Talk About Tennis 2.0

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
4h
Steinglass notes that Cohen's invoices were stapled through the checks.

"I know what you're thinking: Is this guy going to go through" each of the 34 allegedly falsified business records?

One of the jurors stifles laughter.

Steinglass says that Trump Org accounts payable employee Deb Tarasoff may be making the ledger entries.

"But the defendant is *causing* the false business records."

Steinglass notes Tarasoff stapled the invoices on some of the checks.

"You can actually see the staple marks on some of these," he notes, flashing some on the monitors.



Steinglass:

"He's frugal. He's immersed in the details, and he insists on signing his own checks."

Steinglass roasts Trump's defense from distancing their client from his partially ghostwritten books.

"It reminds me of that quote by Yogi Berra: 'I didn't really say everything I said.'"

Steinglass, after reviewing a passage of Trump's book "Think Big" under the section "Never Trust Anyone":

"If Trump is checking the invoices from his decorator, you can bet that he's checking the invoices of Michael Cohen."

Trump, from "Think Like a Billionaire":

"For me, there's nothing worse than a computer signing checks."

Steinglass says "that's his philosophy."

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
4h
Steinglass shows this records chart to jurors. https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTru ... Chart).pdf

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Steinglass highlights Hope Hicks' "devastating" final line of direct:

"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."

Hicks "basically burst into tears" right after.

hat's because Hicks' testimony was "the final nail in the coffin" for Trump, Steinglass says.

Defense: Objection.
Overruled.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
4h
After a brief huddle at sidebar, Steinglass presses on to the next section of his presentation:

"Efforts to Control Witness Accounts."

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
4h
Observation:

Steinglass's periodic, self-effacing jibes at the length of his summations draws regular smiles from a few of the jurors, making the medicine of overtime jury work come down a bit more smoothly.

Some jurors are more inscrutable — as they often are.

Steinglass:

"Cohen never really trusted Mr. Costello, and could you blame him? You saw Mr. Costello."

Steinglass:

When Mr. Costello testified here at trial, he told you, under oath, that he acted exclusively in Cohen's interests.

"That was just a baldfaced lie."

He acted in "a shocking departure from his ethical obligations as a lawyer."

Steinglass tells jurors they can take notice of Costello's "disdain" of this court.

Costello was dressed down by the judge multiple times for visibly and audibly reacting to rulings on objections.



Steinglass calls those guilty pleas significant because "they were the turning point."

Trump "immediately went on the attack — an attack that continues until this day," he adds.



On the screen was Trump's Truth Social post "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU."

The judge calls the last recess of the day.

When the jury leaves, Blanche objects to argument about Daniels' security as "extraordinarily prejudicial" and "inappropriate."

Steinglass says the defense opened the door "wide enough to drive a truck through."

Justice Merchan says: "I agree that my ruling was right," but he adds that Steinglass has gotten as far as he needed to go with that.

"And you don't need to go any further," the judge instructs the prosecutor.

Justice Merchan tells Steinglass that jurors said they could work until 8 p.m., and if he goes that long, his fellow prosecutors should pass him a note to tell him to really "wrap it up."

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
3h
Merchan thanks jurors for their flexibility.

Steinglass: "Thanks for sticking with me."

He starts to begin a sentence with, "Yesterday," before correcting himself.

"It feels like 'yesterday,'" he quips.

Steinglass launches into a timeline, starting with the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

He recalls testimony that Trump deemed the Enquirer's Ben Carson hits "Pulitzer-worthy." (They were largely rewrites of Guardian coverage, testimony showed.)

Steinglass:

"Michael Cohen is not some rogue actor here; he's acting at the direction of the defendant."

Pecker's testimony shows that, he says.

Steinglass on the Cohen-Trump tape:

"The defense just can't get away from this, no matter how hard they try. This is proof, outside of Cohen," of Trump's involvement in the payoffs.

Steinglass on the timeline's placing together of important dates with texts, calls, and emails from participants:

"Is this timing all a coincidence, every one of these things?"

Steinglass on Cohen-Trump calls on the morning of Oct. 26, 2016:

"Just stop for a minute to think about the timing of these phone calls: Unlike the call on [Oct. 24th], this was the final go-ahead."

The Oct. 24 call was the one defense focused on during Cohen's cross.

Steinglass turns to Hicks' testimony about not believing Cohen made the payoff out of the goodness of his heart.

That would be out of character for Cohen, Hicks said.

Another instance of prosecution turning a Cohen character flaw into corroboration.

Steinglass agrees with Hicks that Cohen would have wanted to take credit.

"If he did something about Mr. Trump, he wanted Mr. Trump to know: immediately!"

On Jan. 6, 2017, Trump met with Pecker at Trump Tower, and Trump thanked him about Sajudin and McDougal's stories, according to Pecker's testimony.

Steinglass turns to Pecker's White House "thank you" dinner.

On Feb. 8, 2017, Cohen met with Trump in the White House, as recounted in a photograph, emails, and a Westerhout calendar entry.

Steinglass says it shows Trump "caused" the false entries.

"Busy or not, Mr. Trump was not paying these prices for basically no work."

The prosecution's chart describes Trump's "reimbursement" tweet as a "Confession."

The defense still denies Cohen's payments were reimbursements.

Steinglass:

"Cohen's a self-promoter," and self-promoters want credit.

Another example of prosecutors marshaling the very character flaw Trump's attorneys attack Cohen with as the corroboration to their DA's case.

Steinglass on the concept of reasonable doubt:

"You don't need to prove guilt to a mathematical certainty."

But the prosecution proved its case beyond "all reasonable doubt," he says.

Steinglass reviews the concept of accessory liability that jurors were questioned about during voir dire.

As Steinglass wades into the law, the defense objects. Sustained.

"I'll instruct them on the law," Merchan says.

Steinglass turns to intent — an important part of the defense summation. Objection. Sustained.

"I'll explain the law, Mr. Steinglass."

Steinglass: "May we approach."
The judge denies a sidebar.

Steinglass: On the conspiracy to violate election law, we're basically beating a dead horse here.

The stenographer misses the remark.

"Beating a dead horse here," Steinglass repeats, as he and the court laugh a bit at the cosmic joke.

"Quiet down," a court officer tells the gallery.

Steinglass:

Don't fall for the defense argument that AMI wasn't a FECA [federal election law] violation because of a press exemption.

This was outside the exception, "even for tabloid journalism."

"Pecker put the campaign first," he says.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
3h
This summation may be stretching on quite long—but the jury appears engaged and many maintain eye contact with Steinglass even now.

Steinglass on the tax fraud theory of the case:

The law is violated even if it doesn't result in the underpayment of taxes.

Steinglass:

"Everything that Trump and in his cohorts did in this case were cloaked in lies."

The prosecutor reviews the various subterfuges, including pseudonyms, shell companies, and HELOCs.

"The name of the game was concealment."

Steinglass thanks jurors for their attention, and uncommon for him, always showing up on time.

"I apologize for trading brevity for thoroughness, but we only get one shot at this."

Steinglass: "In this case, the evidence is literally overwhelming."

He adds of Trump: "Now, he's had that trial. He's gotten his day in court."

Steinglass:

"Donald Trump can't shoot someone on Fifth Ave. in broad daylight and get away with it."

Objection. Sustained.

Steinglass:

"Very soon it will be time to deliberate." [...]

"In the interest of justice, and in the name of the People of the State of New York, I ask you to find the defendant guilty."

Prosecution summations end.

Justice Merchan: It's been a long day. It's pretty late so tomorrow we'll start at 10 a.m.

The judge delivers his usual instructions to the jury.

The judge announces no one will be allowed in or out of the courtroom after he instructs the jury.

(Reporters prep piles of PB&J sandwiches by the meter.)

The amount of info you have posted is unbelievable, Ti. I have not been able to read all of it, perhaps not even half.
But my feeling is that Tiny walks out free. I get the feeling that the prosecution dropped this one and really did not have a smoking gun.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 12:12 pm The amount of info you have posted is unbelievable, Ti. I have not been able to read all of it, perhaps not even half.
But my feeling is that Tiny walks out free. I get the feeling that the prosecution dropped this one and really did not have a smoking gun.

Mr. Delay would not have a worry in the "world" from here forwards until election time. He will be non-stop on the campaign trail.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Good morning from New York.

After a Manhattan judge delivers his instructions, a jury of Trump's peers will begin a historic process: deliberations to determine whether to convict a former U.S. president of felonies.

As always, I will be reporting live from the courtroom.

Trump has entered the courtroom, followed by his entourage.

The daily photography session has begun.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has appeared only occasionally, is not in the courtroom this morning.

"All rise."

The jury is entering, and some appear more dressed up than usual — ready to work.

Justice Merchan tells them that he will now instruct them on the law.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
2h
Merchan notes that none of his rulings should suggest that he has an opinion about this case, and if any of them has that impression, they should disregard it.

"You are the judges of the facts."

Merchan gives the usual analogy for circumstantial evidence.

If jurors fell asleep, and they woke up to find the sidewalk is wet, they may conclude that it rained overnight.

(Another variation of this analogy is jurors seeing someone shaking a wet umbrella inside the court.)

Merchan reiterates that evidence about AMI's non-prosecution agreement can help jurors gauge David Pecker's credibility and learn context, not to determine Trump's guilt or innocence.

So too with the FEC investigation and Cohen's guilty plea for FECA offenses, the judge adds.

Next instruction, summarized:

The WSJ articles can be used only for the fact of their publication and what happened in the aftermath of the printing, but the reported facts inside the articles aren't evidence.

Merchan:

"The burden of proof never shifts from the People to the Defendant."

If the jury finds the People didn't carry that burden, they must acquit, but they must convict if they find prosecutors met it.

He moves on to the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Merchan notes that reasonable doubt doesn't require absolute certainty of guilt, but it's not enough to find the defendant is "probably" guilty.

"You should be guided solely by a full and fair evaluation of the evidence."

Merchan instructs jurors on how to evaluate witness credibility — again, with highly typical instructions on how they can use their own judgment on when to disregard testimony in full or in part if they believe a witness has lied.

Merchan defines a "thing of value" under FECA, under federal election law, before moving on to the press exemption for the "normal" and "legitimate press function."

Merchan moves on to another prosecution theory of "unlawful means" under New York election law: falsifying other business records.

These go beyond the indictment's 34 checks, invoices and ledger entries. They include the bank records for the shell companies used in the payoffs.

Merchan instructs that the tax fraud offenses do not require proof of an underpayment of taxes.

What matters, Merchan notes, is the submission of false documents to tax authorities.

Merchan reviews the law of the press exception again.

Merchan informs jurors that their verdict must be unanimous.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
After the judge finishes his instruction, the attorneys meet for a sidebar.

Merchan has sent the jurors to begin their deliberations.

When they leave for the deliberations room, the judge praises the alternates for their time and attention but does not excuse them yet.

Judge Merchan's direction on reasonable doubt.

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
MERCHAN: In determining whether they’ve met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you should be guided solely on the evidence….and whether that evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt…

MERCHAN: If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on the charged crime, you must find him not guilty and if you do, you must find him guilty.

patrick wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 4:54 pm

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 12:12 pm The amount of info you have posted is unbelievable, Ti. I have not been able to read all of it, perhaps not even half.
But my feeling is that Tiny walks out free. I get the feeling that the prosecution dropped this one and really did not have a smoking gun.

Mr. Delay would not have a worry in the "world" from here forwards until election time. He will be non-stop on the campaign trail.

Which would be great if his followers were not so addicted. After this, he can not whine about the system being rigged, or about witch hunts. If they were thinking people, they could see through all this.
But they won't. So, I gather the cast is set. The election will hinge on how many people decide that Uncle Joe has been bad and this snake oil is good.

Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
Trump trial update: Something *might* be about to happen -- likely, a jury note.

There's a buzzer the jury can ring when they want to contact a court officer to send a note to the judge.

The bell rang a few minutes ago.

The jury has now been deliberating for more than 3 hours.

In courtroom 1530, the prosecution team has just re-entered the courtroom. It's ADAs Susan Hoffinger, Matthew Colangelo, Becky Mangold, Josh Steinglass, and...America's Favorite Paralegals.

Trump, followed by his defense team and entourage, files back in.

Trump's crew seated in the gallery at the moment includes Don Jr., Alina Habba, and Boris Epshteyn.

Justice Merchan takes the bench: "We've received a note."

The note contains four requests. (1) David Pecker testimony regarding phone conversation during investor meeting, (2) Pecker Testimony related to McDougal's life rights agreement, (3) Pecker testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting, and (4) Cohen testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting

Regarding request #2 in the note: The jurors requested Pecker's testimony related to the decision not to finalize the assignment of McDougal's life rights.

This seems to be a reference to Cohen/Trump's effort to buy McDougal's life rights from AMI.



Re: request #1: This is a reference to a call between Pecker and Trump in June of 2016. Karen McDougal's story was on the market; Cohen had suggested that Pecker acquire it.

Trump allegedly told Pecker: "I spoke to Michael. Karen is a nice girl."

Pecker testified that he had an agreement in place with Cohen for the purchase of the life rights, but AMI reneged on the deal after Pecker consulted with AMI's general counsel.

https://lawfaremedia.org/article/standa ... lly-sleazy