Below is my column in the Hill on the approaching closing arguments in the Trump trial. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg appears to be launching his own school of abstract legal work in the Trump indictment. The key is to avoid any objective meaning.
Here is the column:
Abstract artist Jackson Pollock once said that his paintings have no objective meaning, so the best way for people to enjoy them is to stop looking for it.
For many of us, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has created a new school of abstract law where there is no need for objective meaning. The jury is simply supposed to enjoy it for what it is: a chance to convict Donald Trump.
Pollock was famous for his painting drips on large canvases. Bragg has achieved the same effect by regenerating a dead misdemeanor on falsifying business records as 34 felony counts. To achieve that extraordinary goal, he has alleged that the document violations (which expired long ago under the statute of limitations) were committed to hide some other crime.
Originally, Bragg vaguely referenced four crimes and there have been months of confusion as to what he was specifically alleging as his criminal theories. Even legal analysts on CNN and MSNBC have continued to question the specific allegations against Trump as we head into closing arguments.
As it stands, there are three crimes that have been referenced by prosecutors: state and federal election violations and taxation violations.
Bragg’s legal vision for non-objective indictments was greatly advanced by Judge Juan Merchan, who will allow the jury to reach different rulings on what crime is actually evident in Bragg’s paint splatters.
Merchan has ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means there could be three groups of four jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation (which Bragg cannot enforce), and a third believing there was a tax violation, respectively. Nonetheless, Merchan will treat that as a unanimous verdict.
In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different shapes, but still send Trump to prison on their interpretations.
Moreover, Michael Cohen is the sole witness even to address the elements of any of these crimes. Cohen is a convicted serial perjurer and disbarred attorney who appears to have lied again during the trial. Even if they consider his testimony, there is no direct corroboration in evidence on Trump’s intent or knowledge. As a result, the prosecutors will rely on circumstantial evidence to support whichever interpretation the jurors will buy.
Faced with charges that can mean different things to different jurors, Trump’s team will have to focus on the spaces between the paint drips; the canvas itself.
All of this case is based on the payment for a non-disclosure agreement that is perfectly legal and indeed common in business and politics. The Trump team needs to stop dancing around the NDA.
The jury likely believes that Trump knew of the NDA and supported it. The defense has to emphasize the testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Inquirer, that he killed stories for a variety of celebrities and politicians, including Rahm Emmanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger. He also said that he killed stories for Trump for years before he even thought of running for president.
They need to emphasize the testimony of multiple witnesses that Trump seemed to want to avoid embarrassment to his family. He was also the host of a popular television show and an international businessman. The payment of a couple hundred thousand to kill stories is considered a cost of doing business for most celebrities, particularly those who have television contracts with provisions allowing cancellation for scandals.
In the instructions, the court will tell the jurors that payments cannot be campaign contributions if they would have been made anyway regardless of the campaign.
They also need to point out other gaps. It was not Trump who listed payments as legal expenses or retainer payments. Witnesses said that payments to lawyers are routinely recorded as legal expenses. Indeed, it is not clear how the money should have been denominated but the decision was being made by others in the Trump organization and by Cohen himself.
Moreover, on the characterization of payments as part of a “retainer,” the other party to that characterization was former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. He is currently in prison in New York, but was not called by the prosecution. The prosecutors elected to rely entirely on Michael Cohen with various witnesses, including Cohen, referencing Weisselberg’s decision on how to pay the money.
That made the canvas itself largely Michael Cohen. All of this is held together by a witness who admitted that he has lied to banks, Congress, prosecutors, business associates, and virtually every creature that has ever walked or crawled on the face of the Earth. He also lied in front of the jury about the critical call where he said that he told Trump about the NDA payment.
The defense showed that that 96-second-long call was to Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, in late October 2016. It was preceded and followed by text messages that indicated that their conversation was actually about a teenager harassing Cohen.
Moreover, Cohen admitted to making millions by bashing Trump, and that he has a personal interest in his conviction.
You can throw paint on Cohen all day, but it will not cover up the fact that he is a pathological liar and grifter.
That is why I still believe that a hung jury might even be the most likely possibility. That may change when we see Judge Merchan’s final instructions. However, the only thing worse in New York than being a Trump supporter is being a chump. To rely solely on Cohen and not even call someone like Weisselberg is to play these jurors as chumps.
Pollock was doing more than just throwing paint at a canvas. As Pablo Picasso said, “there is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.” Bragg started with nothing and sold it as a legal abstraction.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
I would be ashamed if this was the evidence I had that I would present to a jury. This is insanity!
What’s needed is an “…And Justice for All” moment.
This is just one hurdle. Regardless of outcome the adversaries remain the same. It’s the plutocrats and their lackeys, versus us, the people. There’s no question that Trump has taken up the mantle of the people and that the lawfare and bureaucratic full court press against him represents the will of the billionaire donor class, which deems him a traitor to their class.
Neither the outcome of this trial nor even the election will change the fundamental class conflict at hand destroying our beloved nation. Yes I said class conflict and I mean it. The international capitalists are the enemy even if that sounds like “commie” talk to the average brainwashed conservative. Go read the elections donation data and see if it isn’t obvious who owns our political system and who’s been destroying it. Soros is just one name, Fink, there are many others, but they nearly all pull from the billionaire class.
They are until they prove otherwise, the enemy
Saloth Sar
It’s impossible for a NYC jury to rule not guilty in the DJT criminal case in NYC because studies have proven that the median IQ of a NYC voter when it comes to Trump is only 73.
We know this from studies where New Yorkers where first asked if they voted for Biden over Trump and then asked a series a questions. When NYC Biden voters were told that Trump believes the capital of New York State is Albany, those voters strongly disagreed with DJT and 99.3% said that Schenectady was the capitol of New York State. Similarly, when told that DJT believed that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, 99.9% of Biden voters said that Lincoln was a Democrat.
Thus, regardless of the law, the evidence, and the facts, they jury understands that its part of the Kangaroo Court System that is duly bound to find DJT guilty of whatever the prosecution claims he’s guilty of, even if they don’t understand the law, the evidence, or the facts.
Dear Mr. Turley, you are acting like the Left-Wing media by your conjectures about the verdict. Let the jury do it’s job and we will argue about the result later!!!
I guarantee it, without the slightest chance I’m wrong: Trump will be convicted. Our courts are doomed. Jonathan, u must do something to save our judiciary. Time is running out.
Here’s the thing about a basis of the trial. The Prosecution is saying that Trump did the these things to deceive the Voters.
Trump lost the election to Joe Biden and the Democrats have been saying that emphatically – so where’s the influence over the election?
There is none because Biden won – Ok. According to the Democrats themselves Trump didn’t influence or interfere with the election, as Their Voters (Dems) were smarter than that and elected Biden – right. So where’s the crime? The Dems have to invent it, hence Bragg.
The Democrats better look closely in the mirror, this time around Their Lawfair is definitely Election Interference and the Voters know it again.
This case deals with the 2016 election. It is Hillary’s last-ditch effort to show that she was cheated.
S. Meyer, your latest does not appear.
Do remember the Civility Code.
“Civility Code” = excuse for Turley’s extreme left-wing censors to run amok
Why is “David Benson” remarking about a civility code violation and censor?
Is David Benson a sock puppet of Darren Smith?
“@JeffClarkUS
Just the tweet-level summary of the legal theory behind the case in New York against Trump is a devastating indictment not of Trump but of Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden.
They do not believe in the Anglo-Saxon system of justice it took centuries to build and for whom many have died (and whom we commemorate today).
No, they believe in Stalinism and Maoism and that the ends justify the means. Hence, the Rube Goldberg state law bookkeeping and FECA hybrid case they have cobbled together.
May God save us from these men.”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
American immigration and voting were established and codified to be severely restricted by the American Founders and Framers.
The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Naturalization Act of 1790—essential America—could only be maintained through the discipline of restricted immigration, restricted voting, and a constitutionally allegiant judicial branch.
Free America—its borders, its law, and its people—persisted for a mere 71 years.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which must have stood in the gap and held the line on restricted immigration, restricted voting, and the severe restrictions on government imposed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The judicial branch succumbed to global parasitism, which has led to the impending death of the host, the United States of America, through the replacement of the normal by the abnormal, madness, chaos, anarchy, 17 million additional heterogeneous and unassimilable illegal alien invaders, and $35 trillion in debt.
There is no hope for the capacity and acumen of leadership in America approaching the caliber of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Ben Franklin, John Adams, George Mason, John Jay, Richard Henry Lee, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Marshall et al.
America is now a totally corrupt, third-world banana republic.
Professor Turley, you have gone out on a limb in the public square and are catching more heat than ever. Frankly, it was about time. However you are late to the party. No one is more gifted, more qualified, and better prepared to take on the insanity within our highest institutions in America.
Father John Courtney Murray SJ raised many of the issues you orthogonally mention but 60 years ago. In brief, America, as Fr Murray articulated, has lost its identity. The notion of “self-evident” is gone.
It was once assumed that the American proposition, both social and political, was self-evident; that it authenticated itself on simple inspection; that it was, in consequence, intuitively grasped and generally understood by the American people. This assumption now stands under severe question. …
The very fact that these questions are being asked makes it sharply ur gent that they be answered. What is at stake is America’s understanding of itself. Self-understanding is the necessary condition of a sense of self-identity and self-confidence, whether in the case of an individual or in the case of a people. If the American people can no longer base this sense on naive assumptions of self-evidence, it is imperative that they find other more reasoned grounds for their essential affirmation that they are uniquely a people, uniquely a free society. Otherwise the peril is great. The complete loss of one’s identity is, with all propriety of theological definition, hell. In diminished forms it is insanitv. And it would not be well for the American giant to go lumbering about the world today, lost and mad., page 24 in
Murray, J.C., 2005. We hold these truths: Catholic reflections on the American proposition. Rowman & Littlefield.
https://www.amazon.com/Hold-These-Truths-Reflections-Proposition/dp/0742549011/
Happy Memorial Day indeed.
Former FEC Chairman Defends Donald Trump: Alvin Bragg Is ‘Wrong’
By Andrew Stanton https://www.newsweek.com/former-fec-chairman-defends-donald-trump-alvin-bragg-wrong-1903219
Bradley Smith, the former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman who agreed to provide expert testimony in Donald Trump’s hush money trial, has criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s legal theory behind his case. In a statement, Smith told Newsweek that he decided to become an expert witness in the case because he believes “the legal theory on which the prosecution rests regarding possible [Federal Election Campaign Act] violations is wrong and this is an issue I care deeply about.” Trump has been on trial in New York City on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Bragg’s case has charged that the payment was meant to prevent her from going public with her allegation that she had a sexual encounter with Trump and hurting his election chances. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has denied having an affair with Daniels and pleaded not guilty to all criminal charges. He also accuses Bragg and other prosecutors of targeting him for political purposes, criticizing the trial as a form of election interference.
Trump’s lawyers had planned to call Smith, who served as FEC chairman from 2000 to 2005, as an expert witness on campaign finance law in the trial.
However, on Monday Judge Juan Merchan ruled that Smith’s testimony would fall “under the umbrella of legal opinion” and would require him to allow the DA’s office to bring its own expert to testify about the same legal principles, according to Newsweek reporter Katherine Fung, who has been covering the trial from the courtroom. The judge decided that Trump’s attorneys could still call Smith as a witness but that he would be able to testify only about the “general definitions and terms” in campaign finance law. Smith told Newsweek he has turned down the “vast majority” of expert requests throughout his career, only agreeing to six engagements in 30 years. He expressed disappointment in Merchan’s ruling, noting that his testimony would have focused on FEC procedures and past actions, rather than the ultimate issue of the trial. “I am very disappointed that Judge Merchan barred this testimony while allowing Michael Cohen (not an expert) to describe the law—including a conclusion on the ultimate issue of Trump’s guilt—for ‘context.’ He also allowed the prosecutors to do the same in opening,” he said.
Newsweek reached out to Bragg’s office for comment via email.
In a post to X (formerly Twitter), Smith wrote that Bragg’s theory “hinges on the claim that Trump tried to influence an election through ‘unlawful means.’ “To do that, he’ll have to show that Trump violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. But since neither the FEC nor DOJ sued Trump, he’s got to show it on his own evidence,” Smith wrote. “If that’s the case, isn’t it entirely relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) to the jury’s fact-finding on that question that neither DOJ nor FEC chose to prosecute? But Judge Merchan won’t allow that in,” he said.
– Newsweek
Pretty amusing when Turley insists that not calling Weisselberg into testify is “to play these jurors as chumps.” Weisselberg is a convicted serial perjurer who is currently in prison for lying under oath during his testimony in the civil fraud lawsuit. Weisselberg was also found liable for fraud & falsifying business records, yet Turley claims jurors are being played like chumps for not letting them hear from a convicted perjurer who worked as Trump’s CFO for several decades.
Hey, Professor, why didn’t the defense call Weisselberg into testify about the “legal services” Cohen provided for the $420k Trump paid him in 2017?
Speaking of the school of abstract legal work, today Trump posted on Truth Social: “Why is the corrupt government allowed to make the final argument against me? Why can’t the defense go last? Big advantage, very unfair. Witch hunt!”
It’s sad to discover Trump’s attorneys are only now finally explaining to their client the way closing arguments work in criminal cases.
Weisselberg is a convicted serial perjurer
So true!!!
Any convicted serial perjurer’s testimony in this trial should be thrown out.
Oops
“Any convicted serial perjurer’s testimony in this trial should be thrown out.”
Exactly. Which is why it’s hilarious that Turley says not calling a convicted serial perjurer like Weisselberg “is to play these jurors as chumps.” Turley obviously knows Weisselberg was convicted of far more crimes than Cohen was. Weisselberg pleaded guilty to 15 counts of grand larceny, tax fraud, falsifying business records & also pleaded guilty to lying under oath.
It’s definitely amazing how many convicted serial perjurers Trump hired to handle his finances & work as his personal attorney!
Glad you agree. Move to dismiss, your honor, as the prosecution has no witness to the alleged crime.
No Weiselberg was NOT convicted of far more crimes than Cohen.
Both Weiselberg pleas are a Sham. Weiselberg plead to a deal that resulted in 3months of jail time – less than 1/10th of what Cohen has served.
HIs alleged Crime was not paying taxes on perqs like car leases.
The problem is that outside of Merchant’s courtroom that is legal, and even when that is debatable, it is virtually never prosecuted.
Businesses provide key people with many perqs (they also provide non-key people with perqs).
Biden is driven all over the country in a car he does not have to pay for by a driver he does not pay, he is driven for reasons that clearly are his job as president and for reasons that are clearly NOT his job as president.
Does Biden owe federal taxes for the cost of the driver and of the car ? No.
One of the most common business expenses is auto expenses. While it is near universal that those at the top of an organization use cars they do not pay for. It also happens near the bottom of many organizations. Plumbers, electricians, some carpenters, salesman often get auto’s are perqs of the job.
I own two cars – a personal car and a business car. Because I was raised by a mother who believed the IRS would stop at nothing to get her.
Guess which of the two cars is a luxury car ?
I am using cars as examples, but this applies to many things. If you live in one place but business requires you to travel regularly to another,
It can rent you a hotel, or it can rent you an apartment. It is legal and tax deductable for the business, and not taxable for the person receiving the perq.
The IRS does at times challenge these – and SOMETIMES they win – when they do the “victim” is assessed taxes and penlties and interest.
It is NOT a crime.
The fact that Merchan sentenced Weiselberg to 3months proves it was inconsequential.
This was really about trying to tag a Trump confidant as a felon and hopefully get them to turn.
The problem with that strategy – is you can not flip to convict the prosecutors target , if the target did not actually commit a crime.
@John Say,
“ Both Weiselberg pleas are a Sham. Weiselberg plead to a deal that resulted in 3months of jail time – less than 1/10th of what Cohen has served.”
That’s wrong. Weisselberg served 3 months for his crime of fraud and then 5 months for perjury.
He was found liable for tax fraud which is NOT legal. His original sentence was 5 months on the fraud charges, but was reduced to 3 for cooperating and testifying in Trump’s fraud trial with Judge Engoron.
Weisselberg’s charges were not just cars, but also categorizing himself as a free lancer to avoid taxes and falsifying records which are clearly illegal. He had 15 charges against him. Then he was charged with three counts of perjury. That ended up giving Weisselberg 5 more months of prison time. He’s serving a total of 8 months in prison.
ATS – I will agree with ONE point you make – it is reaching to criticize Bragg for not calling Weiselberg.
Wesielberg was NOT going to testify. He would have taken the 5th immediately, and would not have answered any questions.
He would have done that if Bragg called him.
He would have done that if Trump called him.
Merchan has treated Weiselberg like $hit and Weiselberg is not ever going to testify in NYC again – and certainly not becfore the corrupt Merchan.
That is on Merchan – not Bragg.
Few of us have the economic or emotional resources to fight the government, and even fewer can claim that they have never violated any criminal statute, either local or federal. These cases call attention to the awesome power of prosecutors to do wrong, especially where politics is involved. Both judges and prosecutors are immune from liability for the harm they can do. In New York, both Merchan and Bragg will likely be promoted to higher office for promoting this sham trial. I don’t like Donald Trump personally, but I admire his ability to stand up to injustice.
ATS Weiselbergb is a Victim of MErchan’s Biases.
Merchan was recruted to force Weiselberg to Plead to perjury – there is only a single count.
In a tiny bit of hours of testimony before Judge En-moron, in the James case, Weselberg said that he did not know the size of Trump manhattan apartment. The prosecution later found a journalist that interviewed Weiselberg years early, and in the Journlists notes Weiselberg was asked the size of Trump’s Manhattan appartment and provided an actual size.
This occurred while the case is ongoing. The STANDARD in that case is to give the witness the oportunity to correct their testimony.
I would note that this is NOT actually a demonstrable example of perjury. Perjury must be knowing, material and with the intent to deceive.
It is entirely possible that Weiselberg know the size of Trump’s Manhattan apartment several years ago and has subsequently forgotton.
Regardless Merchan was brought in Weiselberg was brought before him and Merchan told wesilberg to “plead Guilty or he would make sure he was convicted and spent the rest of his life in prison”
Prosecutors ARE allowed to use judges to “threaten” defendants to get them to plead unfortunately. But a judge can not serve as an agent for the prosecution AND continue to participate in the case. Merchan recognizing that he has stepped in dodo, got another Judge to sentence Weiselberg and then ranted about it.
The FACT is that Weiselberg should not have been convicted. He should have been brought back to court, and corrected his testimony to “I may have known in the past, but at the time I testified, I had forgotten” I would note that Hillery Clinton “Forgot” things in her interview with the FBI over 250 times. And Biden beat that in his interview with Hurr.
Lawyers, Judges, Juries, are all skeptical of “I forget” testimony, and they should be, but only with Merchan and left wing nuts is that perjury.
Regardless, There is zero possibility that Weiselberg would testify in front of Merchan. He is unlikely to testify in NYC ever again.
He will without any doubt take the 5th if he is asked.
Which is part of the reason the 5th amendment exists. The standard is NOT about your guilt.
It is about the likelyhood of the prosecution or others using your testimony against you.
Weiselberg is not even going to state his name infront of Merchan.
Trump could not call him, Bragg could not call him.
He was not testifying.
@John Say,
“ Merchan was recruted to force Weiselberg to Plead to perjury – there is only a single count.”
No, there were three counts of perjury. Merchan did not force Weisselberg to plead guilty. Weisselberg was caught perjuring himself. Blaming Merchan for Weisselberg’s own admission is a disingenuous attempt to shift blame on Merchan. Weisselberg committed multiple financial crimes and in addition perjury.
Puppet Watch:
Deliberate Babbling Bore Has An Agenda
Anonymous says:
May 27, 2024, 3:49 PM
The number of delibberate and intetnional lies by the dishonroable liar of this peiece are truly astounding. Michael Cohen is the sole witness even to-
……………………….
And on and on it goes, an epic-length comment that looks like it was written by a senior with poor eyesight.
No breaks for new paragraphs. Words are scrunched haphazardly. Poorly constructed sentences run-on or tail-off.
This comment isn’t meant to be read. Instead it is purposed to DISCOURAGE further reading! That’s the whole idea: ‘Turn the reader OFF’!!
And you can bet any money this comment was posted by Floyd Estovir. Who’s determined to control these threads no matter what it takes.
When people attack grammar and spelling – it pretty much means they have no actual argument.
Regardless, it is just another informal fallacy – like ad hominem.
I am not getting paid to post here. If you wish to pay me – I will decide if I am willing to take your money in return for better Grammar, spelling and fewer typos.
I have actually been published many times – including in ACM last year.
In those circumstances I put a great deal of effort into polishing my writing.
Regardless I get to decide what time and effort I am willing to put into posts here.
While you were not explicitly attacking me, your attacks are fallacy and ignorant.
That is true whether they are from the left or the right.
You control your own writing – no one else’s
You are NOT entitle to control the speach of others – not even their grammar.
You are NOT entitled to control the lives of others.
Speech.
Grammar provides the engineering for language. Language provides a vehicle for engaging with reality and with others. That is why the basics of knowledge are taught in grammar school.
Biden has completed short-term stump-speech training to further smear Trump should the NYC Jury deliver a guilty verdict.
Biden’s limited memory capacity is just long enough to recite the teleprompter cues. He does not remember anything about his past dealings with his son Hunter and brother James.
Experts say that he suffers from a 10% memory loss, and 10% memory retention span, which enables him to navigate the difficult 2024 campaign landscape.
Biden has stayed silent on Trump’s trial. The verdict will change that.
Biden will speak at some point after the verdict, whether it be a conviction, acquittal or hung jury.
By: Jonathan Lemire – POLITICO ~ May 24th 2024
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/24/biden-trump-trial-verdict-00159981
HAMMER: Democrats are stuck with Joe Biden as their presidential nominee
President Joe Biden is currently losing the 2024 presidential race to former President Donald Trump. If the election were held tomorrow, Trump would win — likely convincingly. The fact that this is increasingly obvious, and that Biden finds himself fighting an uphill battle to prolong his already ancient political career, has precipitated some epic handwringing on the MSNBC airwaves and a veritable five-alarm fire at the Democratic National Committee.
By: Josh Hammer – Columnists Toronto Sun ~ May 27, 2024
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/hammer-democrats-are-stuck-with-joe-biden-as-their-presidential-nominee
It would be so awesome if after the verdict, Trump booked Madison Square Garden for his next rally and filled it up.
Hopefully this sham trial ends with acquittal or hung jury worst case. If Bragg and Merchan manage to manufacture a conviction, is there an expedited appeal procedure available to Trump to overturn the abomination before the election ??