;)
The Conversation -- May 28, 2024
** Hannah Rabinowitz of CNN: "Federal Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday rejected special counsel Jack Smith's request for a gag order against Donald Trump in the classified documents case, saying that prosecutors' request was 'wholly lacking in substance and professional courtesy.' In a brief order, Cannon slammed prosecutors for not following the court's rules by failing to meaningfully confer with Trump's defense lawyers about a potential gag order before making the request.... Prosecutors can ask for a gag order again, Cannon said, once they give 'sufficient time' to Trump's defense team to read the motion and discuss it with prosecutors.... Trump's campaign... sent a fundraising email on Tuesday that claimed FBI agents were 'locked and loaded' and that he 'nearly escaped death' at Mar-a-Lago." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Unbelievable. I gather from what Ken Dilanian said on MSNBC Tuesday morning that the "lack of professional courtesy" was that Smith's team filed the motion after Trump lawyers refused to meet with them because it was a holiday weekend -- and you know, maybe they had plans for a backyard BBQ. As for Cannon's determination the motion was "wholly lacking in substance," a former president*'s claim that the current POTUS* is trying to have him executed is mighty fucking substantial, IMO.
This may be the last day of the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump, alleged criminal. New York Times reporters are liveblogging the proceedings:
Matthew Haag: "Closing arguments are expected to last for most or all of Tuesday and perhaps beyond. After closing arguments, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, will provide instructions to the 12 members of the jury that are meant to guide their deliberations."
Jonah Bromwich: "The defense wil go first this morning, seeking to seed doubt in at least one juror."
Maggie Haberman: "Trump spent Monday both posting on Truth Social about this case and attacking E. Jean Carroll, the New York writer whom Trump was found liable for defaming and sexually abusing. Trump also falsely claimed the prosecutors in this case were somehow getting an undue edge by getting to deliver their closing arguments after the defense; that is actually the law here."
Michael Gold: "Trump will be joined by several members of his family in court today: his sons Donald Jr. and Eric; Lara Trump, Eric's wife and the co-chair of the Republican National Committee; and his daughter Tiffany and her husband, Michael Boulos.... Also joining Trump's entourage of supporters in court today as closing arguments begin are Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor and longtime friend; Will Scharf, a Republican candidate for attorney general in Missouri and one of Trump's lawyers in another case; and Deroy Murdock, a conservative political commentator."
Haberman: "Boris Epshteyn, his indicted top legal adviser, is here again too."
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche, the defense lawyer, says his closing argument will take about two and a half hours, and Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, responds that his will be between four and four and a half hours. The judge says that means we may or may not finish at 4:30, and that he will ask the jurors if they can stay late in order to finish closing arguments if necessary."
Gold: "Trump will be joined by several members of his family in court today: his sons Donald Jr. and Eric; Lara Trump, Eric's wife and the co-chair of the Republican National Committee; and his daughter Tiffany and her husband, Michael Boulos.... Also joining Trump's entourage of supporters in court today as closing arguments begin are Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor and longtime friend; Will Scharf, a Republican candidate for attorney general in Missouri and one of Trump's lawyers in another case; and Deroy Murdock, a conservative political commentator."
Haberman: "Todd Blanche says that this case 'is about documents. It's a paper case.' It is not, he says, about an encounter with Stormy Daniels, noting -- something the client likes hearing -- that the defendant has denied it occurred."
Bromwich: "Blanche is seeking to narrow the aperture of the case for the jury, saying ... it's about whether Trump, 'while he was living in the White House and was the leader of the free world,' had anything to do with the way that financial documents were processed at the Trump Organization.... Todd Blanche is focusing on the 34 documents that led to the 34 felony charges.... Todd Blanche is ... [arguing] that the documents weren't false because Michael Cohen really was doing legal work for Trump in 2017. He's casting aspersions on the government's theory of Cohen being repaid for his payment to Stormy Daniels, saying that if that were so, Cohen would have been doing unremunerated legal work."
Jesse McKinley: "Blanche is making a classic horses, not zebras argument, saying that the simplest explanation of behaivor is usually the right one, as he argues that Cohen was simply being paid for legal work, not repayment for a cover-up scheme."
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche just argued that the 12 ledger entries at issue in the case were classified as legal services because the Trump Organization's software used a dropdown menu in which one of the limited options provided is: 'legal expense.' Needless to say, the dropdown menu does not have a 'repayment for hush-money deal' option.... Blanche is moving through the three categories of financial documents that prosecutors say are false, and seeking to provide an explanation for each. He started with the invoices, saying they were disqualified because they were sent by Michael Cohen. He followed up with the internal ledger entries, which he said were generated by the Trump Organization's software and its limited dropdown menu."
Haberman: "Todd Blanche is talking about Trump signing the other nine checks in the White House, recalling that 'two witnesses' -- meaning Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout -- had described Trump as 'very busy. He was running the country.'"
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche seemed to be describing why Trump could not be held accountable for checks he had signed. But then, somewhat confusingly, he returned to the Michael Cohen invoices, saying that jurors cannot assume that because Trump looked at invoices, 'somehow he had full knowledge of what was happening.'... Todd Blanche is now saying that Trump was not known for overpaying, and that testimony suggested that Michael Cohen did not deserve to be paid all that much for his campaign work, particularly Hope Hicks's remarks that Cohen went 'rogue' at times.... But at the same time, Blanche has argued that the $420,000 Trump did pay Cohen was for unspecified legal work. So there's a contradiction in the logic of his closing that may leave him vulnerable."
Haberman: "It's been striking to hear Todd Blanche depict Trump as too distracted to focus on the matters of the checks and the payments."
Susanne Craig: "Todd Blanche is now showing the jury the tax documents sent to Michael Cohen and the I.R.S. as evidence that the payments to Cohen were all above board. It's important to remember that declaring a payment to the I.R.S. doesn't automatically make it legal."
Gold: "Meanwhile, President Biden's campaign is holding a news conference outside the courthouse in Manhattan, a guarantee of attention since the media has been stationed here for week. The speakers have focused not on the trial, but largely on the riot at the Capitol by Trump supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, and the threats the Biden campaign argues Trump poses to democracy and the nation's future."
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche has moved on to the three specific catch-and-kill deals that prosecutors allege David Pecker was involved in, all of which they say were designed to protect Trump. He characterizes the first, involving a doorman at a Trump Organization building, as 'literally a made up story designed to harm President Trump.'"
Reid Epstein & Neil Vigdor: "The Biden campaign on Tuesday dispatched Robert De Niro..., along with Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone, two former U.S. Capitol Police officers who have since become spokesmen for the Democratic effort to attack Mr. Trump over his role in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, to hold a news conference outside the courthouse in Manhattan where Mr. Trump's trial was concluding. 'This is not a threat,' Mr. De Niro said of the prospect that Mr. Trump could return to the White House. 'This is a reality.'"
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche just claimed that Michael Cohen had fully fabricated an encounter that he had with David Pecker in which Pecker expressed anger that he had not been repaid for one of the hush-money deals. 'Ladies and gentlemen, that lunch did not happen,' Blanche said. 'Cohen made it up.'"
Haberman: "Todd Blanche has now turned back to the recording that Michael Cohen secretly made of a conversation he had with Trump about the Karen McDougal payment. Blanche suggests there is some kind of dispute over the authenticity of this recording."
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche lays the groundwork for his most important attack on Michael Cohen, saying he is the only witness who testified that Trump knew everything about the hush-money payment that was made to Stormy Daniels.... 'There is no way that you can find that President Trump knew about this payment at the time it was made without believing the words of Michael Cohen -- period,' Blanche says."
Haberman: "Todd Blanche is making one of his most coherent arguments of the morning, which is that if Stormy Daniels's allegations were so scary to the Trump campaign, why didn't it swing into action in April 2016, when a woman working with Daniels got in touch with The National Enquirer's parent company"
Kate Christobek: "Prosecutors are expected to argue that the release of the Access Hollywood tape in October 2016 sent the campaign into damage control mode to confront the intense fallout."
McKinley: "Todd Blanche has twice noted that Stormy Daniels had denied having sex with Trump. While technically true -- she did put out a statement denying they had an affair in early 2018 -- she subsequently provided her account of the sexual encounter to '60 Minutes,' in a book, in a documentary and here, on the stand, where she testified under oath. Trump ... has repeatedly denied the tryst occurred."
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche, drawing on a 2018 recording in which Stormy Daniels's lawyer at the time said that his client had 'settler's remorse' for having agreed not to tell her story, says that Daniels eventually changed not because she had decided to tell the truth, but because she wanted to make money. Now, he is introducing what he calls a 'separate conspiracy' between Daniels, Gina Rodriguez, her manager at the time, and Dylan Howard, who was the editor of The National Enquirer."
Haberman: "Todd Blanche is now arguing the publication of the 'Access Hollywood' tape, in which Trump boasted about grabbing women by the genitals, is being portrayed by prosecutors as something it wasn't: a 'doomsday event' for his presidential campaign. Having covered that race, I can tell you that the view of a lot of people around Trump -- and in the broader G.O.P. -- was that it could be catastrophic for his electoral chances. That was so much the case that there were discussions about asking Trump to drop out of the race."
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche has moved on to Michael Cohen's relationship with Robert Costello, a lawyer who Cohen testified had been part of a pressure campaign to keep him from turning against Trump in 2018. Blanche argues that there is 'no doubt' that Costello, who is one of only two witnesses the defense lawyers called, served Cohen as a lawyer.... Blanche is now mocking Michael Cohen's testimony about the evening of Oct. 24, 2016. This was testimony on which the defense lawyers felt they had scored a key point, because they found evidence that Cohen had talked to Keith Schiller, Trump's bodyguard, about a 14-year-old who was pranking him. Cohen later testified that he had talked to both Schiller and Trump during the call. But the defense clearly thinks it has a winning argument here."
Haberman: "Todd Blanche is now digging into Michael Cohen's lengthy list of lies. The challenge here for the defense team is that the defendant, Trump, is a very known commodity with his own credibility issues."
Gold: "Todd Blanche listed 10 reasons that he believed the jury should have reasonable doubt as to Trump' guilt. But the list was hard to follow. He misstated the fourth point, which he then broke into three parts. And he gave all of the points equal weight, even as he only glanced over some of them in the rest of his summation."
Bromwich: "Todd Blanche introduces the acronym G.O.A.T., commonly used to stand for 'greatest of all time.'" He then applies the acronym to Michael Cohen. 'Michael Cohen is the G.L.O.A.T.,' Blanche says. The 'greatest liar of all time.'... Todd Blanche concludes, again thanking the jurors. He tells them that if they pay close attention to the evidence they heard in the courtroom, 'this is a very quick and easy not guilty verdict.'... 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.... 'Making a comment like that is highly inappropriate,' the judge said. 'It is simply not allowed, period.'"
Haberman: "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." [MB: According to reporters on MSNBC, the judge will give the jury a "curative instruction" after lunch, striking Blanche's remark about sending Trump to jail.]
Bromwich: "As proceedings resume, a prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, reminds the judge that before the trial began, he himself precluded the jury from hearing anything about potential punishments for Trump. 'Mr. Blanche was certainly on notice that this was an improper argument,' Hoffinger says."
Haberman: "Justice Merchan is now instructing the jurors that Todd Blanche's comment about sending Trump 'to prison' was 'improper' and that they must disregard it. He reminds them that a prison sentence is not required in the event of a guilty verdict."
Bromwich: "Joshua Steinglass opens by reminding the jury that during opening statements, his colleague said that the case, at its core, is about 'a conspiracy and a coverup.' He then delineates three elements that the prosecution must prove: That there were false business records, that they were used as part of the conspiracy and that Trump himself was involved.... Joshua Steinglass says that the defense seemed to question the prosecution's integrity when referring to certain documentary evidence. 'There's nothing sinister here, no manipulation,' Steinglass says, explaining that all relevant calls are in evidence. Then he turns the tables, arguing that in a defense exhibit showing calls between Michael Cohen and another lawyer, Robert Costello, the defense 'double counted half the calls.'... Steinglass is dealing in quick succession with some of the arguments that Todd Blanche laid out toward the end of his closing, including the idea that there was an alternative conspiracy involving Stormy Daniels, her manager and a National Enquirer editor. He says that the defense is trying to distract from a key issue in the case, adding, 'In the end, all of this doesn't really matter.'...
“Steinglass is listing a number of witnesses who testified and who are loyal to Trump: Hope Hicks, Madeleine Westerhout, Jeffrey McConney, Rhona Graff and David Pecker. Steinglass says that Pecker has 'absolutely no reason to lie here,' and adds, 'and yet, his testimony is utterly devastating.'... Joshua Steinglass is now speaking about Stormy Daniels, saying that while she does not like Trump -- and, candidly, wants to see him convicted -- her testimony about her sexual encounter with him was credible, with details that had the ring of truth. Then, he says, the encounter itself was important, because if the jury finds Daniels's testimony credible, it explains why Trump would have sought to buy her silence.... 'If her testimony was so irrelevant, why did they work so hard to try to discredit her?' Steinglass asks, adding, 'Stormy Daniels is the motive.'...
"Joshua Steinglass has now moved onto Michael Cohen. He agrees that Cohen wants Trump convicted, but says that Cohen is 'understandably angry that to date, he's the only one who's paid the price for his role in this conspiracy.'... Steinglass just took a potshot at the defendant. 'Mr. Trump decided, like he often does, "I'm not going to pay this bill,"' he said, of the payment to the technology firm for which Michael Cohen was eventually overpaid when he was reimbursed in 2017.... He's noting that the defense accused Cohen of stealing for overstating the amount he was owed for paying the technology firm. Steinglass acknowledges that Cohen was wrong to steal. But, he says, 'it's not a defense to a false business records charge that one of the conspirators is also guilty for stealing from another.'...
"... Steinglass ... harps on a disparity between one portion of the defense's argument that suggests Trump didn't know about the reimbursement and another that suggests that he did.... Steinglass comments on Trump's 'chutzpah,' saying that Michael Cohen lied to help Trump, and now Trump's lawyers are using those lies to try to undermine Cohen....
"Joshua Steinglass ... sought to counter the defense's argument that Michael Cohen called Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, not Trump himself, on the evening of Oct. 24. The defense argued that the call was about a teenage prank caller who had been bothering him, not about arranging the hush-money payment, as prosecutors had said.... Steinglass just started a timer and pretended to have the exact same conversation, adding plenty of asides and silences as he played the role of Cohen, talking first to Schiller and then to Trump. The call felt as if it lasted a long time. But when Steinglass stopped the timer, it had only been about 49 seconds, about as long as the call in question. The point he was seeking to illustrate was simple: That Cohen could have easily talked to both men, just like he testified.... This was a real piece of showmanship -- clever and useful at the same time. Moments like these show Steinglass's experience....
"Steinglass is ... pointing out that had Cohen been more predisposed to lie, he could have told whoppers about Trump or attributed more damaging comments to him. Steinglass says that Cohen didn't do any of that 'because he's limited by what actually happened.' ... [Steinglass] asks jurors to remember that 'we didn't choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn't pick him up at the witness store.' Then he raises his voice and says that Trump chose Cohen 'for the same qualities that his attorneys now urge you to reject his testimony because of.'...
"The argument that Joshua Steinglass is making about Michael Cohen right now is a prosecutorial classic when it comes to cooperating witnesses: if you want to know what happens in the gutter, you have to talk to the rats. But here, prosecutors are not talking about classic street crime, but about a plot to defraud the American people. 'This case is not about Michael Cohen,' Steinglass says. 'It's about Donald Trump.'"
Haberman: "It's hard to stress the significance of what Steinglass is saying -- both that this case is not about Michael Cohen, and that Cohen was exactly what Trump wanted in a lawyer."
Bromwich: "Joshua Steinglass is outlining the prosecution's theory of the August 2015 meeting between Trump, Michael Cohen, and David Pecker, who was the publisher of The National Enquirer, in which they agreed to a plot to suppress negative stories about Trump and promote negative stories about his opponents."
Haberman: "Joshua Steinglass is now puncturing one of Todd Blanche's favorite arguments -- that The National Enquirer is just like all other publications and that David Pecker's arrangement with Trump wasn't unusual. It may not have been unusual for The Enquirer, but there i nothing normal or standard about what the tabloid was doing with Trump."
Bromwich: "Joshua Steinglass addresses Todd Blanche's interest in 'catch and kill,' drawing a distinction between the phrase and the actual practice. Steinglass ... argues that suppressing those stories amounted to committing fraud toward American voters, pulling the wool over their eyes 'in a coordinated fashion.' He calls The National Enquirer 'a covert arm' of Trump's 2016 campaign."
Christobek: "Steinglass further notes that non-disclosure agreements are not inherently criminal, but they are 'indeed illegal when they serve an unlawful purpose.'"
Bromwich: "'This scheme, cooked up by these men, at this time, could very well be what got President Trump elected,' Joshua Steinglass says, concluding the portion of his closing that refers specifically to the Trump Tower meeting.... Todd Blanche had noted that David Pecker said he would print the doorman's story, about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock, regardless of whether it was true. But Steinglass shows the jurors that Pecker added that he would wait until after the election to do so. 'Because that was what they agreed to do,' Steinglass says, taking another chance to nod back toward the alleged conspiracy....
"Joshua Steinglass is highlighting David Pecker's testimony that he discussed Karen McDougal with Trump. Steinglass says it offered 'powerful evidence' of Trump's involvement in her hush-money deal, and showed he knew about the payment and was actively involved in arranging it. Steinglass also notes that the testimony does not rely on Michael Cohen in any way."
Haberman: "What's striking about Joshua Steinglass's closing argument is that unlike Todd Blanche, he is telling a story with a narrative arc as he seeks to dismantle Blanche's arguments. Blanche raised and dropped so many different things that ultimately had nothing to do with his argument that it was hard to keep track of."
Bromwich: "Joshua Steinglass notes that after closing the hush-money deal with Karen McDougal, the editor of The National Enquirer did not immediately call his boss. Instead he placed a call to Michael Cohen, whom Steinglass connects to Trump, underscoring, again, that The Enquirer was working on Trump's behalf."
Christobek: "Joshua Steinglass's voice is booming as he tells the jury that David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, was willing to sacrifice his bottom line in service of Trump's campaign, adding that this deal was 'the very antithesis of a normal legitimate press function.'"
Haberman: "Joshua Steinglass has been showing the degree to which Trump, based on call records, would have had knowledge of the discussions around acquiring Karen McDougal's life rights. This cuts against Todd Blanche's portrayal of Trump as essentially a dupe who people took advantage of."
Bromwich: "Joshua Steinglass resumes after the break with the release of the 'Access Hollywood' tape in October 2016, and describes Trump's comments in that tape as having discussed 'grabbing women by the genitals.' He reminds the jurors that Hope Hicks testified that the news eclipsed that of a Category 4 hurricane bearing down on the East Coast, and then jokes that the tape must have been like a Category 5 hurricane.... Joshua Steinglass is showing the jurors video clips of Trump himself acknowledging that the 'Access Hollywood' tape and its aftermath could swing a very tight election. 'If 5 percent of the people think it's true, and maybe 10 percent,' Trump says in one clip, 'we don't win.'... And now, having painted a picture of just how desperate the Trump campaign was as it spun the 'Access Hollywood' tape, Joshua Steinglass reintroduces the jurors to Stormy Daniels. 'During the exact same month that the defendant was desperately trying to sell the distinction between words and actions, he was negotiating to muzzle a porn star who was preparing to go public,' the prosecutor says....
"As Steinglass takes the jurors through a wealth of documentary evidence, he tries to signal to them that he is not wasting their time. 'We don't need to show all these calls and emails back and forth, they're in evidence if you want to see them,' he says, before continuing to show more calls and emails.... This closing is proceeding so neatly -- and yes, slowly -- through the timeline that we can tell you exactly what day in October 2016 Joshua Steinglass is talking about during any given moment. Right now, in the courtroom, it's Oct. 23, 2016. Which, if you're keeping track, is four days away from when Michael Cohen actually sent $130,000 to a lawyer for Stormy Daniels....
"Joshua Steinglass is now onto evidence from Oct. 25, 2016, two days before the hush-money payment was made. 'There's this crazy flurry of phone activity among the co-conspirators here,' Steinglass points out, and then rattles off the proper names -- Michael Cohen to David Pecker, Pecker to Cohen, Cohen to Keith Davidson -- to illustrate just how much phone activity there was in the course of half an hour.... On Oct. 26, one day before making the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels's lawyer, Michael Cohen talks to Trump on the phone twice. 'This is damning, right?' Joshua Steinglass says, using a conversational tone as he points toward these records and arguing to the jurors that Cohen was getting a final sign-off from Trump before he initiated the sequence of financial transactions that would conclude with him wiring $130,000.... 'As part of this process, yet another false business record is created,' Steinglass says, leaving a trail of potential unlawful means that jurors could draw on during deliberations as they seek to determine whether Trump unlawfully influenced his election victory....
And now we hear that on Oct. 27, the money was sent, and on Oct. 28, just 11 days before the election, Stormy Daniels signed the non-disclosure agreement."
Haberman: "A lot of the back-and-forth about who called who around the Stormy Daniels payoff felt dizzying, but the jurors have generally seemed quite engaged. And Joshua Steinglass landed his argument by saying that while the sex between Daniels and Trump allegedly took place in 2006, the payoff wasn't until 2016 because his concern wasn't actually his family, as his lawyers have suggested, but the election."
Bromwich: "We're now hearing about Nov. 4, 2016, four days before the election, the day that The Wall Street Journal -- with a reporting team that included our colleague Michael Rothfeld -- broke a story about The National Enquirer's deal with Karen McDougal on Trump's behalf.... Steinglass reminds the jurors that Hope Hicks sent over a statement for the story on behalf of Trump, and that Trump lied in the statement, saying he didn't know anything about the Karen McDougal deal. Steinglass says Trump did in fact know about it because, as we've heard, he was on tape two months earlier talking about it. 'Why, why would Mr. Trump lie about that?' Steinglass asked, raising his voice and punctuating his argument....
"'And then, on Nov. 8, the defendant was elected president,' Joshua Steinglass says. He notes that some of the players in the drama he just described were conscious of the roles they had played in Trump's election. 'What have we done?' Stormy Daniels's lawyer texted a National Enquirer editor as the results came in. Steinglass says that 'we'll never know if this effort to hoodwink the American voter' made the difference in 2016. But he reminds jurors that prosecutors don't have to prove that it did -- they just have to show that Trump was a part of a conspiracy to aid his victory.
"Joshua Steinglass has moved the action to January 2017, the month that Trump was inaugurated. He is describing a meeting between Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, then the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, who Cohen testified had made the arrangements to reimburse Cohen for the hush-money payment. 'Right on the bank statement, Weisselberg and Cohen calculated all the money that was owed to Cohen,' Steinglass says.... Steinglass then highlights Michael Cohen's testimony implicating Trump in the charged crimes. He shows jurors, using highlighted transcript pages, Cohen's testimony that Trump not only approved the arrangement but was aware that the reimbursements would be classified as payments for legal services.
"... Steinglass ... moved very quickly over some of the testimony most damning to Trump, because it came from Michael Cohen. And now he is referring to exhibits that Jeffrey McConney, a longtime loyal Trump employee, testified about: Allen Weisselberg's notes setting up the repayments. Steinglass refers to these exhibits as 'the smoking guns' of the prosecution's argument, saying they 'completely blow out of the water the claim the money paid to Cohen' was for legal services."
Haberman: "Joshua Steinglass is now focusing on the so-called 'gross-up' of the amount that Michael Cohen was paid for tax purposes. Typically, legitimate legal fees are not 'grossed up.'"
Christobek: "Steinglass reminds the jury that Jeffrey McConney, the former controller of the Trump Organization, testified that in 50 years he was never aware of a payment being doubled for taxes. He then argues that this gross-up was made because the reimbursement was disguised as income."
Bromwich: "Joshua Steinglass puts his own spin on one of the defense's closing arguments, that the existence at the Trump Organization of financial documents related to the charged crimes shows that they were not crimes.... If that logic held, Steinglass says, no charge of falsifying business records would ever be successful because 'The existence of the false business record in the first place would prove there was no intent to defraud.'"
Christobek: "Joshua Steinglass is addressing Todd Blanche's claim from this morning that Michael Cohen did other legal work for Trump in 2017. He argues that Cohen did less than 10 hours of legal work that year. Steinglass points out that Cohen spent more time being cross-examined during this trial than he spent doing legal work in 2017." ~~~
~~~ Bromwich: "Steinglass argues that, if the defense's arguments that Cohen was being paid for legal services held up, Trump would have ended up paying Cohen at a rate that would have added up to more than $100 million annually.... Steinglass notes that Trump himself has, several times in several places, 'admitted' that the payments to Cohen were reimbursements, not payments for legal services."
Haberman: "Joshua Steinglass is now showing Trump's filing with the federal government's Office of Government Ethics in May 2018 that revealed Trump had made a payment to Michael Cohen. The filing came a few days after Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers, said on Fox News that Trump had reimbursed Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment."
Bromwich: "[Steinglass] said that the defense was arguing that Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen were assuming authority over large amounts of Trump's money. 'That's crazy,' Steinglass says. 'Neither one had anywhere near that kind of authority.'... Steinglass is again attacking the defense for what he says was a 'false narrative' about Trump ceasing to attend to his personal financial matters once he assumed the presidency. He notes that an assistant in the White House, Madeleine Westerhout, testified that Trump paid close attention to his personal expenses as president....
"Steinglass points the jurors to testimony from Hope Hicks, in which Hicks said that Trump had expressed it 'would have been bad' to have the Stormy Daniels story come out before the election. He argues that this comment shows that Trump was less focused on protecting his family and his wife than he was on winning the election....
"The prosecutors have argued that a lawyer named Robert Costello was dispatched to attend to Cohen. Steinglass now begins to talk about Costello, who was the only substantive witness called by the defense, and chuckles as he does so: Costello's appearance was a bit of a circus....
"Joshua Steinglass, describing how Michael Cohen discussed having pleaded guilty to federal crimes, hews very close to the trial transcript. When Steinglass's colleague Susan Hoffinger questioned Cohen about those pleas, she made sure to ask him if he had committed crimes at Trump's behest. Cohen said that he had, and Steinglass just read significant portions of that testimony aloud, before pivoting to Trump's tweets blasting Cohen shortly after he pleaded guilty.... Steinglass argues that the tweets were meant to send a clear message to other potential witnesses. 'Cooperate, and you will face the wrath of Donald Trump.'...
" Steinglass continues the argument about witness intimidation, noting that Trump attacked Stormy Daniels on social media the same day she had an interview with the Manhattan district attorney's office. Steinglass argues that the post contains a lie -- in it, Trump said that he hadn't seen or spoken to Daniels since meeting her on a golf course in 2006.... Steinglass says that the jury knows it to be a lie because Rhona Graff, Trump's loyal assistant, testified that Daniels had met with Trump at Trump Tower." ~~~
~~~ Haberman: "Steinglass asks why, if Trump simply had a business relationship with Daniels, he attacked her in March 2023 when she made public that she had appeared before the grand jury."
Bromwich: "Reviewing the evidence from that month that corroborates Cohen's testimony, including his calls with Trump, Steinglass asks: 'Is this timing just all a coincidence, every single one of these things?' No, is his implied answer, so obvious he doesn't say it. Instead, he asserts: 'Mr. Trump is being kept abreast of every development.'"
Haberman: "Joshua Steinglass is now walking the jurors through Trump's own words in 2018, when he described the payments to Michael Cohen as 'reimbursements.'"
Gold: "Joshua Steinglass is offering three rebuttals of the defense's argument that Michael Cohen acted on his own, without Trump's knowledge. First, he says that Trump was a micromanager who was directly involved with the details both of his business and his political campaign." ~~~
~~~ Bromwich: "Second, Steinglass says, Cohen was and is a self-promoter and it 'defies all common sense' that he'd undertake herculean efforts on behalf of Trump and keep it to himself." ~~~
~~~ Gold: "And Steinglass's third reason is that Trump was the only one who would have benefitted from the scheme that prosecutors accused him of. Cohen, he says, just wanted to be reimbursed and had no reason to push for creating false business records. 'The defendant was the beneficiary of this entire scheme,' Steinglass says. 'He was the one trying to get elected.'"
Bromwich: "Steinglass says that Trump's intent to defraud could not be any clearer, arguing that Trump could have simply paid Daniels himself, but instead devised an elaborate scheme to pay Daniels secretly that required the involvement of at least 10 other people. 'Everything Mr. Trump and his cohorts did in this case was cloaked in lies,' Steinglass says, adding, 'The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead to the man who benefited the most, Donald Trump.'... [He says] that the evidence [against Trump] is overwhelming and that while the former president is a former president, the law applies to him the same as it does to everyone else."
Maggie Haberman & Jonah Bromwich of the New York Times: "... with less than six months until Election Day, Mr. Trump, who has long pushed messaging about 'law and order,' is leaning into an outlaw image, surrounding himself with accused criminals and convicts.... Mr. Trump's rally last week in the Bronx wound down with appearances from the two rappers, Sheff G and Sleepy Hallow.... Both were charged in a conspiracy that Brooklyn prosecutors say led to 12 shootings. Mr. Williams also faces two counts of attempted murder. Both men pleaded not guilty and are out on bail.... Two days later, as Mr. Trump spoke to an unfriendly crowd at the Libertarian Party's national convention in Washington, he promised to commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the black-market website Silk Road, who was sentenced to life in prison in 2015.” Read on for more. ~~~
~~~ Marie: Yesterday I was watching a good Scottish police procedural ("Shetland"), and one character described a character who was an aging mob boss. The old mob boss sounded just like Trump.
~~~~~~~~~~
Presidential Race
President v. Guttersnipe. Michael Shear of the New York Times: "President Biden paid tribute to veterans who died in America’s wars at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday, hailing them as 'a link in the chain of honor' who deserve recognition for protecting the nation's democracy.... His somber message was a sharp contrast to that of ... Donald J. Trump ... who posted an angry and incendiary Memorial Day message on his social media site."
Quid Pro Quo. Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post: Donald Trump has made "a series of audacious requests ... [of] big-money contributions in recent months, according to 11 donors, advisers and others close to the former president.... The pleas for millions in donations come as the presumptive Republican nominee seeks to close a cash gap with Biden and to pay for costly legal bills in his four criminal indictments.... By frequently tying the fundraising requests within seconds of promises of tax cuts, oil project infrastructure approvals and other favorable policies and asking for sums more than his campaign and the GOP can legally accept from an individual, Trump is also testing the boundaries of federal campaign finance laws, according to legal experts.... Larry Noble, a longtime campaign finance lawyer, said Trump was technically allowed to ask only for contributions of $3,300 or less for his campaign, according to federal laws. But he can appear at events for his super PAC where the price of admission is far higher -- as long as he doesn't ask for the money directly.
~~~ Thanks to RAS for the lead.
Annals of "Journalism," Ctd. Mike Allen of Axios: "It turns out that The Post's former Supreme Court reporter, Bob Barnes, did a front-yard interview with Justice Samuel Alito on Jan. 20, 2021 -- President Biden's inauguration day -- about the upside-down American flag that had flown outside the justice's home in Fairfax County, Va.... Cameron Barr, the Post's former senior managing editor, told Semafor's Ben Smith that he takes responsibility for the decision. 'I agreed with Bob Barnes and others that we should not do a single-slice story about the flag, because it seemed like the story was about Martha-Ann Alito and not her husband,' Barr said. 'In retrospect, I should have pushed harder for that story.'" ~~~
~~~ Marie: You are not "taking responsibility" when you claim the reporter and unnamed others agreed with or perhaps lobbied for axing the story. It may have been your call, but you're making Barnes & "others" share the blame.
Only White People Need Apply. Daniel Wu of the Washington Post: "A Virginia-based technology company will pay more than $38,000 in penalties for posting a discriminatory job advertisement that only sought to hire White U.S. citizens, the Justice Department announced. Arthur Grand Technologies Inc., a firm that provides information technology services, in March 2023 posted a job advertisement for a business analyst position on the hiring site Indeed that asked in a bolded note for 'Only Born US Citizens [White] who are local within 60 miles from Dallas,' according to a Justice Department news release." The company blamed a disgruntled employee for the ad whom the CEO said he fired after he learned of the ad. MB: The name of the CEO suggests he is not your average U.S.-born White guy.
~~~ Marie: The company's defense sounds credible, at least based on the WashPo report. It's not clear from the report where the ad was posted: on its own Website?? No reputable U.S. outlet would publish an ad that so clearly violated EEOC rules. I'm not sure why DOJ fined the company instead of giving them a warning or a suspended fine.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel/Palestine, et al.
CNN's live updates of developments Tuesday in the Israel/Hamas war are here.
Bibi Calls a Calculated Act of War "a Tragic Accident." Isabel Kershner of the New York Times: "With international condemnation mounting, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said on Monday that the killing of dozens of people a day earlier at a camp for displaced Palestinians in Rafah was 'a tragic accident,' but gave no sign of curbing the Israeli offensive in the southern Gaza city. The deadly fire that tore through the encampment on Sunday after an airstrike came at a particularly delicate time for Israel, just days after the International Court of Justice appeared to order the country's military to halt its offensive in Rafah and as diplomats were aiming to restart negotiations for a cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas. The Israel military said that the target of the strike in Rafah on Sunday was a Hamas compound, and that 'precise munitions' had been used to target a commander and another senior militant official there. But at least 45 people, including children, were killed by the blast and by the fires it set off, according to the Gaza health ministry. The ministry said that 249 people were wounded." ~~~
~~~ Marie: A "tragic accident" is when you are setting off firecrackers for fun and you blow up two fingers. The tragedy is that it is a self-inflicted wound caused by your own tendency to be incautious and take stupid, unnecessary risks. The accident is that you did not intend to cause harm. An act of war is when you kill people you are aiming at with "precise munitions."
Josh Dawsey, et al., of the Washington Post: "... Donald Trump promised to crush pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, telling a roomful of donors -- a group that he joked included '98 percent of my Jewish friends' -- that he would expel student demonstrators from the United States, according to participants in the roundtable event with him in New York. 'One thing I do is, any student that protests, I throw them out of the country. You know, there are a lot of foreign students. As soon as they hear that, they're going to behave,' Trump said on May 14, according to donors at the event.... [Trump] didn't mention Netanyahu, whom he resents for acknowledging Joe Biden's victory in 2020 and hasn't spoken to in years."
Share Article
Reader Comments (9)
Some light reading erected around numbers:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/05/24/when-america-was-great-according-data/
Reminded me of what someone (Theodore Sturgeon?) said about the golden age of science fiction.
When you were thirteen.
“I agreed with Bob Barnes and others that we should not do a single-slice story about the flag, because it seemed like the story was about Martha-Ann Alito and not her husband,'”
So what? This is a bullshit answer (and reason). Had this been a situation where Mrs. Alito hauled off on someone at the Piggly-Wiggly deli counter while waiting for her half pound of American cheese (to continue the sandwich metaphor), because another customer was overheard saying that Trump was a dangerous moron, even that would be newsworthy, but I might buy letting it drop.
This situation took place at the home the Alito’s share. He was there. He knew all about it. A fucking Supreme Court Justice, flying a flag that clearly demonstrated a preference for sedition. WTF?
Would a story like this have been buried had it been Hillary Clinton (when she was just the wife of a powerful man), or the wife of an important senator, who was advocating for government overthrow?
Hell no!
But it’s “Supreme Court” so sweep it under the rug?
They fucked up. Period. This excuse stinks. Maybe were this a small town newspaper that concentrated on stories about a new bakery opening and how trees on Main Street needed pruning, but this is the Washington fucking Post. The paper that broke the Watergate scandal. I guess they decided bakery openings would be safer.
Claudia Sahm does a run down on economic sentiment.
Jeff Tiedrich
"Republicans hate our troops — and no one hates them more than Donald Trump
watch what they do, not what they say"
Judging the judges:
Seems that the Federalist Society judges learn two lessons only.
First, that selfishness is the most moral of behavior and that money trumps all.
Secondly, since that baldly stated opinion is not shared by the majority of citizens, they are spoon fed a heavy dose of resentment and anger against those who rightly conclude they are at base not very nice people. In other words, liberals.
Hence, the behavior of the Thomas, Alito, Cannon and much of the Fifth Circuit. They're just pissed that so many don't like them.
There's a reason they all sound like the Pretender, albeit more coherent.
Just finished reading through the live-blogged reports of the prosecution’s closing arguments. Just riveting. Steinglass’ delivery seemed both flawless and compelling. He never seemed to forget the storyline, the narrative arc, providing the jury with a sturdy, recognizable armature on which to hang the many disparate data points.
In contrast, the defense’s presentation seemed to come across as alternating between bombastic, finger-wagging, and confused. His armature looks like one of those scary road signs that let drivers know there are a shitload of crazy twists and turns up ahead.
Steinglass’s armature looks like Trump.
And a huge thank you to our hard working hostess for collecting and collating these snippets from a variety of sources, editing and presenting the material in a chronological and easily digested format. It ain’t easy curating this stuff, and the result, as I discovered today with the prosecution’s close, is almost cinematic.
About Todd Blanche’s willful faux pas during his clunky, disjointed close, in which he begged jurors not to send the Orange Monster to jail, I’m betting that Fatty put him up to that. He is petrified, not just of a guilty verdict, but spending even an hour locked up without his Diet Coke button, a constant stream of Big Macs, and access to some kind of posting device. I’m surprised Blanche didn’t go with Trump’s initial idea: to save him from being strapped into the electric chair so Biden could personally throw the switch.
I’m gonna say that when the movie version of this trial comes out, it won’t be a good looking, fit Sebastian Stan who plays the central, crooked character (as he does in this new film about Fatty and Roy Cohn). They’ll have to find some snarling fat guy who won’t mind pretending to fall asleep, while farting, for half the movie.
@Akhilleus: I agree completely with your assessment of the lawyers' closing arguments, at least based on the NYT reporters' observations.
It's hard to know why Todd Blanche did such a bad job. The obvious reason is the one you cite -- that Trump forced him to make the points Trump wanted to make. It's possible that Blanche himself is rather scatterbrained, so he's unaware that he occasionally makes contradictory arguments to explain his client's behavior. I think an awful lot of people do this an awful lot of the time, especially when they're trying to justify their own bad behavior.
I disagree with Scott Fitzgerald's famous pronouncement: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I think the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to logically examine and work through two opposing ideas to determine which idea -- or what other idea -- comes closest to illuminating the truth.
P.S. Lawrence O'Donnell just pointed out another set of "opposing ideas" Blanche posed that don't make sense: "You cannot accuse Michael Cohen of stealing [the part of the $420K he pretended he paid the fake pollsters]," O'Donnell said, "at the same time you claim the $420K was not a reimbursement."
Thanks, Marie: I just could not listen to this all day. I am still significantly pessimistic that FatMouth will get off...It all depends on a jury and who can depend on that?? Every time anyone screams "Election interference!" I just can't believe it-- surely the jury knows this is hobgobbery-- When all this was going on, it had NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ELECTION!! He only entered the race to get away with whatever he can, and he adores his rallies, and hates the job as president. I hope some jury member does not feel sorry for him...It's all about the remarks he made about "pussies" and the fact that they all conspired to cover up the Nondisclosure document and payment to Stormy. It has nothing to do with Michael Cohen-- he was just the vehicle. Ugh. I sooooo hate the Fatso, his family and "friends" as well as the billionaires who support the Fatso.
Nikki Haley tweeted out her message to Gaza and the Palestinians. Performative acts of depravity are required in Trump world. Noem had her dog and goat butchery and Nikki wants to one up her by signing, literally, on to some war crimes. Monsters. These people were always willing to go this far, Trump just brought them into the light.
Rollingstone
"Nikki Haley Writes ‘Finish Them!’ on Israeli Bomb After Refugee Massacre
The former UN Ambassador and failed presidential candidate toured areas ravaged byHamas’ Oct. 7 attack
Alongside her chilling note, Haley wrote “America loves Israel!” and autographed the bomb.
DAYS AFTER DOZENS of Palestinians were killed by Israeli air strikes against displacement camps in Southern Gaza, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley wrote “Finish them!” on Israeli artillery shells.
Haley, who recently sputtered in her bid to defeat former President Donald Trump for the 2024 Republican nomination, toured a kibbutz ravaged by Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack against Israel in the company of current Knesset member and former UN Envoy Danny Danon."