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

[chancery]

I doubt it.

The first citation in the OED for attenuate as an adjective is from 1626. There are a half dozen citations from the 19th century.

Ngrams show a dip in the 18th & 19th centuries, and a steady climb in the 20th & 21st centuries.



Haveing said that, we have no reason to believe that the judge said "attenuate" rather than "attenuated." Very hard to tell the difference when you're rapidly taking notes.

[Kendra]

Jeanine Pirro was spotted in the courtroom, and CNN just reported on air that flagged her and waved to come along with him. I think that's what they just said.

[neonzx]

Jeanine Pirro was spotted in the courtroom, and CNN just reported on air that flagged her and waved to come along with him. I think that's what they just said.

Was she hauling/rolling her whine box behind her pretending it to be an attorney briefcase?

[Kendra]

Jeanine Pirro was spotted in the courtroom, and CNN just reported on air that flagged her and waved to come along with him. I think that's what they just said.

Was she hauling her whine box behind her?

LOL, no mention, but I just spotted this on CNN's update feed.

Trump leaving courtroom
Trump has turned to leave, papers in hand.

When walking out, he motioned for Jeannine Pirro to follow him. She's still sitting in her seat in the press gallery.

[bob]

The quoted tweet is now in evidence:

[MN-Skeptic]

By the way, Trump's entire three tweet thread -

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....

...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......

...despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll in this transaction.

[andersweinstein]

Thanks, that's helpful. I'd like to read the brief, and that snippet probably supplies enough information to identify the case and download the pdf, but I think I'll wait and see if it surfaces.
...

Think it's referring to this, filed by the joint defendants June 1, 2018 in the action to release Daniels from the NDA (ultimately dismissed as moot).

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... n_stay.pdf
...

On this item here's a thread from Ryan Goodman with his own link to that June 1 2018 filing. Also the later decision in which judge referenced the earlier filing as an admission that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush money payment. And earlier in this thread there is a clip and transcript from a CNN appearance in which Goodman explains the significance. He also points out that prosecution asked Stormy on redirect if she was aware that Trump admitted this in court papers (she said "Yes I saw that").

[andersweinstein]

Think it's referring to this, filed by the joint defendants June 1, 2018 in the action to release Daniels from the NDA (ultimately dismissed as moot).

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-conte ... n_stay.pdf

The context of this in-court admission, as I understand it:

This is in Daniels' original suit to have the NDA declared void.
The action was stayed because Michael Cohen, crucial witness to the contract formation, came under federal investigation and would have to take the fifth.
Avenatti filed a motion for reconsideration of the stay, in part citing new information, namely Trump's public statements admitting reimbursement.
This came in a joint filing by defendants in opposition to that.

Among the arguments was the insistence that the new information (Trump's public statements) was irrelevant to the reasons for the stay. For example:

Mr. Trump’s subsequent confirmation that he reimbursed EC’s $130,000 payment to Plaintiff in 2017 does not change this finding.

Likewise, Mr. Trump’s reimbursement of the $130,000 payment does not resolve the many other challenges that Plaintiff has raised to the Agreement in the Case.

Thus, Mr. Trump’s confirmation that he reimbursed the payment to Plaintiff is immaterial to the issues upon which the Court based its issuance of the Stay Order.

Then in a later (post-dismissal) ruling on motion to award legal fees, Judge referenced these statements as an admission in the course of another argument, an argument to support the inference that the pseudonymous "David Dennison" who was the beneficiary of the NDA is the defendant DJT of the case. (A little surprising to me argument was needed. But I didn't make much attempt to follow the ruling, it's kind of technical.)

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/17 ... 4028399703

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
NEW: At the end of today's abbreviated court day, Team Trump and the DA's office squared off about the most glaringly absent witness: former Trump Org. CFO (and two-time convict) Allen Weisselberg. 1/

By charging Weisselberg with perjury in connection with his testimony in the New York AG's civil fraud case, the DA basically made Weisselberg's testimony in this case a non-starter, leaving Cohen unrebutted, even if still vulnerable on cross, with respect to critical events. 2/

But the DA now has a problem of a different order: Sure, Weisselberg won't be called as a defense witness, but he looms large in the repayment scheme & the related cover-up. And without some explanation, the jury could hold his absence against the prosecution. 3/

So the DA wants to admit Weisselberg's 2023 severance agreement with the Trump Org. as a way of showing why he's not coming to trial: The company's paying him $2 million to not talk to or otherwise help those who might have claims or lawsuits against Trump. 4/

The DA claims that Weisselberg's incentives under the agreement -- under which he is still owed hundreds of thousands of dollars -- prove he's biased. But the agreement has a carve out for compliance with subpoenas--and that means Weisselberg could technically be available. 5/

So what's the DA to do? Today, Judge Merchan laid out three options: 1) the parties can stipulate that Weisselberg is unavailable because he's been convicted of perjury, an option Team Trump will never allow. 6/

2) The DA can send Weisselberg a trial subpoena & determine, without the jury there, whether he will take the Fifth or provide substantive testimony. That's a risk the DA's team can't afford since the severance agreement basically prevents him from talking to them, even through his lawyer. 7/

Or 3) the DA can simply drop the idea of admitting the severance agreement, which would keep their case on track both substantively and in terms of timing. Expect them to choose door number 3. FIN

p.s. To the extent others are reporting that Merchan has insisted the DA subpoena Weisselberg, that's not how I read it; rather, prosecutors must do so before Merchan decides whether they can admit the severance agreement.

p.p.s. Prosecutors say they want the severance agreement in as proof of Weisselberg's bias, but it's also reflective of Trump's history of paying people off to shut them up. That's what makes it problematic as potential evidence in this case.

[SuzieC]

Seeing reports that Keith Schiller (the bodyguard outside the door) may be the final witness.

[sterngard friegen]

A few pages ago I posted the three tweets from Trump which admitted the "reimbursement."

Does anyone else remember what else happened when the Access Hollywood video was released? That very night?

► Show Spoiler

Russia began to release Hillary and Clinton Campaign emails. For those who were not insiders in the GOP shocked by Trump's crassness and mysoginy, it was the bigger headline.

[p0rtia]

Michael Popok is an insufferable windbag.

He really does put bagpipes to shame.

His bloviating is on par with Giuliani, Bongino, and Kirk. Who are also cringe worthy, but well enough to fall asleep to.

Hmmm. I listen to most of Popok's pods; they come in at my level of legal understanding. Also, he is facile extempore speaker, so is easy to listen to. He's also a rabid Democrat and expresses himself as such. I guess it's possible that everything he says is bullshit, in which case shame on me for being hoodwinked.

That said, yeah, he's self-aggrandizing and repetitive. Also an incredible mic-hog, especially in the early days of his pod with Karen Friedman-Agnifilo. Back in the day he would constantly interrupt and then, since he plays "host," never remember to go back to her. He also had a habit of starting ten minute rambles with "And I want to hear what you think too."

I actually got into a short twitter exchange with him, in the midst of one of those endless rambles in which he totally blocked out KFA (who I also really like). I think I sent "Please stop. It's getting embarrassing." He responded, "Embarrassing to who?" I answered, "To you." Can't remember what he said after that; something about he hadn't asked for my critique--when of course, he had; he's always talking about wanting feedback. LOL

Anyway, he's been largely reined it. I'd love to think due to my intervention, but clearly I wasn't the only one. He's much better now--the interrupting and stopped to the point where he's no worse than anyone else, and he's learned how to take turns.

[Slim Cognito]

I do watch him but, like his counterpart Ben M, usually not to the end. The one thing that bothers me about him are his in- podcast commercials. I understand the concept. Several other people I watch do their own ads which cannot be clicked through. Yet, something about his delivery grates on me, but just the ads.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

[p0rtia]

I do watch him but, like his counterpart Ben M, usually not to the end. The one thing that bothers me about him are his in- podcast commercials. I understand the concept. Several other people I watch do their own ads which cannot be clicked through. Yet, something about his delivery grates on me, but just the ads.

I hear ya. All of Meidas Touch Network does the ads read by the hosts. I click forward. They all have unclickable ads too, of course.

[Foggy]

I'm trying to focus on Mother's Day (Numbah One Son and I are making dinner), but I can't stop thinking about Michael Cohen and the potentially explosive scene mañana.

Cohen knows perfectly well what Stormy did, and how much fun she had, dumping on Mr. Trump for an entire day and a half of testimony. She was coloring outside the lines, but she got away clean and there won't be a mistrial or reversal on appeal, because the quadfectee's lawyers didn't object. Or didn't object enough.

So Mr. Cohen has seen a possible strategy for his own testimony, based on what Stormy got away with. And since the quadfectee's lawyers will only be allowed to attack him and every word he says, it should be quite entertaining. If anyone knows how to get under the skin of Prisoner #P01135809, it's Michael Cohen. In fact, the quadfectee might very well start cursing in the hearing of the jury again. He might stroke out in the courtroom. Godonlyknowswhat he will do.

I can't wait. Don't let it be boring, Michael.

[Kendra]

Interesting side note, Lachlan (forget his last name) was on MSNBC earlier with Alex Witt. The day Stormy was testifying about the more salacious details and Eric was a couple of rows ahead of him. Good for Alex to ask the right question, but he noted that Eric's head was down the whole time, presumably looking at his phone.

[p0rtia]

I to am looking forward to Cohen's testimony. MSNBC and CNN are devoting most of their days to the trial, reading out (and showing on-screen) the text as it is transcribed by reporters in the courtroom and overflow room. I've followed most days pretty closely, and then read the transcripts, and it's astounding how much of the testimony is immediately made available in this way. Maybe 80 percent? And 100 percent of the key testimony.

Anyway, Cohen. I think his direct will take at least two days, or at the very least, a day and three-quarters. So it'll be a while before we get to the vaunted cross. *shudder*

The irresistible Andrew Weissman made a point this weekend that chilled me, because it's what I, from the outside, have long believed: Juries have a harder time convicting the rich and famous; they want more and better proof than it is possible to get, because they see the defendant as more important than the average joe, and they want to get it right. As an observer, it's clear to me that if you have a ton of money to defend yourself, and make the front pages of the papers, you're more likely to get off.

I think the jury will be hung, and I think that will pave the way for his victory in the swing states and EC. Which is a shame. I don't look forward to all the people who wil say "I told you this case wasn't strong enough," when in fact it is incredibly strong. The media are also wanting more and better proof, and continue to make absurd claims of fuckhead's possible innocence. That doesn't help.

And still I would not have had it any other way (and fuck you Merrick Garland).

[RTH10260]

Will the defense get their minutes of fame by interrogating Cohen on the Donald Von Shits-in-Pants quotation

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

There have been three juries so far which have held against Turnip - the two E Jean Carrol cases and the business fraud case against the Trump Organization. Two grand juries brought the two criminal cases. I think a conviction is possible.

[RTH10260]

any further information on this?

Judge Engoron under investigation over 'very troubling' talk with lawyer about Trump case

David McAfee
May 8, 2024 11:49PM ET

The New York judge who ordered Donald Trump to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in a civil fraud case is now under investigation, according to a report.

Justice Arthur Engoron's decisions are under a microscope after a local attorney said he had a conversation with the jurist about issues related to the former president's recent legal matter.

"A high-profile New York real estate lawyer, whose law license was once suspended, said he approached the judge presiding over Donald Trump’s civil fraud case to offer unsolicited advice about a law at issue in the case," the report states.

"Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey made the claim during an interview with NBC New York, saying he spoke to Judge Arthur Engoron three weeks prior to the judge’s February decision to fine the former president $454 million for falsely inflating the value of his assets," the article continues.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-engoron- ... troubling/

[Dave from down under]

Approached the judge to offer unsolicited advise

Absolutely investigate!

Then charge the lawyer with attempting to influence the judge.

[MN-Skeptic]

So whack-a-doodle Bailey confronts Engoron with his view of what the applicable law is. Engoron rightfully ignores the babbling idiot, and so the babbling idiot is trying to get Engoron in trouble for having the audacity of not following Bailey's babblings.

Major eye roll.

[bob]

So whack-a-doodle Bailey confronts Engoron with his view of what the applicable law is. Engoron rightfully ignores the babbling idiot, and so the babbling idiot is trying to get Engoron in trouble for having the audacity of not following Bailey's babblings.

Major eye roll.

:

P&E: Did Engoron Violate Judicial Rules?.

(In other words, exactly the nothingburger you described.)

"For completeness": NBC: High-profile New York lawyer says he tried to advise judge in Trump civil fraud case:

Judge Arthur Engoron said he was "wholly uninfluenced."

[Sam the Centipede]

Presumably if a non-involved lawyer he believes his interpretation of the law to be super-critical and fears it might be missed by everybody in court – oh the injustice! – his correct line of approach is to either (1) just STFU, or, if he cannot restrain his enthusiasm (2) pester the actual trial attorneys? It's their job to, ah, inform? educate? enlighten? guide? the judge on the applicable law, ¿verdad?

Or, if the poor expert's seeds of wisdom fall among thorns and his legal point is soooooo important, perhaps apply/attempt to file an amicus curiae brief?