State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization

[AndyinPA]

I guess it doesn't matter much in the grand scope of things, but is he allowed to just walk out of the courtroom like that? Before court's adjourned or the judge leaves the courtroom?

Just heard on MSNBC he just called tfg back into court after clearing the court.

[Kendra]

I hope we hear what's happening in there.

[Foggy]

[bob]

I guess it doesn't matter much in the grand scope of things, but is he allowed to just walk out of the courtroom like that? Before court's adjourned or the judge leaves the courtroom?

Unless you've been ordered to be there, anyone can leave at any time.

I mean, it is rude, and it won't help your case, but that bridge was crossed burned long ago.

[AndyinPA]

Thanks. Makes sense.

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/Delavegalaw/status/ ... 8439301536

Elizabeth de la Vega
@Delavegalaw
When the point of a witness's testimony is that he lied repeatedly, for your own client's benefit and at his implicit urging, then -- altho' it seems dramatic in court -- cross-examining that witness at length about the lies made for your client's benefit gets you NOWHERE.

Indeed, what this type of cross-ex does under such circumstances is reinforce the extent of the witness's long-term loyalty to, and fear of, your client, both of which led the witness to lie for your client, in testimony & in docs. In other words, you prove your adversary's case.

Ironically, and even more absurdly, Trump's attys' theme that Cohen was repeatedly lying when he made statements *favorable* to Trump necessarily means their position is that, to be true, Cohen's statements shd have been *unfavorable* to Trump. Not smart to highlight that idea.

De la Vega was a federal prosecutor for 21 years, and I wasn't, but while I agree with her that Trump's lawyers' cross of Cohen is far from a get-out-of-jail-free card, and I agree that it's silly for them to go on and on about it, I still think that Trump's lawyers have to put the lying on the record. And while I think that Cohen's testimony is helpful where it corroborates other evidence, I don't think it's the cornerstone of the prosecution's case.

I think that Engoron got it right when he remarked that "he doesn’t regard Cohen as a 'key witness.'" see this tweet from Adam Klasfeld:
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 8042298817

[somerset]

Lost in all of today's turmoil is a detail I think is at least symbolic - I believe this is the first time in all of this* that tfg was actually put on a witness stand and questioned in front of a judge. Hopefully a harbinger of things to come

*Has he ever in his life testified in open court?

[Foggy]

Yeah, and the judge knew that the quadfectee was lying under oath today, and the judge can take that into consideration in any ruling.

[chancery]

It's certainly noteworthy that a judge has found testimony by Trump less than credible, . And falsum in uno falsus in omnibus is an ancient maxim.

But , I doubt it's going to play a significant role in the judge's findings of fact.

[chancery]

Noteworthy indeed!

Tonight in the January 6 prosecution the Special Counsel filed its opposition to Trump's motion to stay the "gag" order pending appeal, highlighting Trump's recent attack on Mark Meadows in the context of reports of his testifying under a grant of some kind of immunity.

https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/ ... 32E_nlI/v0

This of course belongs in the "INDICTED (INDICATED) #3 USA v Donald Trump - Judge Tanya Chutkan - #J6 Election Interference, Fake Electors - Jack Smith: thread here viewtopic.php?t=2165.

However, there is a lovely footnote:

Defense counsel also assured the Court that the defendant’s post targeting the court staffer
had been “dealt with” with by the court in New York. That assurance turned out to be mistaken.
On October 20, 2023, the presiding judge in New York fined the defendant $5,000 for “blatant[ly]
violat[ing]” the order in that case by leaving the photograph and false accusation on his campaign
website. See Jonah Bromwich & Kate Christobek, Trump Ordered to Pay $10,000 in New
Punishment for Breaking Gag Order, N.Y. Times (Oct. 25, 2023). Today, the defendant again
violated the New York court’s order when he stated that the judge had “a person who’s very
partisan alongside him, perhaps much more partisan than he is.” After the defendant claimed
unconvincingly under oath that he had not been commenting on the court’s clerk, the judge found
the defendant not to be credible and fined him $10,000. See New York Post, Trump fraud trial:
Live updates from NYC courtroom, www.nypost.com/2023/10/24/news/trump-fr ... courtroom/.

[chancery]

Here's Judge Engoron's written order containing his findings that Trump testified falsely and that he violated the "gag order."

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef ... 7DhlaXLQ==

Defendant's attorneys offered the explanation that Donald Trump was referring to Michael Cohen, who had been sitting on the witness stand. I then conducted a brief hearing, during which Donald Trump testified, under oath that he was referring to Michael Cohen. However, as the trier of fact, I find this testimony rings hollow and untrue. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "alongside" as "close to the side of; next to." Witnesses do not sit "alongside" the judge, they sit in the witness box, separated from the judge by a low wooden barrier. Further, Donald Trump's past public statements demonstrate him referring to Michael Cohen directly by his name, or by a derogatory name, but in all circumstances, he is unambiguous in making it known he is referring to Michael Cohen.

Moreover, the language Donald Trump used on October 25 mirrors the language he used in public statements to the press on October 2, wherein he inappropriately and unquestionably spoke about my Principal Law Clerk, stating: "this rogue judge is a trump hater, the only one that hates trump more is his associate up there, this person that works with him, and she's screaming into his ear."

Using imprecise language as an excuse to create plausible ambiguity about whether defendant violated this Court's unequivocal gag order is not a defense; the subject of Donald Trump's public statement to the press was unmistakably clear. As the trier of fact, I find that Donald Trump was referring to my Principal Law Clerk, and that, as such, he has intentionally violated the gag order.

This is the second violation of this Court's gag order in the less than one month since this trial commenced. Accordingly, this Court imposed a fine of $10,000 on defendant Donald Trump, to be paid to the New York Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, within thirty (30) days of October 25, 2023.

Further, Donald Trump is ordered to post proof of payment, of this fine and the one imposed on October 10, 2023, to NYSCEF within two days of making such payments.

I think the reasoning is solid, and would have held up even if he didn't have considerable discretion, due both to his role as the fact-finder and to his inherent power to manage the proceeding and to ensure the safety of his staff. And I like the sentence requiring proof of payment.

This morning Christopher Kise again asked the judge to reconsider and withdraw the order, and when he didn't, said that they would file an appeal. That's fine; that's what you do when you're putting on an aggressive defense, but it's not likely to succeed.

[Kendra]

Are there any hints of what happened late yesterday when the judge sent everyone home for the day and then had some hearing or whatever with tfg and his attorneys?

ETA: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics ... index.html

At that, Trump had enough, standing up and storming out of the courtroom with Cohen still on the stand. He appeared noticeably agitated when he spoke briefly to the camera in the hallway outside the courtroom, taking no questions. “We won this trial,” Trump said before leaving the hallway.

But it turns out that Trump wasn’t done. When the court session concluded for the day, Trump returned to the courtroom with his attorneys, who stayed along with the judge and the attorney general’s team for roughly 45 minutes.

When Trump came out, he didn’t divulge what was discussed behind closed doors but renewed his attack on the judge and his complaint that the trial doesn’t have a jury one more time on his way out the door.

“That should be the end of the case,” Trump said. “If we had a jury, this case would’ve never started, practically.”

[bill_g]

Well, he has a firm grasp on how trials work. If you choose a jury trial, the trial never begins. Practically. Brilliant.

[bob]

My WAG is the judge told them what he was going to do, i.e., issue a written order with sanctions. And then added if the defendant continues to violate the order, bringing a toothbrush might be prudent.

And, then, because real life isn't TV, they discussed mundane issues, like scheduling.

Edit: Type-O.

[NewMexGirl]

My WAG is the judge told them what he was going to do, i.e., issue a written order with sanctions. And then added if the defendant continues violate the order, bringing a toothbrush might be prudent.

And, then, because real life isn't TV, they discussed mundane issues, like scheduling.

Do you think that there is any chance that Engeron might send trump to jail? Surely not, given the logistical nightmare that would entail. How much can trump be fined Also, can the judge demand that trump apologize, in a very public way, for being an asshole

[Slim Cognito]

I'd heard, and I know the IAALs will correct me, that if judge wanted to make you stand on your head on the street corner, they could.

[Mr brolin]

Just cause he once used to be President doesn't mean he can't be incarcerated.

Sure the SS may whine but tough titty, he just gets placed in isolation from other inmates. They can then make sure he doesn't Epstein himself, however the conditions MUST be the same as any other identically banged up individual.

[RTH10260]

Trump's lawyer whines about being disrespected — the fraud trial courtroom 'snickers'

Sarah K. Burris
October 25, 2023 11:40AM ET

Donald Trump's lawyers Chris Kise and Alina Habba clashed with the prosecutors in the jury trial Wednesday – over the concept of "respect."

The day began with Habba asking that the judge control eye-rolling and whispering in the courtroom as she questioned witness and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen because it was 'incredibly distracting."

MSNBC's legal analyst Lisa Rubin said the eye-rolling came from the judge and his law clerk.

And then Kise began to complain too.

"And before you know it, Kise is fighting with the AG’s team, accusing them of disrespecting him and his 30-plus-year record," said Rubin, reporting from inside the courtroom.

“Respect is not given; it is earned," said Kise.

Habba similarly complained that the AG's office isn't allowing her to do her job, and that they're constantly on their feet with objections.

Judge Arthur Engoron said that he agreed with Kise that respect is "earned," but he thinks everyone should be respecting each other.

“I have suffered an extraordinary amount of disrespect," whined Kise.

"A smattering of snickers can be heard," said Rubin.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-lawyer-c ... ork-fraud/

[p0rtia]

Cohen has been trying (unsuccessfully thus far) to go after the SDNY people that he says pressured him into admitting to things he had not done to protect his wife.

I think it's effing stupid of Habba. The story is well-known; he's been consistent on it for years; and there's no jurty there to bamboozle. Plus, Habba is taking cheap shots, which is not going to impress Engoran.

Yet again: Audience of one (hint: not the judge).

Thanks p0rtia & bob, those are interesting points.

I haven't been following the saga of Michael Cohen, so the "I lied at my plea allocution" testimony was surprising to me.

I've had witnesses with prior conviction, and witnesses who had said things they needed to disavow, but I would be very concerned indeed about putting on testimony that included the plonking admission of having lied under oath to a judge.

There are lots of ways to characterize a guilty plea as unfair, and to me it would be worth a great deal of preparation effort to come up with a better way to put it than saying "sure, I lied."

I don't think that represents what happened (these transcripts take forever to come out!). I think it was, on cross, "Yes, I lied." Whether on direct or redirect, I have no doubt that Cohen did indeed give his account as to why he lied. He has it down pat, and is as prepared as it gets. I've heard it 20 times; it's in his book; it's in his depo for this case, and the only people in the room who didn't know the story were reporters who hadn't done their homework.

However, since, as you say, Cohen is firmly locked in as having repeatedly said that he lied, I can understand that his lawyer and the prosecution probably concluded that they were better off sticking to it. And certainly, better to say it straight than to dance around it.

I think perhaps the prosecution wanted to see how he would hold up. Perhaps they were doing a solid for Alvin Bragg. Cohen is due to testify at the hush-money trial, and apparently lawyers from both sides of that case were in the courtroom, watching.

But I don't understand why you think the cross was cheap shot. Even if a story is well known, it's not in the record until it's put in the record, and it would be a blunder for Trump's lawyers not to do so. And I'm not saying it was masterful advocacy, just a decent piece of work, even if the fish was large and the barrel small.

I had no problem with the cross; it was expected and Cohen has had a lot of practice explaining what he did and when he did it. Habba prides herself on being tough, and that's fine too, mainly because she frequently comes off as non-serious (one of the commentators pointed out the irony of fuckhead's current attack dog attacking fuckhead's former attack dog). What I objected to was that she got snarky and insulting--condescending. I'm sorry I don't remember the specifics, but she was an idiot--throwing out cheap insults fashioned just for fuckhead, attempting to belittle Cohen. Engoran knows the score; my thought was that her arrogant approach would rub anyone the wrong way, including the judge. She's not exactly Clarence Darrow.

And the thing is, we credit Cohen's testimony, because it's consistent with abundant long-standing evidence as to Trump's character and behavior, and because we want to. But while I'm willing to accept that Cohen has at some level seen the error of his ways, he's doing so now because it's in his interest. Does anyone think for a minute that the new Cohen will henceforth embody "the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive?"

That's a question I often ask myself. I believe in redemption, so I'll watch with interest over the coming years. But he was such a thug for fuckhead in the old days, and has no regrets about how he strong-armed people on fuckhead's behalf. Time will tell. Currently, he's suffering from ptsd and has impressive anger issues. I would too, if I got a three year jail sentence for (among other things) criming on behalf of individual 1, and then watched as individual 1 got off scott free.

It may be that the totality of the prosecution's presentation, including corroborating evidence for Cohen's specific testimony, will contain, if not fully immunize, the impact of this admission; we'll see.

My IANAL take is that he gives depth to what is largely a paper case. They don't need him to prove the case--after all, Engoran has already found fuckhead et al liable for the big Count 1--he's there as the one ex-fuckhead employee who is willing to speak without hesitation. I mean, it's no surprise when he says that fuckhead told them to cook the books--we have the cooked books. The absence of his testimony does not put a hole in the case.

[NewMexGirl]

Trump's lawyer whines about being disrespected — the fraud trial courtroom 'snickers'

Sarah K. Burris
October 25, 2023 11:40AM ET

Donald Trump's lawyers Chris Kise and Alina Habba clashed with the prosecutors in the jury trial Wednesday – over the concept of "respect."



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-lawyer-c ... ork-fraud/

This is not a jury trial. How can we take this reporter seriously if she doesn’t even know that???

[Foggy]

Good catch, NMG. I'm really enjoying your contributions here. Yeah, after all the quadfectee's whining about no jury, you would think any reporter would know it's a nonjury trial.

And can they still afford copy editors? They used to have a second set of eyes to catch stuff like that.

[tek]

Habba similarly complained that the AG's office isn't allowing her to do her job, and that they're constantly on their feet with objections.

Huh. That never happens.
/ffs

[Sam the Centipede]

Good catch, NMG. I'm really enjoying your contributions here. Yeah, after all the quadfectee's whining about no jury, you would think any reporter would know it's a nonjury trial.

Isn't the absence of a jury another hint?

[chancery]

This is not a jury trial. How can we take this reporter seriously if she doesn’t even know that???

Good catch, NMG.

[Kendra]

Can't remember if I mentioned it, but earlier this week on MSNBC, it was mentioned that Habba changes outfits during the trial day. Tim O'Brien I think was who mentioned it.