Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!”

[MN-Skeptic]

As much as I wish this case was a slam dunk, I appreciate stern’s insights into why it probably won’t be.

[bob]

Not legally relevant for this trial, but shows it was an obvious lie then, and still is.

[p0rtia]

Can't wait to see how they try to get around "Grossing up" for "Tax Purposes".

[Sam the Centipede]

Can't wait to see how they try to get around "Grossing up" for "Tax Purposes".

Oh, I think most reasonable people thing Trump is gross!

[sterngard friegen]

As much as I wish this case was a slam dunk, I appreciate stern’s insights into why it probably won’t be.

I'm amazed at the comments here, other than yours. Almost no one is seriously discussing the evidence and how it fits with the burden the prosecution has, or the opportunities the defense has to create doubts. As a trial lawyer I look for the weaknesses and opportunities in the presentations. So far the defense has a lot of opportunities teed up but it seems to be spending most of its time pissing off the judge and jury to satisfy its impossible client. Nevertheless, the defense has a bunch of cards to play when Cohen takes the stand. At some point it should stop slamming him as it will need the jury to believe a couple of the defenses his testimony can provide.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Maybenaut]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[SuzieC]

As much as I wish this case was a slam dunk, I appreciate stern’s insights into why it probably won’t be.

I'm amazed at the comments here, other than yours. Almost no one is seriously discussing the evidence and how it fits with the burden the prosecution has, or the opportinuties the defense has to create doubts. As a trial lawyer I look for the weaknesses and opportunities in the presentations. So far the defense has a lot of opportunities teed up but it seems to be spending most of its time pissing off the judge and jury to satisfy its impossible client. Nevertheless, the defense has a bunch of cards to play when Cohen takes the stand. At some point it should stop slamming him as it will need the jury to believe a couple of the defenses his testimony can provide.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

That is interesting. IAA (retired)L but never criminal defense. Please explain why you think that line of questioning would be devastating for the prosecution. Further, I do not believe, due to their impossible client, that the defense team will ever stop slamming Cohen.

[p0rtia]

Comment that struck me today as another example of the defense sabotaging their own case:

Some head-talked pointed out that they have lowered the bar for Cohen with the jury to absurd lows. As in, there's no way for Cohen to go but up in the jury's eyes.

And FTR, I believe that there will be a hung jury. Which doesn't stop me from believing that the idea fuckhead didn't put pressure on Cohen to handle the payoff so that he could stay out of it--that he was not in the loop--is laughable and a disgrace to the intelligence of a rock.

[chancery]

Stern, you shouldn't rely on the flimsy protection of the "members only" codes, or on "needle in a haystack" security, for discussion of a devastating line of questioning.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Why did Hicks cry?

Thank you for asking this. I have been wondering the same!

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[sterngard friegen]

I am suggesting there are several areas where the defense can plant seeds and try to nurture them into doubts.

It's not easy to find "devastating" questions. In a criminal case (and I had some early in my career) you want to plant seeds that can become doubts. In civil cases the defense will often do this as well. But having a slam dunk series of questions that will destroy the prosecution's case is extremely rare. I'm not suggesting they exist here.

Seeds can be planted. Cohen might be the Johnny Appleseed for the defense. Let's see what they do with him.

[SuzieC]

You said the prosecution wouldn't know where they were coming from. Suggested they would be blindsided and flabbergasted. I wondered why you would think that.

I think the prosecution is ready for anything that the defense tries to throw at them.

[andersweinstein]

Transcript PDF 5/3/24

[sterngard friegen]

Please help me out here. If most of those checks were written on Trump's personal account, how are they business records? That may be a defense to many/most of the criminal counts.

[Suranis]

Maybe he was withdrawing money from the Business accounts to replace the money from the Checks.

[neonzx]

I thought the checks were written on the corp account?

I mean, we know he thinks of it all as his own money... Even his former charity.

[sterngard friegen]

Here's one of the checks. I understand a few were written on a trust account. But not most.

[andersweinstein]

Please help me out here. If most of those checks were written on Trump's personal account, how are they business records? That may be a defense to many/most of the criminal counts.

I thought the claim was that every one is a payment of an invoice to the Trump org for "legal services" and was recorded as such in some company ledger. I didn't think the check itself was supposed to be the falsified business record at issue.

[Maybenaut]

That particular check is discussed Count 28 of the indictment, which alleges that it is a “Donald J. Trump check and check stub dated October 18, 2017, bearing check number 002944, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.”

It looks like they’re saying even his personal checks are part of the Trump Organization.

[Maybenaut]

Please help me out here. If most of those checks were written on Trump's personal account, how are they business records? That may be a defense to many/most of the criminal counts.

I thought the claim was that every one is a payment of an invoice to the Trump org for "legal services" and was recorded as such in some company ledger. I didn't think the check itself was supposed to be the falsified business record at issue.

The indictment specifically lists checks in some of the counts, including the one sterngard posted.

[Reality Check]

Here's one of the checks. I understand a few were written on a trust account. But not most.

All the expenditures were reported on a 1099 form as non-employee expenditures and listed on company ledgers so what does it matter if Trump's company had sloppy accounting practices pertaining to payments?

[andersweinstein]

Please help me out here. If most of those checks were written on Trump's personal account, how are they business records? That may be a defense to many/most of the criminal counts.

I thought the claim was that every one is a payment of an invoice to the Trump org for "legal services" and was recorded as such in some company ledger. I didn't think the check itself was supposed to be the falsified business record at issue.

The indictment specifically lists checks in some of the counts, including the one sterngard posted.

OK, I guess I don't entirely get it about the checks themselves. Maybe because they are one documentary part of the whole scheme to misrepresent the reimbursement by structuring it as payments for services? He was able to pay business expenses out of his personal account. These are purporting to be business payments, not Bar Mitzvah gifts.

Those 34 counts include not just the checks but the ledger entries and invoices that created them.

Cohen submitted each invoice “pursuant to the retainer agreement.” Pay stubs to Cohen described each check as payments for his “retainer.” Invoices entered into the company’s accounting software list each payment as a “legal expense.”

Ledgers from Mr Trump’s personal checking account and the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust – which handled the former president’s assets while he was in office – recorded the payments to Cohen as “legal expense,” according to documents shown in court.

Trump used personal checking account to pay Michael Cohen for Stormy Daniels hush money, trial hears

[sterngard friegen]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Maybenaut]

I agree with everything you’ve said about planting seeds, particularly if you have a juror looking for a reason to acquit.

To be honest, I’m surprised more trials don’t end in acquittals. But I don’t think jurors really understand (or care about) reasonable doubt.

Time will tell.