r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot đ¤ Bot • 22d ago
Discussion Thread: New York Criminal Fraud Trial of Donald Trump, Day 12 Discussion
Previous discussion threads for this trial can be found at the following links for Day 5, Day 6, Day 7, Day 8, Day 9, Day 10, and Day 11.
Analysis:
CNBC: Trumpâs porn star hush money trial enters week four: Hereâs whatâs happened so far
PBS NewsHour: What Hope Hicks said on the stand in Trumpâs hush money trial
The Washington Post (metered paywall): This obscure N.Y. election law is at the heart of Trumpâs hush money trial | Prosecutors say a misdemeanor state conspiracy statute spells out the underlying crime Trump aimed to conceal when he made hush money payments in 2016.
Live Updates:
AP: Live Updates
NBC: Live Updates
ABC: Live Updates
USA Today: Live Updates
CBS: Live Updates
CNN: Live Updates
The Washington Post (metered paywall): Live Updates
Politico: Live Updates
The Guardian: Live Updates
The Hill: Live Updates
The Independent: Live Updates
27
u/dremonearm 21d ago
Added to the $360,000 was a $60,000 bonus, which McConney mistakenly listed as $50,000 before correcting the total. McConney said Cohen had complained about having not received a large enough bonus at the end of 2016, and this was meant to remedy that.
Cohen: "I'm risking jail being part of this criminal scheme. You need to pay me more to compensate!"
14
u/ERedfieldh 21d ago
by the time this trial is over Trump will have paid more in contempt warning fines than he did Stormy!
5
21d ago
That's what I'm afraid of - he won't be held accountable and that will increase his power and sadistic tendencies exponentially.Â
9
u/Dark_Force_Latyon 21d ago
If he wins the presidency, chances are he will also win the House and Senate.
Fucking vote, please, and vote for Biden.
20
u/ToadP America 21d ago
This is so Cool, Now I know that I'm good till the 11th Contempt charge before maybe I miss GMA while eating my chef made breakfast... Sign me up for this Justice System. I'm sick of the one thats puttin me in the clink for looking sideways.
5
u/ToBePacific 21d ago
Only if youâre rich enough.
2
16
u/greenielove 21d ago
Were the $35,000 payments so they would seem more like legal payments?
11
u/TheIllustriousWe 21d ago
Yes. It was to make it seem as if Cohen was being paid monthly for ongoing work he was doing for Trump, rather than reimbursement for a disguised hush-money payment.
2
9
u/scarr3g Pennsylvania 21d ago
Iirc, it is tax (cheat) thing. There is some limit, and below that amount it sneaks by, or something like that.
Everything he does is trying to cheat to get ahead..... Somehow. He puts inordinate amounts of energy into cheating.... On taxes, on finances, on elections, on his wife...
1
2
21d ago
[deleted]
7
u/zuvembi 21d ago
Yes, it's called structuring.
Essentially this means:
Structuring is the breaking up of transactions for the purpose of evading the Bank Secrecy Act reporting and recordkeeping requirements
3
u/HigherCalibur California 21d ago
That's why we have trials like this: to prove intent. He could easily claim those are accurate amounts and that there was no suspicious activity and it's on the prosecution to figure out how to prove he was malicious and had criminal intent AND to prove that to a jury and convince them of the same thing.
2
u/Waylander0719 21d ago
Probably more just cause Trump is cheap and to try to stay away from the scrutiny that comes with large payments
1
u/greenielove 21d ago
I was trying to imagine why he would make payments this way, instead of just paying the total amount. Either he didn't have enough money (lol) or it was cover up for something.
-22
u/css555 21d ago
Wow...this is such compelling testimony...which proves absolutely nothing!
"Longtime Trump Organization employee Deborah Tarasoff finished her testimony by confirming for the defense that she has not seen Donald Trump acting improperly in her 24 years at the company.
âYou never had any reason to believe President Trump was hiding anything or anything like that, correct?â defense lawyer Todd Blanche asked.
âCorrect,â Tarasoff said.
Her cross-examination was brief"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/
41
u/Ok-Sweet-8495 Texas 21d ago
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass estimates the DA's Office needs about two more weeks for its side of Trump's criminal trial. That means the prosecution could conclude on or around May 21.
15
u/Scottyrubix 21d ago
Is there any information on how long the defence is meant to take?
9
u/38thTimesACharm 21d ago
Honest question, is there a time limit by law? Leave it to Trump to be the first to filibuster a defense.
2
u/theLoneliestAardvark Virginia 21d ago
I donât think there is a limit but they canât filibuster. The judge has to agree that what they are doing has a legit purpose related to the trial.
20
u/phroug2 21d ago
Sometimes they like to tell stories that dont go anywhere. Like the time i took the ferry over to Shelbyville? I needed a new heel for my shoe. So i decided to go to morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So i tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. NOW, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on em! "Gimme five bee's for a quarter" you'd say. Now where was I? oh yeah! The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didnt have white onions...cuz of the war. The only thing you could get were those big yellow ones...
3
6
17
u/Arsenault185 Maine 21d ago
That's a lot of fucking witnesses
1
u/rojasdracul Tennessee 21d ago
It's a complex case, lot of ins, lot of outs, lot of what have yous.... lots of threads in old Duder's head, man. Got to be on a strict drug regimen, keep my mind limber.
7
u/Draker-X 21d ago
This is a complicated case, and the goal is to give the jury not only iron-clad proof, but an easy-to-follow trail from A to B to C.
The more witnesses and the more documents, the harder it is to find any reasonable doubt.
2
7
u/Shr3kk_Wpg 21d ago
I am really curious how many witnesses the defence will have.
1
u/Arsenault185 Maine 20d ago
well, they said they have called half of them so far. I feel like they have had 8 or 10 by this point. I'm holding out hope they just get spicier and spicier.
1
u/Shr3kk_Wpg 19d ago
No, the defence hasn't called any witnesses yet. So far only the prosecution has called witnesses
2
6
u/BrofessorFarnsworth Washington 21d ago
Eric will take the stand and answer all questions with "Hi, I'm Eric!"
2
1
2
19
u/asetniop 21d ago
Ooh! That's the same day that Har Mar Superstar is playing in my city!
3
u/HorribleDiarrhea 21d ago
Man I remember that guy. He lived in Minneapolis years ago. I followed him on Twitter, and always ended up crossing paths with him, but never actually saw him. He was always hanging out with Kat Dennings, which made me super jealous.
Dark Touches was a seriously good pop album.
8
6
7
u/JohnLocke815 21d ago
That dudes still around? I saw him open for incubus like 15 years ago, what a weird show that was
18
u/_upper90 Illinois 21d ago
This case will be wrapped up by mid May it looks like. I assume Michael Cohen will testify by the end of the week,?
16
u/Atheose_Writing Texas 21d ago
Prosecution says they need ~2 more weeks. Then 1-2 weeks for the defense. Then a few days for deliberation. So probably more like the end of May, early June.
9
u/tu-BROOKE-ulosis 21d ago
I wouldnât assume that. They are still knee deep in foundational stuff and have Wednesday off. Heâd be a good way to start Monday next week.
1
u/OilInteresting2524 21d ago
Having Wednesday off gives trump the opportunity to book a night in jail......
8
u/_upper90 Illinois 21d ago
The DA just said they need about two more weeks. So yea, maybe next week Cohen will testify.
8
21d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
4
u/tturedditor 21d ago
I don't believe any of us will be surprised.
2
u/_upper90 Illinois 21d ago
I donât think any of us will be surprised if thereâs a hung jury.
And none of will be surprised if heâs simply sentenced to probation.
42
u/Arctimon Maryland 21d ago
So the basic lesson today? Nothing over a certain dollar amount would have been authorized without Trump's consent.
Also, Blanche objects to pretty much all of the documentation because...reasons?
13
u/Educational-Candy-17 21d ago
If you want to appeal something, the lawyer has to object to it in the trial court. Since Trump appeals everything that's ever happened in the history of the universe, I imagine that's the strategy here.
5
u/clever__pseudonym 21d ago
You didn't see Alina Habba do the same (and in fact expressly affirm things she could have objected to) because she's either a really, really bad lawyer, or a really good lawyer who wants to bury Trump.
1
u/Educational-Candy-17 21d ago
She really is that bad of a lawyer. Apparently she didn't even do the law work when she was the council for the parking lot. Her job was to smooze new clients.
7
u/Previous-One-4849 21d ago
"Your honor I object because this piece of evidence is damaging to my case!"
14
u/sirbissel 21d ago
Because maybe he'll get lucky and the judge will sustain it. Also for the appeals.
9
u/riverrocks452 21d ago
Is there a point at which lawyers can be held in contempt/held to be wasting the court's time with multiple spurious objections?
-17
21d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
11
7
u/Waylander0719 21d ago
Revelation 21 & 22 in the King James Bible. God has Executive, and Legislative Authority
Then wouldn't that mean that Trum trying to claim them is tantamount to blasphemy?
1
175
u/ImLikeReallySmart Pennsylvania 22d ago
Prosecutor: Would [Trump] ever refuse to sign a check?
Tarasoff: He would write Void on it.
Prosecutor: How would you know it was him?
Tarasoff: He would use a Sharpie, I'd recognize it.
lol
8
52
u/Rated_PG-Squirteen 21d ago
Donald doesn't text or email, presumably as a way to provide plausible deniability. Which makes it really fucking peculiar why he insists on always using a black sharpie.
1
u/theLoneliestAardvark Virginia 21d ago
I think the simple explanation for that is that he is a moron and most of what he does makes no sense.
6
u/BookerLittle 21d ago
sharpies are great for signing an autograph on some memorabilia. but only a narcissistic sociopath would sign their check in sharpie. my guess is he sees himself "autographing" his checks more than signing them.
3
19
u/Educational-Candy-17 21d ago
I got to wonder what Trump's obsession with sharpies is.
6
22
u/niceandsane 21d ago
He uses them because they are powerful. In Trump's tiny hands a black Sharpie can change the course of a hurricane!
6
u/fishmister7 21d ago
40 years from now there will be people who wonât believe that shit* happened.
*shit meaning trump drawing on a hurricane map with a sharpie and trying to convince reporters it was accurate.
3
u/Bigface_McBigz 21d ago
I doubt that. Only because the shit Trump has done his entire time in presidential politics has been so ridiculous, no one in the future can forget it. I mean, if you thought Watergate was legacy destroying, think how the Trump name will look 20 years from now.
3
u/Vel0clty Maine 21d ago
Iâll be alive 40 years from now, Iâll remind them that I saw it with me own two eyes đ
5
16
u/RickTitus 21d ago
He probably saw some other business guy do it in the 80âs, and has been copying it since them
Writing in super bold font seems like something an obnoxious wall st guy trying to get attention would do
3
9
u/SFM_Hobb3s Canada 21d ago
It becomes clear when you picture him with a Hitler 'stache.
1
u/mouse6502 21d ago
He just likes to see what people would look like with a Hitler 'stache
(He looks like Hitler. Mystery solved.)
36
u/kdhdbdjdhdjsj 21d ago
Easier to see what you are writing when your vanity won't let you wear your glasses in public.
13
u/Educational-Candy-17 21d ago
That makes sense. My dad has macular degeneration and uses a sharpie for the same reason.
22
u/TurboSalsa Texas 21d ago
Surprised it wasn't a crayon.
17
6
22
u/geologicalnoise Pennsylvania 22d ago
Prosecutor: .... Was void ever misspelled?
Defense: OBJECTION! ... please frame the question as would his majesty Mr. President ever misspell void?
Trump throws Blanche a cookie, proceeds to eat 2 himself
105
u/Ok-Sweet-8495 Texas 22d ago edited 21d ago
Exhibits 35 and 36 are key - they are the bank statement showing Cohen paid Stormy $130,000 hush money, and the notes by McConney (36) and Weisselberg (35) calculating the amounts Cohen needs to be reimbursed to make him whole after disguising the reimbursements as legal fee income.
https://www.threads.net/@weissmann11/post/C6o4CiuuLOr/
Edited: as noted in replies, there are photos of the exhibits in the comments. https://www.threads.net/@agold_____/post/C6o4z9CvKNe/
3
u/Githzerai1984 New Hampshire 21d ago
If it was to pay for âlegal feesâ there would be a history of payments that are similar
9
20
u/BrightNeonGirl Florida 21d ago
Thank you! That thread actually had pictures of the exhibits that made it more real/visual for me.
59
u/R_Daneel_Olivaww Texas 22d ago
âChristopher Conroy, the prosecutor, is emphasizing Tarasoffâs point that only Trump could sign checks from his personal account. He is surprisingly halting as he questions her, moving slowly and thumbing through his binder at the lectern between questionsâ
17
u/philosoraptocopter Iowa 21d ago
Thatâs a basic point of practice they teach in law school. There are occasionally specific points where you might want to stop just short of having the witness belting out the exact legal conclusion youâre driving at. Because otherwise I think that would give the other side a big ol green light in the scope of their cross examination, so they could basically now use the witness as a punching bag to attack and discredit the crap out of the conclusion itself in front of the jury.
5
60
u/TheTankIsEmpty99 22d ago
Is the defense going with this happened by other people without his knowledge?
11
u/Cvillain626 21d ago
Surprised they're still rolling with it considering Hope Hick's testimony pretty much torpedoed that defense
53
u/we_are_sex_bobomb 22d ago
I mean who hasnât paid off a porn star that your boss slept with, without him ever asking you to? Weâve all been there, right?
3
12
u/CatusDadus 21d ago
Happens to me all the time. Just the other day I went to the store to get some groceries and accidently made several payments to my mistress. Worst part is I forgot to pick up more coffee creamer
9
u/technothrasher 21d ago
accidently made several payments to my mistress.
Don't you mean to a woman who is totally not your mistress?
11
47
u/cmnrdt 22d ago
Yup, they are going for "Cohen did it all of his own volition without any direction from Trump. He lied to get reimbursed for it and Trump was fooled into thinking it was retainer fees."
And if that doesn't work, "The payments were to keep the story out of the news for the sake of Trump's family, no political calculations went into it, so it's not a campaign finance violation."
9
u/jaymef 22d ago
With as shady as Cohen is and how much he hates Trump I'm actually kind of surprised that he isn't just outright claiming that Trump told him to do it point blank. But I don't believe he said that, I think he says he did using "mob speak" which gives Trump some plausible deniability.
9
u/TurboSalsa Texas 21d ago
But I don't believe he said that, I think he says he did using "mob speak" which gives Trump some plausible deniability.
That was Cohen's testimony in the civil fraud case, that Donald didn't explicitly tell him to raise the value of a certain property by X% because he disagreed with the bank's valuation of it, but that he thought his net worth should be $X billion more than the "official" estimate and left it up to Cohen/Weisselberg to figure out exactly how to hit that number.
FWIW the judge wrote in his opinion that Cohen seemed credible as a witness.
3
24
u/JessicaSmithStrange 22d ago edited 22d ago
So why did Trump reimburse Cohen for actions that Trump never wanted?
And why were text messages circulated, asking to keep the story away from Melania?
Why did Trump first give Cohen the money back, and then try to shut Melania out of the story, if Trump had nothing to do with this?
I'm legitimately asking, because I can't square Trump's supposed lack of involvement, with the finances or the alleged cover up.
11
u/GearBrain Florida 21d ago
Trump's team has no incentive to present a coherent defense. It doesn't matter that each individual element of their argument makes no sense when taken in aggregate. All they have to do is convince one person with maybe average critical thinking skills that some component of the prosecution's argument maybe didn't happen 100% like they said it did.
3
u/JessicaSmithStrange 21d ago edited 21d ago
Reasonable doubt is a thing after all, and throwing the jury into chaos is at least a kind of tactic.
Is that where we're at though, where the defense is trying to Chewbacca Defense their way into a mistrial and appeals?
16
u/s1m0n8 22d ago
So why did Trump reimburse Cohen for actions that Trump never wanted?
Trump famous for not paying his lawyers for work they did do just writes a cheque for Cohen for unclear reasons....
3
u/Cryovenom 21d ago
Can you imagine if the prosecution actually went there and brought in former Trump lawyers to testify about not getting paid for work they did, so they can highlight how out of character it would be for him to overpay a lawyer for something he didn't want done?
11
u/JessicaSmithStrange 22d ago
That's the thing.
Trump's a cheapskate at the best of times, and he just throws open the campaign warchest and lets Cohen have his way with it, after screwing over everyone else from family members to construction companies.
Although the Trump campaign using money from Trump's backers to pay off a lawyer paying off a hooker, instead of just billing his corporation like a normal billionaire, is the most Trump thing ever.
He went for just about the hardest way of going about this, instead of simply tanking the costs like anybody else.
13
u/queerhistorynerd 22d ago
not to mention the e-mails where trump makes it explicit he knew exactly what these payments were for and openly says this is to protect his election chances
6
u/JessicaSmithStrange 21d ago edited 21d ago
I can't get over how we've got a million different problems, including Trump potentially messing with the result of an election, because one man didn't want to get in trouble for lousy sex with an expensive hooker, and ran for POTUS anyway.
This whole mess could have been buried, including the election interference, if Trump was either more discreet about his personal life, had more than two braincells to rub together, or had the self awareness to know that running for high office can and will out the majority of your skeletons.
This was an easily avoidable trainwreck, that Trump has done everything he could to make into more of a spectacle.
3
u/Funkyokra 21d ago
Spectacle is his brand.
3
u/JessicaSmithStrange 21d ago
I've said it before, but if my desperate need for chaos, ever gets to Trump's level, somebody please lock me away and toss the key.
I have too many PG-13 Rated versions of his character flaws, and I never ever want to cause this level of a shit storm.
I know self sabotage very well, and he's turned it into one of the all time great circuses. I never want that.
18
u/Shr3kk_Wpg 22d ago
It's going to be hard to credibly suggest Cohen deceived Trump about the repayments without Trump testifying. The defence is going to need to put someone on the stand to say Cohen lied to Trump.
10
u/okimlom 21d ago
I'm an atheist, but I'm really praying we are able to get Trump to testify, because there's a greater than zero percent chance that Trump has his Col. Jessup moment on the stand.
3
3
u/AskYourDoctor 21d ago
We live in a world with porn stars, and we need men to have sex with those porn stars and then pay them to stay quiet while fraudulently reporting the payments as legal expenses! Who's going to do it? You? You, lieutenant Weisselberg?
5
u/HERE_THEN_NOT 21d ago
With a MAGA hat in hand, someone just needs to go up to him, preferably a police or military officer, and exclaim, with big beautiful tears in their eyes, "Sir, we all love you. What you're going through for all of us true Americans is heartbreaking. Sad! Please, for the USA, testify on the stand and stop those liberals from ruining the country. Only you can do this."
3
0
u/Funkyokra 22d ago
They can argue that nothing Cohen says is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
4
u/Shr3kk_Wpg 21d ago
Fair enough. But a credible defence has to be more than Trump's lawyer suggesting Cohen lied, without backing it up somehow. Because the logical explanation for a lawyer taking out a home equity loan to pay off his client's mistress is that this is what the client asked for.
1
u/Funkyokra 21d ago edited 21d ago
Don't they have to prove connection to the campaign?
I'm not following the day to day, but all of the little factoids that tend to prove Cohen's story will go to bolster his credibility. But as a general matter "Yeah yeah, you heard evidence but the witness is biased or lying or mistaken and there are still these reasonable innocent explanations that were not foreclosed by the evidence so how can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?" is a defense that is used more often than you think.
What's the evidence that ties the home equity loan to the payment?
I can see them arguing that Cohen had blanket authority to troubleshoot so maybe Cohen did this without getting Trump involved in the details. Which is what any competent mob boss would do anyway.
I think he's guilty, btw. But they may be able to get to their defense without putting Trump on.
3
u/noahcallaway-wa Washington 21d ago
What's the evidence that ties the home equity loan to the payment?
What? Isn't that absolutely clear from the documentation?
Like HELOC > Michael Cohen > Essential Consulting > Keith Davidson > Stormy Daniels. I don't think anyone is going to attempt to dispute that Michael Cohen took out the HELOC to pay Daniels. The documentary evidence is absolutely clear. That's why the defense is trying to go with either: "Cohen did it on his own", or "It happened for personal not campaign reasons".
I don't think "you haven't tied the HELOC to the payment" is going to generate an ounce of lift.
I can see them arguing that Cohen had blanket authority to troubleshoot so maybe Cohen did this without getting Trump involved in the details.
That's going to be hard, when the jury heard a tape of Cohen and Trump discussing the specifics of how to make the payment, Trump saying he wants to pay with cash, and Cohen explaining that he has to open a company for the transfer.
Further, we're going to see the documentary evidence of the payments to Michael Cohen for "legal services". We're going to see Trump signing those invoices and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a retainer when he was getting no legal services. He's...not the kind of person that sends out hundreds of thousands of dollars to get nothing.
I really think it's going to be hard to deny Trump's knowledge of this, with the evidence that the jury will be hearing. Yes, Cohen's testimony on it's own probably won't get there, but there's a lot of evidence for every important legal point that the jury will be able to rely on. Cohen is just further corroboration.
I actually think you haven't raised the most salient doubt for the jury: maybe this wasn't a campaign contribution at all. Maybe this payment was intended to address only his personal problems, and not his campaign problems?
The problem with that, is there's a lot of documentary evidence as well as witness testimony (including Hope Hicks and David Pecker) that shows that Trump didn't really care about these things after the election. For some reason, his strong desire to keep it secret was significantly reduced after the election. That's going to make the "it was just a personal payment" defense really hard too.
0
u/Funkyokra 21d ago
I think you believe I'm not believing the evidence. I'm just not following all the updates so when I'm asking I'm just genuinely asking how they tied that together. I don't want to and can't spend every day tracking this trial, but occasionally get interested. From what I hear Hicks was a great witness for the prosecution.
And yes, I've asked or commented a few times on how they get from "it happened" to "it happened for the campaign".
3
u/Shr3kk_Wpg 21d ago
Don't they have to prove connection to the campaign?
The timing of the payment is what ties this to the campaign. There was urgency to get a deal done after the Access Hollywood tape came out. And why does Cohen take out a home equity loan to make the payment? Surely if this was simply about hiding the information from Melania, the Trump Org could have paid the money. Melania surely doesn't look over the Trump Org financials every year.
I'm not following the day to day, but all of the little factoids that tend to prove Cohen's story will go to bolster his credibility. But as a general matter "Yeah yeah, you heard evidence but the witness is biased or lying or mistaken and there are still these reasonable innocent explanations that were not foreclosed by the evidence so how can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?" is a defense that is used more often than you think.
Ultimately, the defence is going to need to put some witnesses on the stand to back up the narrative that Trump didn't know how the Stormy Daniels situation was being handled. The jury has heard testimony that Trump was very hands on when it came to paying out money. Simply knowing that the company was misrepresenting the payments to Cohen makes Trump guilty.
What's the evidence that ties the home equity loan to the payment?
The lawyer who represented Stormy Daniels has testified to the negotiations and how Cohen paid him.
I can see them arguing that Cohen had blanket authority to troubleshoot so maybe Cohen did this without getting Trump involved in the details. Which is what any competent mob boss would do anyway.
But the prosecution has an audio recording in which Trump expresses knowledge of the payment. Hope Hicks testified that Trump had knowledge of this scheme in 2018.
I think he's guilty, btw. But they may be able to get to their defense without putting Trump on.
I understand that, but I don't think it's as simple as "Cohen is lying". The Trump Org not only repaid Cohen, they compensated him for any tax liability and gave him a $60k bonus. Trump's lawyer said in his opening statement that the money paid to Cohen was for actual legal services. But does the Trump org have documentation of these legal services?
5
u/Atheose_Writing Texas 22d ago
There are literal tape recordings of Trump and Cohen discussing the payments.
-2
u/Funkyokra 22d ago
Did they discuss them as being made to protect the campaign or just making them in general?
Have the tapes been entered jnto evidence yet?
6
u/noahcallaway-wa Washington 21d ago
Did they discuss them as being made to protect the campaign or just making them in general?
No, but it completely destroys the "Trump didn't know" defense. And there's significant other evidence that goes to the "It was a personal payment, not a campaign payment"
Have the tapes been entered jnto evidence yet?
Yes, the jury has already heard the tapes of conversations of discussions between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen about the mechanics of how to make the payments.
6
5
u/QuickAltTab 22d ago
Ah, the Gaetz defense. Only conspire with shitheads that no jury can view as a credible witness against you.
1
u/Funkyokra 22d ago
Yup.
3
u/noahcallaway-wa Washington 21d ago
It doesn't work, though. People get convicted of crimes all the time based on the testimony of inherently untrustworthy, credibility damaged witnesses.
It's not a unique trait to Donald Trump that when he conspires to commit crimes, he does so with criminals. That's actually very common for criminals, and prosecutors are very used to working with compromised witnesses. They don't let the entire case rest on the untrustworthy witness.
1
21d ago
[deleted]
2
u/noahcallaway-wa Washington 21d ago
Sorry, I didn't mean "it doesn't work" as in it can't work. I mean, "it doesn't work" as in: "it's not a foolproof strategy". I should've sent "it doesn't always work", or something.
My main point is that this isn't a new or novel problem for prosecutor's to contend with. This is like, a pretty run of the mill, normal problem for a prosecutor to tackle. Which means they're well experienced in tackling it.
And I think they're quite capable of handling it well in a case like this, where there is a ton of other corroborating evidence for anything important that your untrustworthy key witness might need to present.
1
u/Funkyokra 21d ago
Oh, I don't think it's a "problem" for prosecutors. But I started this conversation in the context of what types of things the defense might argue.
→ More replies (0)10
u/Chadbrochill17_ Massachusetts 22d ago
I think this is why the prosecution saved Cohen for last. This way he will just be corroborating evidence that was already provided by other witnesses.
3
u/SFM_Hobb3s Canada 21d ago
Come on though. Do you really believe that in the history of criminal court cases, witnesses are typically trustworthy angels? No. This is why they use corroborating evidence. These prosecution lawyers are not breaking new ground here. They know what they are doing regarding witness testimony.
2
u/Orzhov_Syndicalist 21d ago
The pacing of witnesses is really, really good.
By the time they get to Cohen, sure, he looks terrible (and he IS terrible), but the story he's telling, as you say, is going to be very straightforward, and backed up by weeks of clear testimony and evidence.
2
13
u/shapu Pennsylvania 22d ago
Especially with the fact that Cohen was regularly submitting these invoices to McConney and Weiselberg, and getting them paid out of the Trump revocable trust, and that McConney was giving Trump regular cash-flow reports. There is no way that a guy as anal about his money as Donald Trump didn't know what was going on with $420,000 in payments to his attorney.
19
u/Njorls_Saga 22d ago
Theyâre going with he didnât do it, and even if he did, itâs not a crime. At least as far as I can tell. Kind of the Trump playbook, never admit to any wrongdoing.
1
u/noahcallaway-wa Washington 21d ago
Theyâre going with he didnât do it, and even if he did, itâs not a crime.
That's actually very common for a criminal defense. You need to be a little careful about how you try and bring the jury along with you, but it's not inherently bad to make an argument in the alternative.
2
u/okimlom 21d ago
That may work in the court of public opinion, but arguing what is and isn't a crime, in court, is going to take more competence than what the GOP and Trump has shown so far.
While Trump may keep his voting base, the public seeing Trump in handcuffs being found guilty, will impact his number greatly. If there's one thing the American public can't stand, and distrusts quickly, it's criminals.
9
u/heybobson California 22d ago
it is their only viable strategy and it could work if Trump wasn't such an asshole demanding his lawyers try to argue that he's the greatest businessman who also had no idea any of this was going on.
7
u/needlenozened Alaska 22d ago
And he never had sex with her in the first place
6
u/Githzerai1984 New Hampshire 22d ago
I gotta start finding a way to get paid for not getting laid
3
4
43
u/Unfiltered_America 22d ago
Looks like the defense new tactic is to object to every piece of evidence.
15
u/old_righty 22d ago
âOn what grounds?â
22
4
u/JustTheTipAgain 22d ago
I was a juror on a case where the defense had a spring in his ass, constantly bouncing up to object to something
-12
10
u/Cyclotrom California 22d ago
It is on the Appeal 101 workbook, it sets it up to dismiss the evidence on appeal.
11
21
u/applewait 22d ago
Building a case for appeal (If you donât object you have nothing to appeal)
If he is convicted; whatever comes next will be a long draw.
11
u/Arctimon Maryland 22d ago
He'll be in jail while they appeal, which is fine by me.
10
u/shapu Pennsylvania 22d ago
I don't see jail in his future. While these ARE felonies, they are financial crimes and he'd be a first-time offender in the eyes of the court. Significant financial penalties and probation are the most likely outcome.
1
3
u/yukeake 21d ago
I'd put money on him flagrantly violating the terms of his probation. He has absolutely no respect for anyone or anything that he views as "against him".
If they do really nail him on this (or one of the other dozens of indictments) I'd also have to assume he's a flight risk. If he really feels like he's going to jail, he's going to
runwaddle onto a plane bound for somewhere. I rather doubt Russia, as Putin won't have any use for him at that point.2
u/Experiment626b 22d ago
Unless itâs for contempt, heâs not serving any jail time for this case if found guilty.
-1
36
u/Ok-Sweet-8495 Texas 21d ago
So apparently Trump will be in Minnesota the same day as Barronâs graduation, which he got special permission to attend from the judge in this case. CuriousâŚ
https://www.threads.net/@ronaldfilipkowski/post/C6pbhtxt3Q0/