Stormy Weather: TFG Convicted on 34 Counts of Election Fraud

[ti-amie]

Anna Bower
@AnnaBower
Steinglass, for the prosecution, moves to an instruction the People want on retainer agreements. The defense improperly elicited testimony that misstated the law of retainer agreements in NY, Steinglass says. He points to the defense asking Cohen about whether one needs a retainer agreement to represent a client under NY ethics rules.

Steinglass points to a New York ethics rule that he says supports the prosecution's argument on this point, but Bove hands up case law that he says supports the opposite. In one of the cases he quotes, for example, the court wrote that the existence of an attorney client relationship is not dependant on the existence of a retainer agreement.

JUSTICE MERCHAN: Alright, I'll read the rules, I'll read the decisions, I'll get back to you on that.

We're going to make every effort to get jury charges to you by Thursday, he says. Thank you.

Court is adjourned until closing arguments on Tuesday.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ashkor87]

This trial is fun to follow but it is actually quite inconsequential..even if he is convicted, he will get a fine and probation, probably. The election interference cases are far more consequential. The classified docs one could be serious but I (personally) tend to think the government is always wrong on these things so it doesn't matter much to me ...

[patrick]

Also, the racketeering case in Georgia is serious. Mr. Delay successfully got that one on the backburner as he tried to uplift Willis from prosecuting him. Willis is up for re-election as she won the Democratic vote this week. Mr. Delay will never serve a day behind bars. Overall, Mr. Delay with big assists from Supreme Court (DC classified docs) on Presidental Immunity, Cannon (FL classified docs), Trump "appointee" and the Willis relationship issue (GA election interference). Most people know that Mr. Delay is guilty on ALL charges; therefore, why he is doing things to work around the situation in order to serve another 4 years and changing to another "style" of governing.

[ti-amie]

Note: The prosecution summations are still going on.

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
Good morning from New York.

Some 20 prosecution and two defense witnesses later, the evidentiary record of Trump’s historic criminal trial has closed.

Now, closing arguments are ahead.

As always, I’ll cover the proceedings live from the courtroom.

Sandy
@sandiechill
Family affair today.

Don Trump Jr.
Eric Trump
Lara Trump
Tiffany Trump
Michael Boulos
Steve Witkoff
Will Scharf
Deroy Murdock
No Melania because of the family affairs.

Prosecutors walk into the courtroom, led by Assistant DA Joshua Steinglass carrying a box of files.

Steinglass is expected to deliver summations, once the prosecution goes up.

Steinglass sits in the batter's box seat of the prosecution table, located closest to the podium.

[ti-amie]

I haven't been able to find anything about the defense summation from a reliable source. Apparently at the end of his summation Todd Blanche committed a faux pas. Faux News wasn't happy about the summation.

I really wanted to find what the defense said because of the epic summation by the prosecution.

Nevermind

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
11h
Prosecutors walk into the courtroom, led by Assistant DA Joshua Steinglass carrying a box of files.

Steinglass is expected to deliver summations, once the prosecution goes up.

DA Alvin Bragg enters the courtroom and sits in his usual seat in the right side of the gallery, behind the prosecution table.

Trump enters, followed by Todd Blanche and the rest of the defense team and entourage.

Blanche is widely expected to deliver defense summations, which is up first.

Prosecutors, having the burden of proof, get the last word before the case goes to the jury.

During the daily photography session, Trump sinks into his usual pose — hunched over, hands folded together and eyes forward, before the photojournalists leave and he chats with Blanche.

"All rise."

Justice Merchan goes to the bench, and the attorneys register their appearances.

"Good morning, Mr. Trump," Merchan greets the former president.

Blanche estimates that his defense closing arguments will take around two and a half hours.

Steinglass estimates four to four-and-a-half hours.

Merchan says he'll leave it up to the jury whether to work late to wrap up summations.


"All rise."

The jury enters, and the judge explains summations to the jurors.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
11h
Merchan to jurors: "You are the finders of fact."

Merchan notes that the jurors' recollection of the evidence that controls, not what the attorneys say about that evidence.

They may request read-backs of the testimony during deliberations to refresh their recollections, the judge notes.

Merchan informs the jury that it's "not clear" whether they can finish both sets of summations by 4:30 p.m. ET.

The judge asks them to decide what they want to do.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
10h
Todd Blanche takes the podium for defense summations, pausing a bit to start the defense slideshow:

"Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I hope that everybody had a nice long weekend."

He thanks jurors for their service. "We see you paying close attention to the evidence."

Blanche:

"When I stood here 5 weeks ago on April 22, I said something to you that I'm going to repeat to you right now [...] it's that President Trump is innocent."

"The District Attorney has not met its burden of proof, period."

Blanche:

"You should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen."

Blanche:

"You should demand more than the testimony of Keith Davidson, an attorney who was really just trying to extort money from President Trump during the lead-up of the 2016 election."

Blanche:

"This case is about documents. It's a paper case."

It's not about an alleged encounter with Stormy Daniels, which Trump has "unequivocally and repeatedly denied."

Blanche says the case is about the records:

"Were those bookings done with an intent to defraud? That's why you're here."

"The bookings were accurate and there was absolutely not an intent to defraud."

Blanche:

"You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt based on the word of Michael Cohen."

There were "key conversations" between Cohen and Keith Schiller and Allen Weisselberg, who weren't called.

Blanche on Cohen:

"He told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies, pure and simple."

Blanche notes that jurors must find, among other things, that the 34 documents were false entries and there was no intent to defraud.

"The records were not false, and there was no intent to defraud," he says.

He displays a graphic of the invoices, vouchers and checks on the monitors. The jurors look at the graphic and then at Blanche.

On the graphic, Blanche notes that Cohen generated the invoices and the Trump Organization generated the other categories of records at issue.

Blanche anticipates the prosecution's argument that it was the "general practice" of the Trump Organization's Deb Tarasoff to staple the invoices to the checks.

But general practice isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Blanche says.

Blanche argues that it's not false that the checks to Michael Cohen were "for services rendered" — because Cohen was Trump's personal attorney and provided legal services to him.

On May 22, 2017, Cohen sent Weisselberg an invoice that ended with a note for him to "please call me to discuss the last open foundation matter."

That shows Cohen did legal work for Trump, Blanche argues.

Blanche says Cohen "lied to you," referring to the jury, by characterizing his legal work for Trump as "minimal."

"He - lied - to - you," Blanche emphasizes, with brief pauses and enunciation a second time.

Blanche:

Cohen "rolled right into Sean Hannity" and spoke to every person he could to boast about his position, which was on his email signature line.

"This was not a secret. Michael Cohen was President Trump's personal attorney, period."

Blanche:

"A lie is a lie, and this is a significant lie."

Blanche:

"As you know, the fact that there was a verbal retainer agreement between Mr. Cohen and President Trump was consistent" with the practice with Keith Davidson.

He shows Davidson's testimony on the matter.

Two prosecution objections overruled during this passage.

Blanche asks jurors which version of Cohen's story makes sense:

That Cohen and Trump verbally agreed on a $35,000 / month retainer, or that Cohen worked for free, while being paid back nearly "triple" for expenses.

Blanche:

"There's a reason why, in life, the simplest answer is usually the right one.

Blanche:

"There is no evidence" that Trump knew anything about the voucher system.

Blanche:

If prosecutors show passages from Trump's decades-old, partially ghostwritten books — in order to show Trump knew about this system — that's a "red flag" and a "problem in the proof"

Blanche shows jurors an email of Trump Org payroll employee Deb Tarasoff following Jeff McConney's instructions on the vouchers, not Trump's.

Blanche says that the vouchers were properly marked as legal expenses, but prosecutors have "criminalized that."

"That's absurd. It's not a crime."

The lawyer notes that "legal expenses" was a field from a "drop-down menu."

Many of the jurors inspect the exhibits that are part of the defense slideshow that flash on their screens during this presentation.

Blanche shows an email from Weisselberg to McConney on Feb. 24, 2017:

"Ok to pay as per agreement with Don and Eric," referring to Trump's kids.

If there were a cover-up, Blanche says, "This email does not exist."

Blanche:

"Why do Don and Eric have to approve anything?"

He raises more missing witness arguments, pointing out that prosecutors did not call Don and Eric.

"Is there some allegation that they're a part of this scheme, a part of this conspiracy?"

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
10h
Analysis:

The defense was expected to lean on missing witness arguments during summations, primarily pointing out that the now-incarcerated Allen Weisselberg wasn't called.

But Blanche's missing witness list is far broader: Weisselberg, Schiller, Howard, Don and Eric so far.

Blanche notes that prosecutors have the burden of proof.

Blanche on the notion that Trump had full knowledge and intent to defraud because he saw the allegedly falsified documents:

"That is a stretch, and that is reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen."

Blanche reiterates defense that Trump was too busy to act with knowledge and intent:

"He was very busy. He was frequently multitasking [...] He was president of the United States."

Blanche:

"Now, we are going to talk for a few minutes now on Michael Cohen." [...]

"Even without Mr. Cohen, the government can't get by the fact that the invoices weren't generated by anyone at the Trump Organization; they were generated by Michael Cohen."

Blanche:

"All of that ends the case: Not guilty, but there is a lot more. What the People have done. What the government did for the last five weeks, at the end of the day, is ask you to believe the man who testified [a short time ago]: Michael Cohen."

Blanche on Cohen's testimony that he didn't get a salary as Trump's personal attorney after being incensed by his slashed bonus the prior year:

"Do you think that Mr. Cohen thought, 'I want to work for free'? Is that the man who testified?"

Blanche shows jurors a slide stating the defense's view: "Case Turns on Cohen," set against a passage of his testimony about his conversation with Weisselberg about he system of reimbursements.

Blanche mocks Cohen's testimony that his expenses were grossed up for taxes, by supposing his client saying of them: "Not only am I going to pay it. Let's double it."

"That is absurd!" Blanche exclaims, noting all the testimony about his client watching all expenses.

Blanche calls it a "lie" that Cohen's expenses were grossed up.

Blanche cuts to Cohen's testimony when asked about the grossing up system:

"I didn't know. And to be honest, I didn't really even think about it."

Cohen said he just wanted to get paid back.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
10h
Blanche cuts to Cohen's testimony when asked about the grossing up system:

"I didn't know. And to be honest, I didn't really even think about it."

Cohen said he just wanted to get paid back.

Blanche says prosecutors presented "no evidence" of the alleged tax scheme.

Cohen visited the White House on Feb. 8, 2017, when he said the agreement took place.

On Feb. 14, 2017, Cohen asked McConney in an email: "Please remind me of the monthly amount?"

Blanche derides the notion that there was a "confirmatory" meeting on the scheme days earlier.

Blanche takes on the "intent to defraud" prong of the prosecution's burden, which he describes as a "conscious objective" or a "purpose" to defraud.

"There's nothing false or misleading about the 1099s," Blanche says of the tax documents.

Blanche on the 1099s to Michael Cohen:

"These forms are in evidence, so you don't have to take my word for it."

"The payments were compensation to him, period. Nothing false."

They show Trump disclosed the payments to the IRS.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
10h
Blanche on the actions of the National Enquirer's corporate parent, AMI:

"This is the same thing that AMI had been doing for decades."

The slide flashed to the jury: "AMI: Standard Operating Procedure."

"This isn't surprising," Blanche says. "Campaigns want to emphasizing the good things about their candidate and expose the bad things about their opponents."

Pecker testified that he tried to suppress allegations about Arnold Schwartzenegger by women during the former California governor's campaign.

Though it sparked an investigation, Blanche notes, no charges were brought.

Blanche says that's why Mr. Pecker thought what he was doing with Trump and Cohen was "perfectly legal."

Prosecution: Objection.
Judge: Sustained.

(Pecker testified that AMI admitted to a campaign violation.)

Blanche says the arrangement was "good business for AMI."

"They made a lot of money on relationships," he says.

Trump was the "top celebrity" that helped sell magazines, and Pecker wanted to make money for himself and shareholders, per his fiduciary duty, Blanche says.

Blanche:

The idea that AMI's actions could have influenced the 2016 election is "preposterous."

The National Enquirer's circulation was around 350,000, Pecker testified.

Current defense slide: "No Election 'Influence.'"

Blanche says that the notion that the National Enquirer could criminally influence an election by republishing negative stories about other candidates "should hopefully make you shake your head."

"It makes no sense," Blanche says.

Blanche turns to "catch-and-kill" scheme, claiming that the subject wasn't broached during the 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

Pecker testified he said he'd be the Trump campaign's "eyes and ears" on the lookout for "women selling stories."

Blanche notes that Pecker testified that AMI published about half of the stories that the company bought.

"When he tells you that the National Enquirer" only publishes about half the stories that they buy, "that's meaningful. That matters."

Blanche turns to Dino Sajudin's story that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock. He notes that the story wasn't true and designed to damage Trump.

For AMI, Blanche says: "This isn't a catch-and-kill. This was an opportunity."Blanche turns to Dino Sajudin's story that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock. He notes that the story wasn't true and designed to damage Trump.

For AMI, Blanche says: "This isn't a catch-and-kill. This was an opportunity."

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
10h
Blanche says that Pecker testified that he would have published Sajudin's story if it were verified, and AMI only didn't publish it because it was "false."

"That's the evidence. That's what you heard."

(Note: Pecker testified that Trump thanked him for suppressing the story.)

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
10h
Blanche on McDougal:

"This was not a catch-and-kill, either."

McDougal wanted to restart her career, not to tell her story, he says.

Blanche:

"To be clear, it was not Ms. McDougal's intention to publish her story." [...]

"The reason why this matters [...] there was never any risk that her allegations would influence the election because she didn't want the allegations published."

Blanche plays down the non-prosecution agreement AMI reached with federal prosecutors:

"You know that Mr. Pecker is not being prosecuted for anything."

He says that "none of it was criminal."

Blanche recites Merchan's instructions that the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) is not evidence of Trump's guilt, and the jury cannot consider it in determining his guilt.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
9h
Blanche says Cohen "lied to you" about a conversation he claims to have overheard between Pecker and Trump.

Pecker testified that Trump said he doesn't buy stories.

Cohen testified that Trump said: "No problem. I will take care of it."

Blanche turns to Cohen's alleged lunch with David Pecker.

"Ladies and gentlemen, that lunch did not happen. Mr. Cohen made it up."

That was the lunch where Cohen testified that Pecker was angry about not getting his money back.

Blanche turns to Cohen's recorded conversation with Trump about the payoff to McDougal, highlighting a female voice.

That's Rhona Graff, who was a prosecution witness.

She wasn't asked about it, Blanche notes.

Blanche:

"There's a word that the government claims Mr. Tr— President Trump said, 'One-fifty.'"

He disputes that the "One-fifty," the amount paid to McDougal, was said, and though it appears in the transcript, the jury decides whether they hear it in the recording.



Blanche:

"He lied to you when he said he answered that call."

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
9h
Analysis:

This is the second time that Blanche used extrinsic evidence to undermine Cohen's account of an alleged conversation with Trump.

The first, to great fanfare, was Blanche confronting Cohen about the 14-year-old prankster spurring the call to Keith Schiller.

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
9h
Next defense slide about Stormy Daniels: "The Story Was Already Public."

Blanche notes that it originally ran on a blog called The Dirty in 2011.

In mid-2016, the Daniels story "didn't raise any alarm bells" for the Enquirer's then-editor in chief Dylan Howard, Blanche says.

(Context: That was before the release of the Access Hollywood tape gave the story renewed mileage, according to witness testimony.)