Fogbow

The theory of the DA: Business records (which no one would ever see) were falsified to cover up another crime (both state and Federal election campaign violations).

I wouldn't blame jurors for asking "why wasn't Trump indicted for state election campaign violations?" And acquitting Trump of the business records charges. After all, who was going to see them? No one.

This case was badly charged. Reminiscent of the ridiculous charging in Georgia, although there for different reasons. (Was the Georgia action made incredibly complicated to give private counsel prosecutors a sinecure?)

It's amazing that all of the criminal cases against Trump have serious issues. As for the Federal cases, Merrick Garland took his sweet time (and resources) charging hundreds of trespassers (true, also some seriously bad people who hurt cops), before even thinking about Trump and then appointing a special counsel he could have appointed on DAY ONE. And when his special counsel filed in Floirida, that was really stupid.

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 10:23 am The theory of the DA: Business records (which no one would ever see) were falsified to cover up another crime (both state and Federal election campaign violations).

I wouldn't blame jurors for asking "why wasn't Trump indicted for state election campaign violations?" And acquitting Trump of the business records charges. After all, who was going to see them? No one.

This case was badly charged. Reminiscent of the ridiculous charging in Georgia, although there for different reasons. (Was the Georgia action made incredibly complicated to give private counsel prosecutors a sinecure?)

It's amazing that all of the criminal cases against Trump have serious issues. As for the Federal cases, Merrick Garland took his sweet time (and resources) charging hundreds of trespassers (true, also some seriously bad people who hurt cops), before even thinking about Trump and then appointing a special counsel he could have appointed on DAY ONE. And when his special counsel filed in Floirida, that was really stupid.

tfg is fighting every. little. thing. Wonder how that will play for the jury?
https://x.com/lawofruby/status/1785332094127767962

Lisa Rubin @lawofruby wrote: NEW: A representative of CSPAN is the next Trump witness and is here solely to authenticate video, apparently. That likely means Team Trump would not agree that even C-SPAN video is an authentic representation of Trump. 1/

Meh. The testimony was probably quite brief, and unless the jury is exposed to tedious improbable objections or questioning, I don't see any likelihood that this would piss off the jury.

More importantly, I think Rubin isn't focusing on the difference between civil and criminal practice. A defense counsel properly insists that that the prosecution prove every element of its case, unless there's some strong tactical advantage to be gained otherwise.

So Drumpf got fined? I didn't think juvenile court fined petulant children.

Katie Fang also commented on these witnesses

Katie's Sidebar:

There are an unusual number of Records Custodians being called by the prosecution this morning. Why? Well, it's reasonable to assume that Trump's defense team refused to stipulate to the admissibility of certain items of evidence, like the C-Span videos or Trump's deposition transcript from the Carroll case.

Normally, for evidence like this, both sides stipulate to the admissibility to avoid having to waste the jury's time having to call Records Custodians, who will 99% of the time be able to authenticate these records to get them admitted into evidence.

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
IMO, Trump's team gambled and lost if they thought that the prosecution wasn't going to be able to get these folks here from places like Indiana (the C-Span gentleman) and Texas (the Esquire gentleman) to get these pieces of evidence admitted into the record.

Never underestimate the power of the prosecution...and a subpoena.

zekeb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 12:57 pm So Drumpf got fined? I didn't think juvenile court fined petulant children.

$9,000 and a sternly worded order.

That'll teach him!

Hopefully this is just Step One.

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 12:52 pm Meh. The testimony was probably quite brief, and unless the jury is exposed to tedious improbable objections or questioning, I don't see any likelihood that this would piss off the jury.

More importantly, I think Rubin isn't focusing on the difference between civil and criminal practice. A defense counsel properly insists that that the prosecution prove every element of its case, unless there's some strong tactical advantage to be gained otherwise.

Rubin isn't the only one commenting on it as unusual, but I defer to your experience.

Heard on CNN at 12:30ish today:

Paraphrase: "Testimony today saying there were no affairs. If that's so, the case is over."

Lisa Rubin @lawofruby wrote: NEW: A representative of CSPAN is the next Trump witness and is here solely to authenticate video, apparently. That likely means Team Trump would not agree that even C-SPAN video is an authentic representation of Trump.

Too also: The person is authenticating the accuracy of the recording, i.e., the recording is an accurate depiction of what the witness perceived.

The jury decides whether the person in the video is the defendant. (Hint: It will.)

And this goes both ways: sometimes there's a stipulation to these minor matters, sometimes there is not. Institutional players (e.g., public defenders) tend to stipulate because they'll be on a different case with the same judge and opposing counsel soon enough; there's value in maintaining a good reputation beyond one case.

On the bird site, I read they had a suck-eggs court reporter authenticate a deposition transcript.

I can't say that's unheard of, but it does seem intended to drive up the cost of the prosecutor's case.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:19 pm Heard on CNN at 12:30ish today:

Paraphrase: "Testimony today saying there were no affairs. If that's so, the case is over."

When someone pays cash for it, is that an affair? I always thought it was more of a business transaction. Isn't an affair something more like when two friends have several clandestine meetings over a period of time and where a monetary reward isn't her primary purpose for the get-together.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 12:59 pm

Katie Phang
@KatiePhang
IMO, Trump's team gambled and lost if they thought that the prosecution wasn't going to be able to get these folks here from places like Indiana (the C-Span gentleman) and Texas (the Esquire gentleman) to get these pieces of evidence admitted into the record.

Never underestimate the power of the prosecution...and a subpoena.

Again, meh. No measurable penalty for losing, and there was a likelihood of a benefit if the arrangements for one or more witnesses fell through. And the prosecution resources that were devoted to wrangling the witnesses were unavailable for other projects, without any reciprocal expenditure of defense counsel resources.

zekeb wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:44 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:19 pm Heard on CNN at 12:30ish today:

Paraphrase: "Testimony today saying there were no affairs. If that's so, the case is over."

When someone pays cash for it, is that an affair? I always thought it was more of a business transaction. Isn't an affair something more like when two friends have several clandestine meetings over a period of time and where a monetary reward isn't her primary purpose for the get-together.

DJT did not pay cash for either of the relationships. The McDougal one is more of an affair in the normal sense of the word, carried on intermittently for I think a year. With Stormy Daniels he had exactly one date which included, allegedly, sex she consented to. She is not a prostitute. The money paid later was for silence only.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:13 pm Rubin isn't the only one commenting on it as unusual, but I defer to your experience.

Just to be clear: IANACrL. And I was mostly a brief-writing lawyer, and I had very little direct experience even with civil jury trials. But in the course of a career you do pick things up.

Everything that defense counsel does requires weighing many considerations. For instance, if the defense had a persuasive simple story and strong witnesses to tell the story, wasting the jury's limited attention span on undisputed authentication witnesses might be a poor idea.

All I'm saying is that, in this particular trial, I don't see the refusal of Trump's lawyers to stipulate to undisputed authenticity an obvious blunder.

chancery wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 2:16 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:13 pm Rubin isn't the only one commenting on it as unusual, but I defer to your experience.

Just to be clear: IANACrL. And I was mostly a brief-writing lawyer, and I had very little direct experience even with civil jury trials. But in the course of a career you do pick things up.

Everything that defense counsel does requires weighing many considerations. For instance, if the defense had a persuasive simple story and strong witnesses to tell the story, wasting the jury's limited attention span on undisputed authentication witnesses might be a poor idea.

All I'm saying is that, in this particular trial, I don't see the refusal of Trump's lawyers to stipulate to undisputed authenticity an obvious blunder.

I appreciate you sharing!

bob wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 1:39 pm On the bird site, I read they had a suck-eggs court reporter authenticate a deposition transcript.

I can't say that's unheard of, but it does seem intended to drive up the cost of the prosecutor's case.

I had to do that once in my 40+ years. So not unheard of, but it is ridiculous

"For completeness":

Trump begins to remove posts after being held in contempt

Former President Trump has begun to remove the social media posts cited by Judge Juan Merchan in today's gag order ruling.

The judge this morning fined Trump a total of $9,000 for nine violations of the case's limited gag order, which prevents Trump from targeting potential witnesses and others involved in the case.

Trump was ordered to remove the posts in question and to pay the fine by the close of business this Friday.

I haven't posted the Thread Reader unrolls of the Xitter threads by ICP and Adam Klasfeld today. We are getting transcripts albeit the next day so it seemed superfluous to post those.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 2:55 pm I haven't posted the Thread Reader unrolls of the Xitter threads by ICP and Adam Klasfeld today. We are getting transcripts albeit the next day so it seemed superfluous to post those.

Unless something exciting happens!

Biden’s Wins @BidensWins wrote: BREAKING: New reporting from MSNBC exposes the Trump legal team trying to use multiple devices and methods to keep Trump awake in court. Evidently they all are failing. Retweet to expose Trump for the sleepy old man that he is.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 2:55 pm I haven't posted the Thread Reader unrolls of the Xitter threads by ICP and Adam Klasfeld today. We are getting transcripts albeit the next day so it seemed superfluous to post those.

That works fine for me.

bob wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2024 10:03 am I saw on the Twitter machine that the defendant may attend the graduation ceremony.

Which basically means he now has to attend the graduation ceremony.

I expect the elderly Fart Rip Van Winkle guy to now whine that the judge is forcing him to attend the graduation

Several wits on Xitter: Barron is appealing Judge Merchan's ruling.