Podcast Summary
Attending the Trump Trial at the New York Criminal Courts: The Trump trial at the New York Criminal Courts attracted long lines and a touristy atmosphere, with limited seating and only two protesters present.
The trial of Donald Trump at the New York Criminal Courts began on May 3rd, and the experience of attending the trial was quite an event for those present. The courthouse, which houses various types of courts, saw long lines for the public, press, and pre-cleared individuals. Andrew Weissman, a guest on the podcast, shared his experience of being on the press line and interacting with the public. Notably, there were only two protesters present, which was a stark contrast to the large crowds that might have gathered in the past. The trial itself was being held in an overflow room due to limited seating in the actual courtroom. Despite the lines and crowds, the atmosphere was described as touristy, with some individuals treating attending the trial as a unique experience.
A contrast of peaceful protests and an efficient courtroom: The trial of Stormy Daniels' hush money case showcased peaceful protests outside and a well-organized, efficient courtroom inside, with an experienced judge presiding fairly.
The trial of Stormy Daniels' hush money case against Michael Cohen and Donald Trump was a stark contrast of peaceful protests outside and a well-organized, efficient courtroom inside. The older man with a cross and cowbell was an unusual presence, but the majority of people were tourists taking selfies. And although the courthouse was physically decrepit, the legal system shone through with experienced Judge Marchand presiding quietly and fairly. In the courtroom, Keith Davidson's attorney, Anil Beauvais, did an excellent job during cross-examination, but Todd Blanch, who argued for the gag order, came across as unsure and underprepared. The hearing on the first 10 alleged gag order violations had already taken place, and the judge's calm demeanor and control of the courtroom left a strong impression.
Trump Fined for Contempt but No Jail Time for Now: Trump was fined for contempt but not jailed for recent violations, with the judge reserving decision on potential incarceration. The judge's main concern is maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Former President Trump was found in contempt of court for nine out of ten alleged gag order violations and fined $1,000 per violation. However, during a hearing on four additional alleged violations, the prosecutors did not request jail time as Trump had not received the warning of potential incarceration at the time of these violations. The judge expressed concern about the potential impact of Trump's comments on witnesses, but defense arguments, such as Trump not specifically attacking a juror, were not successful. The judge reserved decision on this matter and the hearing concluded after running late. The most surprising moment was Trump praising a witness, which the judge did not seem overly concerned about, but acknowledged could still impact potential witnesses. The judge's primary concern was maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and preventing further violations.
Attorneys' Confrontational Approach during Trump's Trial: Trump's lawyers took a confrontational approach, objecting to every ruling and acting as hostile witnesses during the trial, potentially providing grounds for appeal.
During the trial of Donald Trump, Todd Blanch, Trump's attorney, took a confrontational approach, speaking mainly to his client and objecting to every ruling. This strategy was evident during Blanch's exchange with the judge, where he agreed with a ruling, causing Trump to appear perturbed. Additionally, Susan Necklace, another attorney involved in the case, asked for a pre-ruling on reposting certain articles, giving the defense potential grounds for appeal. Keith Davidson, who negotiated payments to keep stories from being published for Karen McDougall and Stormy Daniels, acted as a hostile witness during the trial, refusing to prepare for the trial of a former president. During cross-examination, Josh Stenglass forced Davidson to read and explain every email, text, and document, leaving him few opportunities to argue otherwise.
Payments to influence election outcome: During the 2016 campaign, payments to women weren't just for reputation protection but to impact election results. The National Enquirer initially refused to cooperate, forcing Michael Cohen and Trump to find alternative ways to pay off Stormy Daniels.
The payments made to women like Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal during the 2016 presidential campaign were not just about protecting the personal reputations of Donald Trump and his wife Melania. Instead, these payments were part of an effort to influence the election outcome. The National Enquirer, which had previously helped cover up these affairs, was no longer willing to participate in the scheme, leaving Michael Cohen and Donald Trump to figure out a way to pay Stormy Daniels. The timing of the payments was crucial, as it was during the period of maximum leverage for Daniels and her lawyer. The prosecution's strategy in the trial was to corroborate every detail of Michael Cohen's testimony with documentary evidence and to draw attention to his questionable character to make the jurors more likely to believe him despite their reservations.
Donald Trump's lack of signature on hush money agreement didn't stop Daniels' case: Although Trump didn't sign the hush money agreement, his reimbursements to Cohen could still lead to legal consequences.
During the trial regarding hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, the lack of Donald Trump's signature on the agreement did not prove fatal to the case. Although he was aware of the agreement and the effort to silence Daniels, his absence of a signature made it harder to prove his knowledge. Michael Cohen, who made the payment, tried to put it off and eventually did it himself. The defense argued that Trump had no involvement and that Cohen acted rogue. However, the problem for the defense is the reimbursements Trump made to Cohen, which, if proven, would end the case, regardless of Trump's signature or knowledge at the time. In a related California litigation, the judge acknowledged that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the payment to Daniels.
Lawyer vs. Lawyer: Beauvais vs. Davidson: During the Stormy Daniels trial, Beauvais' cross-examination of Davidson focused on his role in the hush money payment and labeled him as an extortionist. However, the defense portrayed them as 'bottom feeders' and distracted from the main issues of falsifying business records.
During the trial of Stormy Daniels' case against Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, Emile Beauvais, Daniels' lawyer, cross-examined Keith Davidson, Trump's former lawyer, about his role in the hush money payment. Beauvais argued that Davidson's business revolves around extorting celebrities for money. However, Davidson countered that it was just a civil settlement and not extortion. Despite the disagreement, Beauvais' cross-examination could have been more effective in making his points clearer and shorter. The defense tried to appeal to the jury's emotions by portraying Davidson and Daniels as "bottom feeders," but this argument did not directly address the key charges of falsifying business records. The defense could have focused more on refuting the evidence against Trump instead of attacking Davidson's character. Ultimately, the cross-examination was a distraction from the main issues of the trial.
Prosecution's strategic decision not to call David Pecker: The prosecution's decision to not call David Pecker, who could have had damaging info, and instead focused on Keith Davidson's testimony about misleading denials highlights the importance of legal nuance and strategy.
During the trial of Stormy Daniels' case against Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, Keith Davidson's testimony revealed an intriguing strategy by the prosecution. They chose not to call David Pecker, who could potentially have had more damaging information about Trump. Davidson, a lawyer with a history of dealing with both parties, testified that there were two denials about the affair, one stating "no romantic or sexual relationship," and later "no sexual relationship." Davidson's responses during the trial showed that the statements were intentionally misleading, but technically accurate. This highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of language and the law, as well as the strategic decisions made by the prosecution during the trial.
Recordings reveal Trump and Cohen's discussions on hush money payments: Newly released recordings between Michael Cohen, Donald Trump, and David Pecker shed light on the hush money payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, with Trump acknowledging the McDougal payment and Cohen expressing doubts about the strategy.
The recently released recordings between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump and Cohen and David Pecker provide crucial evidence in the ongoing trial. The first recording, between Cohen and Trump, reveals Trump's awareness of the payments to Karen McDougal, adding weight to the argument that he also knew about the payments to Stormy Daniels. Trump's suggestion to use cash as a means to avoid records aligns with the desire for deniability. The second recording, between Cohen and Pecker, shows Cohen expressing doubts about the strategy and Pecker reassuring him that everyone involved advised it was the right move. These recordings could potentially be used by both the prosecution and defense in various ways, with the defense possibly arguing that Cohen was acting on his own accord. Overall, these recordings provide valuable insight into the minds of key players and their involvement in the alleged hush money payments.
Michael Cohen's Testimony: Implications for Trump Investigations: Michael Cohen's testimony implicates key White House officials in hush money cover-ups and raises questions about potential campaign finance violations and gag order violations.
The recent developments in the Michael Cohen case, specifically his testimony about the Trump Organization's involvement in the hush money payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, could be significant for ongoing investigations against former President Donald Trump. Cohen suggested that key White House officials, including Hope Hicks and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, were aware of the payments and helped cover them up. The government may be waiting for their testimonies to determine if these actions constitute a "right move" or a violation of law. Additionally, a recent gag order violation by Trump in a New York case has raised questions about how it might impact his release conditions in other cases, but it's not clear if it would result in new charges. Another intriguing question is what would have happened if the Trump Organization had accurately recorded the payments as "catch and kill" expenses instead of legal fees. In such a scenario, it's unclear if campaign finance laws would have been violated.
Secret hush money scheme during 2016 campaign: The Trump org and Cohen concealed a hush money arrangement to prevent damaging info from public, potentially violating election and campaign finance laws, and tax crimes.
The Trump organization and Michael Cohen engaged in a secret hush money scheme to prevent the release of damaging information during the 2016 presidential campaign. They chose to keep this arrangement hidden from the public and potential regulators to avoid creating a paper trail and potential legal consequences. However, their actions may have still violated New York election law, federal campaign finance laws, and tax crimes. The trial continues to uncover more details about these underlying offenses and the intent to conceal them. To stay informed, listeners can send their questions to Prosecuting Trump at NBCUNI.com or leave a voicemail at 917-342-22934. New episodes will be released twice a week.