Fogbow

How did Blanche get away with saying Trump says he never slept with Daniels? Trump never took the stand. If I were the prosecutor I would have objected to that.

ETA: I suppose he’ll address it in his argument, but he has to walk a fine line. He can’t argue that the defense had any burden. He has to say that Blanca’s claim that Trump says he never slept with Daniels is not in evidence (unless they got it in some other way and I missed it).

Maybe Trump didn't actually sleep. Judging by his actions in court, I'd have trouble believing that.

zekeb wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 1:01 pm Maybe Trump didn't actually sleep. Judging by his actions in court, I'd have trouble believing that.

I remember an old joke about a couple of teenagers talking to their minister/priest/rabbi and asking if it is wrong for them to sleep together. The clergyman replies that there is nothing wrong. The problem is that "you kids don't sleep".

So, yeah, maybe he just did the dirty, got up and left, and is now relying on a techicality that he did not sleep with her.

Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski

A slimy move here by Blanche. Every criminal lawyer knows you can’t talk about the possible penalties to the jury. Blanche knew this very well but ended his closing with an unethical argument and now he will lose credibility with the jury when judge gives a curative instruction.

Tyler McBrien
@TylerMcBrien

Merchan chastises Blanche for the prison comment as Someone who's been a prosecutor and defense attorney as long as he has, Blanche should know it's highly inappropriate, simply not allowed—period—and hard for him to believe that was accidental.

He will give curative instruction

NYTime's blogging on that closing statement -

Before he concluded, Todd Blanche asked that the jurors not send his client to prison. Now, with the jury excused, Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor who will give his side’s closing argument, stands up and objects. “That was a blatant and wholly inappropriate effort to call sympathy for their client,” Steinglass says, asking for a curative instruction.

Justice Merchan is now excoriating Todd Blanche for making an “outrageous” statement. Merchan is clearly furious, and reminds Blanche, and not for the first time, that he was a prosecutor for long enough to know that it was out of bounds.

“Making a comment like that is highly inappropriate,” the judge said. “It is simply not allowed, period. It’s hard for me to imagine how that was accidental.”

Steinglass during closing:

Steinglass on why records were false:

"The defendant didn't actually pay a lawyer. He paid a porn star, through a lawyer."

Exactly!!

I wonder why Mr. Steinglass didn't object until after Blanche finished his argument. Shouldn't he object immediately to something said in closing argument that's clearly improper? Like, in front of the jury immediately?

Foggy wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 6:21 pm I wonder why Mr. Steinglass didn't object until after Blanche finished his argument. Shouldn't he object immediately to something said in closing argument that's clearly improper? Like, in front of the jury immediately?

He did object immediately and the objection was sustained. Justice Merchan lit into Blanche after he finished his closing and the jury was out. When the jury came back in Merchan gave a curative instruction.

Ah, that explains it. Thanks.

Maybenaut wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 12:36 pm How did Blanche get away with saying Trump says he never slept with Daniels? Trump never took the stand. If I were the prosecutor I would have objected to that.

ETA: I suppose he’ll address it in his argument, but he has to walk a fine line. He can’t argue that the defense had any burden. He has to say that Blanca’s claim that Trump says he never slept with Daniels is not in evidence (unless they got it in some other way and I missed it).

Can he argue that Stormy's testimony was never refuted by any defense evidence? That skirts the fine line of Defendant not testifying.

It makes my head spin a little that prosecution is apparently relying on double-indirection in the crime that bumps this up to felony, at least as I understand it:

1. False records done with intent to conceal ==>
2. NYS misdemeanor conspiracy to influence election by illegal means ==>
3. with illegal means = choice of (a) FECA violation or (b) tax fraud [no need for unanimity]

If that is correct, they have in some sense settled on just one intended "object offense" (term from Lawfare explainer) which is a NYS law. But that offense in turn requires illegal means and on THAT leaves open a choice of the illegal means required which includes violations of Federal law.

Seems to me if they are arguing this way, they could have just argued it was done to conceal (a) or (b). Any idea why they chose this way? Is it just to ensure the object offense is a NYS law? Do people think this tangled structure gives grounds for appeal in event of conviction?

IIRC they need the underlying thing to bump it up to a felony for statute-of-limitations reasons.. but NAL...

I think even I knew not to bring up punishment. "If you find this poor man guilty, he'll go to prison for 60 years and not see his 12 children grow up," etc.

Ol' Wifehorn sez, if I was a juror I'd tell everyone he's guilty as hell but let's hold the verdict until Friday, and make 'im sweat.

That's my gal.

Estiveo wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 12:30 pm It's like nunaya has ever watched an episode of Law & Order.

Or Popok.

Way to go, Wifehorn! Great plan!!!!

Yeah, but I am more like

The consensus, according to ol' Wifehorn's review of several media sites, is that Trump will be lucky if there's a secret Trumper who will make it a hung jury.

As happened in Oregon and Nevada in recent years.

But I always plan for the worst and hope for the best. The worst is, he gets acquitted. I don't think that's going to happen. But I'll be ready.

CNN has a time clock marking how long jury has been deliberating, assume other networks are doing the same thing.

He made his usual nasty speech, now his talking points are not even Mother Teresa could get a fair trial.

Apparently he can't leave the building when the jury is deliberating, has to sit in some room somewhere. ?? Will he have overcooked burgers brough in, or is their a cafeteria in the building?

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 11:53 am Apparently he can't leave the building when the jury is deliberating, has to sit in some room somewhere. ??

So do we want a quick guilty verdict?

Or should this drag on for days so Trump has to sit there for days and days and days?

I'm fine with either.

Decisions, decision

I'm guessing no one in the room is filming the action. Might have to wander over to his truth site and see if he's posting anything.

ETA: he is posting. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

Whiney little B. I see that he's reposted that Kash Patel and Jonathon Turley both think he is not guilty, lol!

@realDonaldTrump

I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CHARGES ARE IN THIS RIGGED CASE—I AM ENTITLED TO SPECIFICITY JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. THERE IS NO CRIME!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 2887767619

As seen elsewhere -

Truth Social just introduced an AI called Devin that answers every question by explaining how it's the most persecuted AI on the internet. Responses come with random all-caps and creative spelling.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 1778967811

WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM!

Clip from Fox at the link.