hop. When that is combined with the brutally unfiltered, heart-on-his-sleeve person I first met back in 2019, you get a witness who may surprise us all, and certainly the jury, by exceeding expectations.

[Redban]

We're weeks into the trial ... When Trump first got indicted, I remember reading claims that merely being on trial would hurt Trump's image or bring down his polls. I don't think that's happened. The mere fact that he's on trial has done nothing to him politically.

I feel that regular folks might know that Trump is on trial, but few of them are reading live updates by the hour, parsing through dry witness testimony and lawyerly questions. A handful of us ITT have been following the trial in detail, but we are the hardcore political followers (else we wouldn't even be aware of this site, let alone have accounts). Even I admit that some days passed where I didn't bother to read much about the trial beyond the New York Post's headline

Maybe the absence of courtroom video makes following this trial less enticing for regular people (the GA trial is the only one that would be videotaped). And maybe a guilty verdict would finally doom Trump. But as of now, this trial hasn't brought down his numbers

[emailking]

I think there was a poll, ~55%+ of voters aren't following the trial at all. I heard it on air so don't know what it was.

[mjba257]

We're weeks into the trial ... When Trump first got indicted, I remember reading claims that merely being on trial would hurt Trump's image or bring down his polls. I don't think that's happened. The mere fact that he's on trial has done nothing to him politically.

I feel that regular folks might know that Trump is on trial, but few of them are reading live updates by the hour, parsing through dry witness testimony and lawyerly questions. A handful of us ITT have been following the trial in detail, but we are the hardcore political followers (else we wouldn't even be aware of this site, let alone have accounts). Even I admit that some days passed where I didn't bother to read much about the trial beyond the New York Post's headline

Maybe the absence of courtroom video makes following this trial less enticing for regular people (the GA trial is the only one that would be videotaped). And maybe a guilty verdict would finally doom Trump. But as of now, this trial hasn't brought down his numbers

I think it's the nature of the case. People see "hush money trial" and they think "really, they're putting him on trial for THAT?" Basically a much-ado-about-nothing, which I agree with. It's obviously politically motivated and people see that which is why it's not hurt him. Some of the more serious cases against him could be a different story, but it looks like none of those will happen before the election.

[soundchaser]

People are welcome to think what they like, but “TRUMP GUILTY; SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR HOUSE ARREST” will sting regardless of the charges/nature of the trial.

[GeorgiaModerate]

People are welcome to think what they like, but “TRUMP GUILTY; SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR HOUSE ARREST” will sting regardless of the charges/nature of the trial.

And if he's convicted, the phrase "convicted felon Donald Trump" is going to be in a thousand ads and news stories.  That's got to hurt him at least somewhat.

[Sir Mohamed]

People are welcome to think what they like, but “TRUMP GUILTY; SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR HOUSE ARREST” will sting regardless of the charges/nature of the trial.

And if he's convicted, the phrase "convicted felon Donald Trump" is going to be in a thousand ads and news stories.  That's got to hurt him at least somewhat.

The question is how long it will last. It's really a shame the election isn't a done deal already. Or that Trump as of today is more likely to win than not.

[GoTfan]

We're weeks into the trial ... When Trump first got indicted, I remember reading claims that merely being on trial would hurt Trump's image or bring down his polls. I don't think that's happened. The mere fact that he's on trial has done nothing to him politically.

I feel that regular folks might know that Trump is on trial, but few of them are reading live updates by the hour, parsing through dry witness testimony and lawyerly questions. A handful of us ITT have been following the trial in detail, but we are the hardcore political followers (else we wouldn't even be aware of this site, let alone have accounts). Even I admit that some days passed where I didn't bother to read much about the trial beyond the New York Post's headline

Maybe the absence of courtroom video makes following this trial less enticing for regular people (the GA trial is the only one that would be videotaped). And maybe a guilty verdict would finally doom Trump. But as of now, this trial hasn't brought down his numbers

I think it's the nature of the case. People see "hush money trial" and they think "really, they're putting him on trial for THAT?" Basically a much-ado-about-nothing, which I agree with. It's obviously politically motivated and people see that which is why it's not hurt him. Some of the more serious cases against him could be a different story, but it looks like none of those will happen before the election.

Your both flailing. If you think Democrats haven't got some vicious attack ads about "Convicted Criminal Trump" ready to go, then you're naive at best.

[mjba257]

We're weeks into the trial ... When Trump first got indicted, I remember reading claims that merely being on trial would hurt Trump's image or bring down his polls. I don't think that's happened. The mere fact that he's on trial has done nothing to him politically.

I feel that regular folks might know that Trump is on trial, but few of them are reading live updates by the hour, parsing through dry witness testimony and lawyerly questions. A handful of us ITT have been following the trial in detail, but we are the hardcore political followers (else we wouldn't even be aware of this site, let alone have accounts). Even I admit that some days passed where I didn't bother to read much about the trial beyond the New York Post's headline

Maybe the absence of courtroom video makes following this trial less enticing for regular people (the GA trial is the only one that would be videotaped). And maybe a guilty verdict would finally doom Trump. But as of now, this trial hasn't brought down his numbers

I think it's the nature of the case. People see "hush money trial" and they think "really, they're putting him on trial for THAT?" Basically a much-ado-about-nothing, which I agree with. It's obviously politically motivated and people see that which is why it's not hurt him. Some of the more serious cases against him could be a different story, but it looks like none of those will happen before the election.

Your both flailing. If you think Democrats haven't got some vicious attack ads about "Convicted Criminal Trump" ready to go, then you're naive at best.

The problem with that approach is it lends credence that these cases are a coordinated political hit job orchestrated by Biden and the Democrats. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, optics matter and Trump is really good at psychological manipulation of the masses. Constantly muttering "election interference", "witch hunt", "political persecution" lands with people, even those who don't support him. (tell a lie long enough and eventually it becomes true). Democrats would be wise not to lend credence to that.

[soundchaser]

The problem with that approach is it lends credence that these cases are a coordinated political hit job orchestrated by Biden and the Democrats. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, optics matter and Trump is really good at psychological manipulation of the masses. Constantly muttering "election interference", "witch hunt", "political persecution" lands with people, even those who don't support him. (tell a lie long enough and eventually it becomes true). Democrats would be wise not to lend credence to that.

Even if you think "witch hunt" is an effective counter to "convicted felon," Trump won't be able to mutter these things if he's under house arrest with no social media.

Of course, his surrogates might, but as we've seen in the past, these things don't land the same way coming from anyone other than Trump.

[emailking]

The problem with that approach is it lends credence that these cases are a coordinated political hit job orchestrated by Biden and the Democrats. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, optics matter and Trump is really good at psychological manipulation of the masses. Constantly muttering "election interference", "witch hunt", "political persecution" lands with people, even those who don't support him. (tell a lie long enough and eventually it becomes true). Democrats would be wise not to lend credence to that.

Well then, saying he was convicted of election interference over and over will also land with the people, true or not, for the same reason. It's not just magic if Trump does it.

[wbrocks67]

The problem with that approach is it lends credence that these cases are a coordinated political hit job orchestrated by Biden and the Democrats. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, optics matter and Trump is really good at psychological manipulation of the masses. Constantly muttering "election interference", "witch hunt", "political persecution" lands with people, even those who don't support him. (tell a lie long enough and eventually it becomes true). Democrats would be wise not to lend credence to that.

Well then, saying he was convicted of election interference over and over will also land with the people, true or not, for the same reason. It's not just magic if Trump does it.

This- though I do think a big point of all of this is that it's a huge fault of the media for keeping pushing this as a "hush money" case when it's about much more than that.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

People are welcome to think what they like, but “TRUMP GUILTY; SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR HOUSE ARREST” will sting regardless of the charges/nature of the trial.

It's weird to me that we have seem to have no idea what penalty the prosecutors are seeking for a conviction here.  Like, isn't the definition of a felony a crime where the recommended sentence is more than one year in prison?  What is the purpose of carrying on a trial over several months for dozens of felony counts, which has presumably cost millions of dollars in public money, if you're not going to get a multi-year prison sentence for conviction?

[brucejoel99]

No wonder Melania immediately re-negotiated the pre-nup:

https://twitter.com/molcranenewman/status/1790067198167323078

People are welcome to think what they like, but “TRUMP GUILTY; SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR HOUSE ARREST” will sting regardless of the charges/nature of the trial.

It's weird to me that we have seem to have no idea what penalty the prosecutors are seeking for a conviction here.  Like, isn't the definition of a felony a crime where the recommended sentence is more than one year in prison?  What is the purpose of carrying on a trial over several months for dozens of felony counts, which has presumably cost millions of dollars in public money, if you're not going to get a multi-year prison sentence for conviction?

They can't recommend a sentence 'til a guilty verdict is in. Before sentencing, he'd be interviewed by the probation department, who'd prepare a pre-sentencing report for Merchan in addition to the sentence recommendations he'll receive from the prosecution & defense (& on top of an assumed motion from the defense to set aside the conviction in favor of an acquittal, which Merchan will almost certainly deny), then he'd be sentenced, typically anywhere from a few wks. to a few months after conviction, & we'll assume he was out on bail pending sentencing for the purposes of this discussion but if sentenced to prison time without being able to win bail on appeal, he'd immediately be remanded into the custody of New York state correctional officers, as there's no post-sentencing time given to report in New York criminal proceedings; the sentencing hearing is the report date, with the defendant handcuffed & remanded from the courtroom if receiving prison time (& amend the sentencing hearing to the verdict reading when unable to secure bail pending sentencing).

[emailking]

There are some cases like death penalty where the prosecution has to make clear what punishment they want, but yeah usually I don't think much happens there until a conviction.

[mjba257]

People are welcome to think what they like, but “TRUMP GUILTY; SENTENCED TO ONE YEAR HOUSE ARREST” will sting regardless of the charges/nature of the trial.

It's weird to me that we have seem to have no idea what penalty the prosecutors are seeking for a conviction here.  Like, isn't the definition of a felony a crime where the recommended sentence is more than one year in prison?  What is the purpose of carrying on a trial over several months for dozens of felony counts, which has presumably cost millions of dollars in public money, if you're not going to get a multi-year prison sentence for conviction?

You hit a good point. Usually, low level felonies and misdemeanors don't go to trial. Usually are plead out. AFAIK, the Bragg has not brought forth any plea agreement, which is not the usual protocol for these sorts of things. Again, lends credence to the idea that the whole thing is purely political.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

They can't recommend a sentence 'til a guilty verdict is in. Before sentencing, he'd be interviewed by the probation department, who'd prepare a pre-sentencing report for Merchan in addition to the sentence recommendations he'll receive from the prosecution & defense (& on top of an assumed motion from the defense to set aside the conviction in favor of an acquittal, which Merchan will almost certainly deny), then he'd be sentenced, typically anywhere from a few wks. to a few months after conviction, & we'll assume he was out on bail pending sentencing for the purposes of this discussion but if sentenced to prison time without being able to win bail on appeal, he'd immediately be remanded into the custody of New York state correctional officers, as there's no post-sentencing time given to report in New York criminal proceedings; the sentencing hearing is the report date, with the defendant handcuffed & remanded from the courtroom if receiving prison time (& amend the sentencing hearing to the verdict reading when unable to secure bail pending sentencing).

I understand there'd be no actual sentencing recommendation in this specific case yet.
But there's been like no discussion of sentencing guidelines or how similar past cases have been sentenced in the past.
Like, what do defendants who have been convicted of this crime usually get as a penalty? Isn't there a recommended sentence for each class of felony in the state?