Below is my column in the New York Post on the closing arguments scheduled for today in the trial of former President Donald Trump. The column explores the key elements for a closing to bring clarity to the chaos of Judge Juan Merchan’s courtroom.
Here is the column:
With the closing arguments set for Tuesday in the trial of former president Donald Trump, defense counsel are in a rather curious position.
There is still debate among legal experts as to the specific crime that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is alleging.
Trump’s lawyers are defending a former president who is charged under a state misdemeanor which died years ago under the statute of limitations. It was then zapped back into life in the form of roughly three dozen felonies by claiming that bookkeeping violations — allegedly hiding payments to Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about a supposed affair with Trump — were committed to hide another crime.
But what is that second crime?
Even liberal legal analysts admitted that they could not figure out what was being alleged in Bragg’s indictment. Now, after weeks of trial, the situation has changed little.
Originally, Bragg referenced four possible crimes, though he is now claiming three: a tax violation or either a state or federal campaign financing violation. The last crime is particularly controversial because Bragg has no authority to enforce federal law and the Justice Department declined any criminal charge. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) did not even find grounds for a civil fine.
Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.
The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation.
This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime. The jury will be reminded that the burden is on the government, not the defense.
However, the presumption of innocence is often hard to discern in criminal cases. Most jurors believe that clients are sitting behind the defense table for a reason. That is why many prosecution offices have conviction rates in the 80%-90% range.
That presumption is even more difficult to discern when the defendant is named Trump and the jury sits in Manhattan.
Three-legged Stool
A classic closing pitch by lawyers is to use a physical object like a three-legged stool. If any leg is missing, the stool collapses.
In this case, the government needs to show that there was a falsification of business records, that the records were falsified to conceal another crime and that Donald Trump had the specific intent to use such “unlawful means” to influence the election.
Even a cursory review of the evidence shows this case does not have a leg to stand on.
The First Leg: Falsification of Records
The dead misdemeanor that is the foundation for this entire prosecution requires the falsification of business records. It is not clear that there was such falsification or that Trump has any knowledge or role in any falsification.
Witnesses testified that Trump would sign checks prepared by others and that the specific checks in this case were signed while Trump was serving as president. Some of these checks, labeled “legal expenses,” were allegedly for attorney Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels.
Most importantly, Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization’s retired controller and senior vice-president, testified that it was not Trump who designated these payments as “legal expenses.” Rather, the corporation used an “antiquated” drop-down menu where any payments to lawyers were designated “legal expenses.” There is a plausible reason why payments to an attorney were listed as legal expenses.
The government also cites the designation of payments to Cohen as part of his “retainer,” which included reimbursement for the payment of the Daniels non-disclosure agreement. However, that designation was the result of discussions between Cohen and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who is sitting in a jail cell in New York City. The government could have called Weisselberg, but did not.
The government has made a big deal over the fact that retainer agreements are supposed to have written contracts. However, that was the failure of Cohen, who was later disbarred as an attorney.
For a businessman like Weisselberg, monthly payments to an attorney could have seemed perfectly logical. Once again, there was no evidence that Trump knew of how the payments were denoted.
The Second Leg: The Secondary Crime
The government must also show that any falsification was done to further or conceal another crime.
This is where the defense needs to bring greater clarity to its own narrative. Trump’s team needs to drive home that a non-disclosure agreement is common in political, business and entertainment circles. The payment of money to quash a story before an election is neither unlawful nor unusual.
Indeed, Keith Davidson, Stormy Daniels’ attorney, described the NDA as routine and said that it was not hush money but a simple contractual transaction: “It wasn’t a payoff. It wasn’t hush money. It was consideration.”
This is where the testimony of David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Inquirer, was particularly damaging to the government.
Pecker detailed how killing such stories was a common practice at the National Inquirer and that he had done so for Trump for over a decade before he ran for president. He also killed stories for an impressive list of other celebrities, including Tiger Woods, Mark Wahlberg, Rahm Emanuel and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Merchan has allowed the jury to repeatedly hear of “election violations,” while blocking a legal expert to explain that there is no federal election law violation. The payment of hush money is not a campaign contribution and, again, the federal government not only declined to bring any criminal charge, but found no basis for even a civil fine.
Had he been allowed to testify, Bradley Smith, the former Federal Election Commission (FEC) chairman, would have explained that, even if it were a campaign contribution, it would not have been needed to be filed until after the election — demolishing the notion that this was an effort to influence an election that would have run before any filing had to be made.
The defense has to hammer away on the fact that no one has testified that it was a federal campaign violation.
Various witnesses, including former Trump aide Hope Hicks, testified that Trump was motivated to protect his family from embarrassment. She recounted how Trump even “wanted me to make sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence that morning.”
Pecker testified that he previously killed stories about Trump going back over a decade. That included stories that were demonstrably untrue, such as a claim of a doorman that he fathered a child out of wedlock.
In addition to being a married man, Trump was the host of a major television program subject to a scandal clause. He was also an international businessman. Given all of those interests, it is impossible to claim absolutely that the campaign was the reason for the NDA, which was chump change for a billionaire.
The Third Leg: Criminal intent
The government spent considerable time proving facts not in dispute. There is no dispute that there was a NDA or that Trump signed checks on these payments. It is like repeatedly telling a court that a driver drove 55 miles an hour down a highway and elected to change lanes with a signal. The intent is to convince the jury that somehow proving that an NDA was paid and that an affair occurred is proof of an offense. It is not.
The supervisor in charge of processing payments said that permission to cut Cohen’s checks came not from Trump, but from Weisselberg and McConney. Trump’s White House secretary, Madeleine Westerhout, testified that it was common for Trump to sign checks in the White House without reviewing them.
The entire basis for the alleged criminal intent is Michael Cohen, a disbarred lawyer and serial perjurer.
Yet even Cohen did not offer a clear basis for showing a criminal intent to use unlawful means to influence the election.
Everything Cohen described could be true and only show a desire to kill an embarrassing story before an election — again, not a crime.
Cohen described the mechanics on the payments, but the only person who discussed these payments in detail with Cohen was Weisselberg.
Even liberal experts on CNN admitted that Cohen was trashed on the stand. The only crime that was clearly established in this trial was the grand larceny that Cohen admitted to under oath (after the statute of limitations had run out). Cohen said that he stole tens of thousands from the Trump corporation, a crime far more serious than the dead misdemeanor or even the felonies alleged against Trump.
However, the most significant testimony by Cohen may be his latest alleged perjury in front of the jury.
Many of us guffawed when Cohen claimed that he secretly taped Trump to protect him and keep Pecker honest. No one can explain how that could possibly be true. If it were, he would have told Trump. There is nothing in the call that would have any impact on Pecker, and Cohen admitted to regularly taping others without telling them.
Another alleged perjury came with the key telephone call in which Cohen claimed Trump was informed that the Daniels deal was concluded. 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 clearly shows that the conversation was about a teenager harassing Cohen, not the NDA.
Other witnesses trashed Cohen as unprofessional, prone to exaggeration, bitter against Trump, at times suicidal over being denied positions like attorney general and simply “a jerk.” Hope Hicks, a former aide to Trump, said that Cohen “used to like to call himself Mister Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it.”
Those were the government’s witnesses.
Cohen’s lack of credibility and his admitted financial interest in attacking Trump only highlight again the absence of Weisselberg, whom Cohen references repeatedly as the key person making decisions on how these payments were made and described.
If what Cohen said was true, corroboration was sitting a car ride away in Rikers Island. Traffic may be bad but it is not that bad. The only reason not to call Weisselberg was that he would contradict Cohen.
The prosecution preferred to use a serial perjurer who roughly half of the country views as dishonest as almost the entirety of their case. Even beyond Weisselberg, there is no corroboration for Cohen’s vague allegations on the record.
In the end, this three-legged stool is the very thing that all of us must stand on when accused. Who on the jury would want to stand on this stool with their own liberty at stake?
In the end, the defense needs to be honest with these jurors. The question is whether hatred for this man is enough to ignore the obvious injustice in this case. They may have come to this case with little doubt about Donald Trump, but the question is whether there is not any reasonable doubt about the crimes alleged against him.
In the end, we are all standing on that wobbly stool when the government seeks to convict people without evidence or even a clear crime. If we allow a conviction, it is more than a stool that will collapse in this Manhattan courtroom.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
“Who on the jury would want to stand on this stool with their own liberty at stake?” (JT)
That’s pinning a lot of hope on a generation whose view of “tomorrow is: What’s for breakfast?
In a just legal system, a legless stool would make a conviction unreachable. But this is Biden’s banana republic and this Trump case is just that, 🍌.
Despite your acting as pseudo defense for trump to placate your base here, Turls…, there will be a conviction here within a couple days no matter how hard you hold your hands over your ears and chant ‘where’s the crime’?
Witnesses established that Trump micromanages everything, there’s a paper trail of a pay off scheme, election finance illegality by virtue of Cohen’s ‘donation’ after he remortgaged his house and exceeded the personal political donation limits, and trump on tape discussing the pay off scheme with Cohen.
Of course Cohen stole from trump org…, trump org writ large was driven by theft and fraud. As to Cohen’s lies, he worked as trump’s lawyer for a decade and lying/intimidation/fraud was part of his job description. Trump needed that pay off scheme to not get booted off the R ticket in ’16.
And Costello’s ‘testimony’ just drove home the point that Cohen is the most reliable in trump’s pack of liars.
Not only will there be a conviction…, it will come quickly. The jury will buy into Cohen’s redemption path long before siding with trump’s endless corruption. Unlike you, Turls.
The fact- fact- that nothing Trump did is illegal I guess doesn’t matter,
It’s been an interesting ride seeing the trumpist right just fall into a state of outright denial as a legal strategy for trump. Have fun with it.
Clearly deluded ravings meant only to antagonize the readers. Not a serious comment.
As I said before. if you don’t place a $1k wager and report to us the odds you received and the wager #. then you are simply a loud mouthed coward.
Go to Gamblers Anonymous, bruh.
And, oh yeah, I don’t GAF what you think.
Of course you don’t GAF, foul mouth, because you are not a serious commenter.
But your response proves my point, you don’t really believe a word you said. If you did, why wouldn’t you take the opportunity to score a huge payday?
Interesting, that you see an addict in everything…is that common among alcoholics?
If you realize I don’t GAF about your opinion, why does the tin foil hat tell you my goal in commenting is to antagonize magat readers? You’re not making sense.
you don’t GAF, and your goal is to antagonize. If it were for enlightened discussion, you would GAF about the replies. makes perfect sense.
the fact you wont admit it makes you both a liar and a coward.
you have in fact said in the past that you love to stir up the magats. no tin foil hat required. Even your foul mouthed replies and use of the non word “magat” clearly demonstrates your purpose. You should know, denial is part of the 12 steps.
you address your comments to “Turls”, as though he reads them. More evidence of your “goal”.
Ha! Just because I’m entertained at how juvenile and sensitive you magats are doesn’t mean I GAF about what you think. And, it’s never not hilarious to me you don’t like the term ‘magat’. Stands for make America great again trumper…, taken from your own lexicon. You guys like being called Maga but not magat. Totally hilarious…, especially since you loved when you misappropriated HRC’s ‘deplorable’ comment.
Side bar: the word “denial” in fact doesn’t appear in the 12 steps. Ways and methods of puncturing denial are implied and highlighted…, but no use of the word denial itself. Of course you’d know that if you weren’t deluded to the degree you are. But so it goes.
, there’s a paper trail of a pay off scheme
NDA’s are 100% legal
Not with falsified records they’re not. I’ve signed a bunch of NDA’s in my work…, absolutely none of them played out like this in even the remotest way….
But, on the other hand, you’ll need something to chant obsessively as you’re in a state of shock from the quick guilty verdict and I suppose you have your mantra for it. Hopefully you’ll be able check into reality after. Kinda doubt it though.
NDA’s in the lawn mowing business…highly doubtful.
Worked as a writer in film and TV after injuries took me out of stone work. NDA’s are standard fare when one works on collaborative projects, which every project is in that business.
Doubt it, but it would explain the proclivity for living in fantasyland.
Outright denial seems to the ‘pony’ in your one trick pony existence doesn’t it?
Not with falsified records they’re not.
Paying a lawyers invoice and denoting it as legal expense is not falsifying a record. Plus DJT is not the one to classify the expense.
@Iowan2,
“Paying a lawyers invoice and denoting it as legal expense is not falsifying a record.”
It is when the purpose of the payments are not legal expenses. Cohen stated they were not.
The prosecution just refuted the claim that Trump had no knowledge of the scheme. Thats not good news for Trump.
@Iowan2,
There was more than just an NDA. Business records, checks, texts, and witness testimony.
+100
Witnesses established that Trump micromanages everything,
That’s your lie. The witnesses testified they indeed did wittnes, events in the Past demonstrating DJT’s attention to detail and his insistence on his approval.
Those same wittnesess admitted they personally saw ZERO influence by DJT as to the Accounting procedures employed when recording the Paying of his Lawyers invoices and denoting them as legal expenses. Those witnesess testified they used NORMAL accounting parameters.
Oh my…, the Kool aid is strong. Who says full on delusion can’t be fun. Party on!!
^^^^Kool Aid spiked with Jim Beam
I guess if you really cared about making a solid rhetorical point you’d have long ago realized that trying to project your drinking habits on to someone who has been sober more than 40 years is a tactic fully rooted in diminished returns. Not that you’d be able to realize this on your own…, so I’m just helping you out. Part of an active sober life involves helping the ignorant become just a little less ignorant after all.
Some of us can drink and remain sober. Weak minded people, or those who are disturbed by other fantasies, cannot. You fall into the latter category.
Neurons do not regenerate and are never replaced. There is significant evidence from your ravings here, that the damage was done, some 40 years ago.
Thanks for the help in understanding your delusions.
Party on
^^^ Sober less than 40 minutes.
@Iowan2,
“That’s your lie. The witnesses testified they indeed did wittnes, events in the Past demonstrating DJT’s attention to detail and his insistence on his approval.”
That attention to detail and insistence on his approval is micromanaging. If he’s so attentive to detail then he knew what the payments were for. You just undermined your own argument.
+100
You just undermined your own argument.
No. I have a habit of taking the dog out every morning at 5:30. Lots of people will testify to it.
But unless the testify the saw me Sunday morning, There is zero evidence I did walk my dog Sunday morning.
While DJT attention to detail was testified to, There is zero testimony he took any interest in these particular events.
@iowan2,
No, you literally undermined your own argument. Circling back to an irrelevant anecdote is not going to save you.
The prosecution just rebutted your argument a few minutes ago with evidence shown in the trial.
Seems to me, one leg of the stool is shorter than the other two.
The second one has wood rot.
And the third one’s glue that held it in place has crumbled.
That is the prosecutions stool.
The defense needs to point that out.
It is indeed strange the emotions that Trump seems to stir in Democratic Hearts. Many years ago when he was a Democrat and just a business man and TV star he had a lot of favorable press, admiration or just plain tolerance by the left but once he ran for office that all changed. There were film stars and other politicians and sports figures that were disliked and detested but none seemed to rise to the level of Trump as soon as he announced his candidacy. At first when the media sensed no real threat he was treated as a phenomenon and then as he drew closer claws started coming out and fangs were bared and not just to threaten but acting almost like unreasoning, rabid dogs.
Maybe it was the fact that the celestial being that was Barack Obama was now going to have to leave office. He was so pure, and right and honest (gag). And now we were back to just politicians (cringe) as the force of light gradually moved off the stage (or did he).
One has to wonder what apple cart Trump really turned over when he was elected. I still don’t think we have the full answer about what the Dims really planned with HRC. It must have been something truly stupendous by the reactions we have seen since 2016. I have known for decades that DC always tilted left but it seems that there were attempts, imperfectly seen, to make for a permanent Democratic Administration (the people be damned) Obama more than once admitted his goal was to “destroy the Republican Party”.
Maybe we can only hope that he, in fact, destroys his own party instead.
I place most of this at Obama’s feet. A first rate politician but nowhere near the student of history that Bill Clinton was. Or even Ronald Reagan.
If Trump wins, I hope he creates a desert in DC and calls it victory (I want no peace till then)
Geb,
As you indicate, Trump was one of the Elite and often lauded; he was the Playboy Billionaire (naughty, but boys will be boys), the successful businessman, the supporter of all the right causes – e.g., black businesses and communities, Democrats like Bill Clinton. Literally within hours of announcing his candidacy, the media began condemning him as a sexual predator, failed businessman, and racist. I think the unforgivable crime Trump committed was becoming a “traitor” to his class by running against the Elite’s interests and right to rule, aka “Draining the Swamp”. Running as a Republican was secondary, there are after all “tame” Republicans e.g., Bloomberg, who they tolerate.
George.
What action, taken by Trump is the “the crime”
@Iowan2,
He conspired with Cohen by providing falsified business records to hide the nature of the reimbursements to Cohen.
Misdemeanor
Next
No, felony. The charges are falsifying business records in the first degree. Thats a felony under NY law.
Yep. But what you described is not.
Next
Ok Mr Pedant.
What action taken by DJT falsified what record
@Iowan2,
Signing the checks. He conspired to falsify. He knew he was paying Cohen back for Cohen’s payments to Daniels. You said Trump pays attention to detail.
George – why shouldn’t he pay back his lawyer for expenses spent on resolving a legal problem?
Trump has historically high support from African Americans, at around 25%, better than any other Republican in 60 years. If he’s convicted that support will shoot up even further. It’s not very difficult to see why.
If the Jury was not sequestered during the weekend I wonder if Trump’s rants on truth social were known to the jury?
Trump falling asleep in court was notable. The disrespectful behavior from Costello clearly would have an impact. There are a lot of things going against Trump that are his own fault. Turley continues to ignore Costello’s performance. He did not help the defense with his antics and contempt towards the judge.
Yesterday, George made the claim that a jury would place more stock in the calm recitation of the murderers “alibi” than it would in the DNA found on the murder weapon.
He doubles down daily on his rantings that a jury is nothing more than a high school popularity contest
Juries pay attention to behavior. Not just what they say. Thats why it’s important not to lose your cool on the stand. Costello’s performance undermined what he had to say. Juries are mindful of attitude and behavior on the stand.
Juries pay attention to behavior just as much as evidence.
This has to be the most ignorant statement ever uttered here. Do you really think that a murderers calm recitation of his “alibi” would get as much of the jury’s attention as his DNA on the murder weapon??? Yikes! I wouldn’t want you on my jury.
Cohen remained consistent, cool and collected
Just like he did every other time he has lied under oath. That’s what pathological liars do. Wowsa, you can’t be this dumb, can you??
If you’d like to place a grand in escrow, we can make a wager on the outcome.
@Dave,
Behavior including willful admission that he lied is going to be a factor.
Juries don’t just focus on what is said. They pay attention to behavior. That’s why Blanche was trying hard to provoke Cohen to react when he was on the stand.
You obviously never been in a jury.
I have been on several juries and also served briefly as a magistrate. I find your legal commentary to be juvenile and rudimentary at best.
He admitted no such thing, but nice try.
How about that wager? You are so certain. Turn that certainty into gold.
The New York Bar Association should make an immediate investigation of this Trial.
It lacks ‘Ethics’ in taking Everybody (The Nation) along for the ride. (It Stinks!)
The single fact that the Prosecutor is coaxing the Jury by inducement of distorted and fabricated cause to collude for a political agenda is unethical,
and reason enough to investigate and to impose discipline.
Politically Motivated and Self Serving ($) damage to the Public and the BAR’s integrity itself.
The time the jury is out will tell the story. I expect they will walk into the jury room, vote guilty cuz they hate the guy, and be back in 5 minutes. Case made for hate over justice.
Well said
Putin has been captured by a little girl!
I guess Turley has an incentive to write a column in which he assumes (or pretends to assume) that the justice system in NYC remains capable of delivering actual justice. If true, that burden rests entirely on the members of the jury. I think those jurors, for better or worse, have probably already made up their minds; I very much doubt that any closing arguments by either side will have a significant effect on that. The prosecution has done everything that it could to taint that jury; the judge has not only failed to reign in that behavior by the prosecution, but has aided and abetted it, and added his own taint. I think it comes down to whether the jurors. have enough intelligence to grasp how the court has attempted to manipulate them, and the pride and integrity to resist. I’m not very optimistic about that.
Nice column. I hope Trump’s attorneys read it.
It won’t matter. Trump wants his lawyers to do what HE wants regardless of their advice.
All involved in this Trial except Trump are milking it for all it’s worth ($$$).
Trump got Grifted,
Trump got Politically Played,
Trump got Personally Impacted (Family).
Trump has paid-in-full for the:
Most Expensive One-Night Stand EVER!
Time to move on and let it go
JUDGE MERCHAN is running a very BIASED KANGROO Court- All Legal principles, history, Actual Law etc have been thrown out. Judge Merchan is the Chief Prosecutor in Chief, while his family Profits and his daughter’s husband now works for the Biden Admin. They do not care about the Rule of Law. These Radical Left DEMS. have ruined the NY Legal system All the World sees it, even BBC calls it a JOKE.
No sale. They’ve been enforcing this statute for 35 yers, and general criminal intent has been good enough. Why should that change now?
George: You are precisely the reason this case was started in the first place. Visceral bias is never a good reason for using the criminal justice system to attack someone you dislike. Your litany of alleged offenses is devoid of an actual crime. Dirt is not a crime. Hurling insults is not a crime. Being a “serial liar and well-known fraudster could be a crime – provided, that is, that such conduct furthered the commission of one. But, alas, you like the NY prosecutor have failed to identify a crime. You are both moralists and should consider a career in the clergy. Law is not your strong suit. Thank you for reminding us that there’s no there there.
@Jjc,
The crime,
“against- DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendant. THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization. ”
34 counts.
The crime is falsifying business records in the first degree.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549
“Falsifying business records in the first degree is, basically, a situation where someone commits the misdemeanor offense of falsifying business records in the second degree in order to hide the fact that they also committed a different crime or to avoid being caught while committing a different crime. Intent is a question of a mental state, or conscious beliefs, held by someone when they are said to have committed an offense. Intent does not require premeditation and does not require advance planning. It is not necessary that the intent was in a person’s mind for any particular period of time.”
That’s the crime.
That’s a crime, the witnesses called by the Prosecution, pointed out DJT never influenced in any way.
The records were generated by Proffesional CPA’s, and accountants, using GAPP methods. Paying a lawyer’s invoice and denoting the payment as a legal expense, is the Determination of people, not named Donald J Trump.
POOF all 34 counts disappear.
@iowan2,
No, the problem lies in the fact that Trump signed checks knowing what they were for and being categorized for something else. His own accountants stated for the record that Trump personally approves anything over $10,000 before being disbursed.
He knew what those payments were for and were falsely categorized as payment for something else. Thats the crime. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. He signed the checks. By signing them under the false categorization he submitted a false business record.
“No, the problem lies in the fact that Trump signed checks knowing what they were for and being categorized for something else.”
New George, it’s crucial to reiterate that there’s no evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing. His responsibility in signing checks is limited to the dollar payment made to another. We can’t assume what he knows or doesn’t know from the check. It’s essential to focus on Trump’s actions, not the actions of others. Rest assured, all of Trump’s actions were within the bounds of the law, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
If you’re concerned about the subclassifications in the check register, it’s more productive to question those who developed the program or the accountants. However, it’s essential first to identify that there was no wrongdoing. Trump is not responsible for his lawyer’s legal advice or his accountant’s use of a check-writing program. Cohen’s payment to Daniels was a legal expense, covering his fees and costs. The subclassifications used by the accountants were likewise legal. It is your job to prove your case.
@S. Meyer,
“New George, it’s crucial to reiterate that there’s no evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing.”
Yes, there is. Prosecution introduced evidence in the form of checks and other documents. They produced witnesses attesting to the authenticity of the documents and the process required to approve them.
Trump signed the checks. He knew what they were for. He micromanages everything and that requires knowledge of exactly what those payments were for.
When you sign a check you are acknowledging that you know what the money is for. Submitting checks with false information is a crime. Trump does not sign checks unless he knows what they are for. That was shown in court.
No. The “sub-classification” was not legal. That’s why Trump is in court.
Submitting checks with false information is a crime.
You’re just making stuff up. These were checks drawn on personal accounts. The only information required are , date, payee, amount, signature. Any other infomation is legally meaningless
I can buy a new car, $60k and lable it medical expense. That is not a crime.
@Iowan2,
“I can buy a new car, $60k and lable it medical expense. That is not a crime.”
No, you can’t. Because you’re still putting false information on a business document. You didn’t pay for a medical expense. You paid for a car. If the state or bank sees you put a car as a medical expense on your financial records. If the state chooses to prosecute you for the false description they can. Because it’s not true.
It is indeed a crime.
Wrong George cite the law.
making stuff up just identifies you as a meaningless troll
@Iowan2,
You’re writing a false statement on a check that a car is a medical expense. Thats a crime. Because the bank will have a copy of that check and so will the dealer. That’s a falsified record under the law.
“Making or causing a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
Altering, erasing, obliterating, deleting, removing or destroying a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or
Preventing the making of a true entry or causing the omission of one in the business records of an enterprise”
https://www.acfe.com/acfe-insights-blog/blog-detail?s=falsifying-business-records-federal-regulations-and-state-laws#:~:text=Intent%20to%20defraud%20in%20the,records%20of%20an%20enterprise%3B%20or
The majority of states have laws
criminalizing falsification of records. It’s certain that it’s illegal in your state.
“Falsified business documents can be an indication of a larger fraud, even if the falsification is considered small. Just an adjustment to the wording of an entry or the difference of timing can cause changes that misrepresent an organization’s position. Even with the best intent, falsifying does more harm than good. Business documents and records serve a purpose and must be kept accurately. “
He knew what they were for.
Now we get to the exciting part of the Game Show.
Name that Wittness!
The clock is counting down, the constestent George is in the Hot Box . . . Can he NAME THAT WITTNESS!
@Iowan2,
Cohen.
Cohen, the pathological serial liar.
Fixed that for you, George
He’s still a witness. He’s party to he scheme.
An unreliable witness with an axe to grind. THESE are the things a jury pays attention to. Not how “calm” a pathological liar remains while he perjures himself.
OHH! So close! accept your parting gifts on the way out, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Cohen “testimony” NEVER touched on the Accounting of the Invoices he submitted to DJT
Cohen was not privy to the accounting office of DJT.
How can Cohen testify to the falsification, when he was involved in the accounting
@Iowan2,
“How can Cohen testify to the falsification, when he was involved in the accounting”
Because he conspired with Trump to hide the purpose of the payments. They both knew why those payments were made and why they hid their purpose. Cohen directly admitted the invoices were false.
“Yes, there is. Prosecution introduced evidence in the form of checks and other documents.”
New George, how does the check prove anything? You are short on facts and too long on copy and paste. It proves only that he is paying money to another party. The rest of your claim is based on mind reading.
What “other documents” Again you are short on facts and do not know what you are talking about.
“They produced witnesses attesting to the authenticity of the documents and the process required to approve them.”
What crime did any witness attest to except the convicted perjurer, Michael Cohen. You lack facts and have near zero understanding of the rule of law.you.
“Trump signed the checks. He knew what they were for. “
Yes, Trump signed a check to Micael Cohen for fees and costs. That is normal for everyone in America but you.
“He micromanages everything and that requires knowledge of exactly what those payments were for.”
Lacking evidence, you are mind reading and foolishly think such statements represent proof.
“When you sign a check you are acknowledging that you know what the money is for.”
False, unless you are including your ability to mind read.
“Submitting checks with false information is a crime.”
What “false information” was written on the check? Nothing. Again you are making things up.
“Trump does not sign checks unless he knows what they are for.”
Mind reading. Trump doesn’t necessarily know the particulars of any one check. You are building a case based on your fantasies and lack of knowledge.
“That was shown in court.”
Tell us how that was shown in court. Don’t quote Michael Cohen who is a convicted perjurer. You act as if you have no business acumen.
“No. The “sub-classification” was not legal.”
What law did it break? The CPA accepted the accounting method. Blame the CPA. There was nothing wrong.
“That’s why Trump is in court.”
Wrong again. Trump is in court because of political mischief.
@S. Meyer,
“Yes, Trump signed a check to Micael Cohen for fees and costs. That is normal for everyone in America but you.”
He signed checks stating one purpose while the payments were for another. That’s falsifying a document. That’s the crime. By signing he submitted a business document with false information.
“What “false information” was written on the check? Nothing. Again you are making things up.”
You obviously have not paid attention to the testimony and evidence presented at trial.
“Trump does not sign checks unless he knows what they are for.”
Mind reading. Trump doesn’t necessarily know the particulars of any one check.”
No mind reading required. This was demonstrated in court. That’s how I know. Because I paid attention, you certainly did not.
“That was shown in court.”
Tell us how that was shown in court. Don’t quote Michael Cohen who is a convicted perjurer. ”
Cohen testified under oath. If he committed perjury then let the defense call it out. But they have not. Testimony in court is valid until it’s challenged or reversed on appeal.
“No. The “sub-classification” was not legal.”
What law did it break? ”
NY statute. 175.10.
“He signed checks stating one purpose while the payments were for another. ”
New George, Trump signed a check to pay Michael Cohen. What on the check demonstrated an illegal act? Again, you won’t answer.
“That’s falsifying a document. That’s the crime. ”
The check is not a falsified document. You need to realize that the check is a document but not the one under question. You don’t know what you are talking about.
A check was written to Michael Cohen and signed by Trump. What was falsified?
” By signing he submitted a business document with false information.”
What information on the check was false information? Do you also need help adding 2+2?
“You obviously have not paid attention”
What “false information” was written on the check? Nothing. Again, you are making things up. Your proof rests on a convicted perjurer and your lack of ability to mind-read.
“No mind reading required. This was demonstrated in court. That’s how I know. Because I paid attention, you certainly did not.”
You paid attention? Prove it with the facts. Again, you will tell us how you pay attention but don’t. If you did, you would provide the details. You can’t!
I said, “Tell us how that was shown in court,” your response relies solely on a convicted perjurer. You said, “Cohen testified under oath.” Thank you for telling us that there is no need to listen to anything you say. What you say is ridiculous!
” Testimony in court is valid until it’s challenged or reversed on appeal.”
You need clarification on the meaning of words. Testimony might be valid testimony, but that doesn’t mean it is the truth. Being called a perjurer and demonstrating a witness’s lies challenges the truth of what is said.
“NY statute. 175.10.”
What law did the signed check break?
You don’t directly respond to the questions and can only rely on cut and paste. That is the sign of an uninformed person.
@S. Meyer,
“New George, Trump signed a check to pay Michael Cohen. What on the check demonstrated an illegal act? Again, you won’t answer”
I’ve pointed out multiple times. Your inability to follow a thread or discussion is beyond my control. Only you can correct that issue by reviewing the comments.
It’s abundantly clear you do not possess the mental acuity to follow and hold a rational discussion. Your attempts at an argument end up in a tortured circular argument.
“I’ve pointed out multiple times.”
New George, while you’ve mentioned your points several times, it’s crucial to emphasize the importance of providing evidence to support them. Your deflections, copy-pasting, mind-reading, and fictional narratives confuse the discussion. Focusing on substantiated claims can significantly enhance your critical thinking skills and contribute more effectively to the debate. It would be best if you got up to speed on this. Considering this and refraining from making unsubstantiated claims would greatly benefit your contributions presently existing only in the lowest form.
@S. Meyer,
“New George, while you’ve mentioned your points several times, it’s crucial to emphasize the importance of providing evidence to support them. ”
Oh, so you do acknowledge that I have provided what you accuse me of not providing. It’s clear that you’re projecting into me your own failure to understand the issue.
You’re not worth having a discussion with. All you offer is constant circular arguments and projection.
“Oh, so you do acknowledge that I have provided what you accuse me of not providing.”
New George, your points were not factual lbut rather erroneous, untrue, or mere opinions. They hold no validity. It’s important to note that a serial perjurer’s words are not to be trusted. Similarly, mindreading cannot be considered as proof, and the opinion of someone who lacks understanding of what evidence is, holds no value.
You are very obstinate. Obstinacy and stupidity are a dangerous combination.
knowing what they were for and being categorized for something else
EVIDENCE, George. We have had all the witnesses, all the evidence submitted.
There is NO EVIDENCE, of what DJT knew or did not know.
Crimes require actions. Name the action of DJT falsifying anything
@Iowan2,
“EVIDENCE, George. We have had all the witnesses, all the evidence submitted.
There is NO EVIDENCE, of what DJT knew or did not know.”
Yes there is. If you followed the trial you would know.
The action was Trump signing the checks and the phone calls, texts to Cohen and Weisselberg.
By signing the checks he is party to the falsification of the documents.
George has Just roven DJT committed no crime.
[The action was Trump signing the checks and the phone calls, texts to Cohen and Weisselberg.]
Those actions are not crimes
@Iowan2,
You asked what actions. Signing the checks is an action. Engaging in conversations about it are actions. The actions led to the commitment of the crimes he’s being charged with.
Please recite verbatim, the texts from Trump to Cohen
You’ve been asked before to provide them, and never do.
And once again, George runs and hides.
@anonymous,
No running or hiding. You can find the transcripts of the testimony online. I’m sure you’re capable of finding out for yourself.
curious george the muppet monkey is digging deeper everytime he spews jism tainted nonsense.
They were legal expenses and were categorized as “legal expenses”.
@edwardmahl,
They were not. The defense inadvertently acknowledged they were reimbursements when they called out Cohen for stealing from Trump.
CPA here. No sale. No testimony wrt “mistake.” Reimbursing a capo for an NDA payment is not a § 162 expense.
CPA, controller, and CFO here. You are wrong.
Disagree. As I learned in my GradTax program, always start with the Code. §162(a): “There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business…”
First, the NDA in this case is not a business expense, as it had nothing to do with the business. Second, the 1099 was for $420K, and none of it was classified as a reimbursement. The vouchers were also silent. They are saying that it is all for legal services (Trump admitted publicly that it wasn’t), which is tax fraud.
I would have told that cheap mofo to just PAY THE LADY. Take the money out as a draw, put it in a Nevada corp, cut the check, and fuggitaboutit! No one would ever figure it out, and he didn’t need the deduction.
How can a payment from a personal account be a business expense?
CPA here. No sale.
Great if it was denoted wrong, what is the correct determination? Accounting experts are at a loss as to the “correct” category.
When you are retained by a professional, s/he sometimes spends money on your behalf. WRT an attorney, those expenses are separately stated. The invoice should show: Services rendered: $240K, expenses (detail): $180K, and the expenses are booked accordingly. If it was for personal services rendered to the CEO, it should never hit the business books at all.
The invoices were not itemized.
You keep chasing Trump, but you always catch Cohen.
JJC,
As always, I look forward to your legal analysis.
Thank you.
George, you are obviously not a lawyer and also seem to have little understanding of the case. It would be recommendable for you not to file comments, because they display only your ignorance.
@DoubleDutch,
Your disagreement is noted. Denied.
“ The supervisor in charge of processing payments said that permission to cut Cohen’s checks came not from Trump, but from Weisselberg and McConney. Trump’s White House secretary, Madeleine Westerhout, testified that it was common for Trump to sign checks in the White House without reviewing them.”
But….the prosecution also produced a witness testifying to the fact that only Trump approved of any expenditures above $10,000 personally and often wrote “VOID” on checks he did not approve. It showed Trump was indeed aware of what the expenditures were for. Trump micromanages everything. He doesn’t just let others do what they think is best. He has to have control. He tells his lawyers what to do against their advice all the time. He likes to be in control. Weisselberg wouldn’t do anything without Trump’s approval. That is what the prosecution showed to the jury. Thats why the defense and Turley spend so much time focusing on discrediting Cohen. Because Cohen corroborated that portrayal of Trump.
But….the prosecution also produced a witness testifying to the fact that only Trump approved of any expenditures above $10,000 personally and often wrote “VOID” on checks he did not approve.
That gets no where close to PROVING beyond a reasonable doubt, That DJT was involved in any manner the circumstances surrounding payments he signed.
The LAW requires Prosecution PROVE their claim. NO witnesses testified to provide that PROOF
@Iowan2,
That’s just ONE piece of evidence among many others including corroborating witnesses. Trump’s own accountants testified in court how and why Trump signs off a checks greater than $10,000. They demonstrated how big of a cheapskate Trump is by noting how much control he has over expenditures. He was involved. He micromanages everything. That’s why Weisselberg and Cohen went to prison. Because they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.
“Thats why the defense and Turley spend so much time focusing on discrediting Cohen. Because Cohen corroborated that portrayal of Trump.”
LOL! New George, don’t you think the time was spent because Cohen is a proven perjurer? You lose all credibility with this type of statement. You need to be able to organize your thoughts. The first thought should be that Cohen is a perjurer, so his testimony is untrustworthy and cannot stand alone.
@S. Meyer,
Weisselberg also pleaded guilty for perjury. Meaning Trump likes liars working for him. Because they are just like him.
Cohens Testimony is corroborated by the documentation introduced by the prosecution.
Admitting freely that he has lied in the past for Trump gives him enough credibility for the jury to consider. Costello did not.
“Weisselberg also pleaded guilty for perjury.”
New George Weisselberg pleaded guilty because he faced even more of this nonsense and did something that wasn’t correct but commonly done. He was Trump’s CEO, so the feds would go nonstop spending outrageous amounts of money. We have seen this before: Howard Root, Michael Singer and many more. The former has a video, and the latter a book. Both prevailed at tremendous cost, knowing the prosecutors broke the public’s trust.
One can ask why the prosecution didn’t get Weisselberg to testify. They could have forced him by giving him immunity. The prosecution didn’t do that and left a serial and convicted perjurer without any cooperating testimony. I don’t think reasonable testimony could have created by the prosecution because Trump did nothing wrong.
You can’t even mention the crime Trump is supposed to have committed. You copy and paste a statement that makes no sense and lacks any evidence except for the statements of a lying convicted perjurer. You have a strange idea of justice, and though it is likely you know little about Beria, you are a prime example of an individual foolish enough to follow in his footsteps.
“Cohens Testimony is corroborated by the documentation introduced by the prosecution.”
You say this, so you must know what the documentation is. Provide it. You can’t because it proves nothing. The type of evidence provided can only turn thin minds.
“Admitting freely that he has lied in the past for Trump gives him enough credibility for the jury to consider. Costello did not.”
Cohen’s continuous history of lying undermines any credibility his testimony might have, making it difficult to accept anything he says as the truth.
You are arguing for the sake of argument to defend a repugnant ideology.
@S. Meyer,
“New George Weisselberg pleaded guilty because he faced even more of this nonsense and did something that wasn’t correct but commonly done. He was Trump’s CEO,”
Yes, he did something that was not correct. It was illegal. He’s not the CEO, he’s the CFO. Shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“You can’t even mention the crime Trump is supposed to have committed. You copy and paste a statement that makes no sense and lacks any evidence except for the statements of a lying convicted perjurer.”
I posted the actual charges against him. It makes no sense to you because you don’t seem to have the mental acuity to understand what you’re reading. It’s pretty obvious.
You’re making an argument from ignorance.
Yes, he did something that was not correct. It was illegal. He’s not the CEO, he’s the CFO. Shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
That is known as a slip and the only evidence you have to prove that you can read. I expect you will use this evidence to prove Trump’s guilt. It is no worse than any of the other evidence you used to date.
“I posted the actual charges against him.”
Yes, you copied and pasted because you don’t understand the charges are meaningless and do not make sense. We already know that and we know that you rely on copy and past because of your lack of knowledge.
Go ahead and break down the statement you copied and element by element provide the proof to prove each element. You won’t do that because you can’t. You are lost unable to make sense out of anything.
@S. Meyer,
“That is known as a slip and the only evidence you have to prove that you can read”.
No, that is known as ignorance. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
It’s clear you don’t understand at all what you’re trying to argue.
You make no sense.
New George that is your fantasy. It comes from an individual who doesn’t understand the rule of law and thinks a defendant has to prove himself innocent. You think a convicted perjurer is a great witness. You believe in mind reading rather than fact. You copy and paste because you don’t know what the text means. You refuse to provide truth and evidence. The so-called evidence you provide isn’t evidence. You are obstinate and not very smart.
@S. Meyer,
“You believe in mind reading rather than fact.”
Then you proceed to say this,
“It comes from an individual who doesn’t understand the rule of law and thinks a defendant has to prove himself innocent. You think a convicted perjurer is a great witness.”
When you resort to projecting your own shortcomings and flaws on others you already lost the argument.
New George, I am not the one who makes claims he cannot defend. Your truth arises solely from a convicted perjurer. The rest are isolated facts that you put together through mind-reading.
Ignorance is why you would convict Trump. Try providing proof!
“ There is still debate among legal experts as to the specific crime that District Attorney Alvin Bragg is alleging.”
No, there isn’t. Manufacturing “debate” to sow doubt is not a debate.
The indictment spells out the crime quite clearly. The SOL is not at issue. If it was the Trump defense team has not brought it up in court. Will they bring it up in closing arguments? Doubt it. Because it’s not an issue.
“ Trump’s White House secretary, Madeleine Westerhout, testified that it was common for Trump to sign checks in the White House without reviewing them.”
What is that saying, “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.”
Turley argues the equivalent of “I didn’t break the speed limit because I was not aware of the signs”. Every lawyer knows that’s not gonna fly in any court.
“ The prosecution preferred to use a serial perjurer who roughly half of the country views as dishonest as almost the entirety of their case. Even beyond Weisselberg, there is no corroboration for Cohen’s vague allegations on the record.”
That’s not all the jury is going to consider. His behavior on the stand compared to Costello and the fact that this isn’t about Cohen, but Trump who is also a serial liar and well known fraudster. Cohen AND Weisselberg have committed perjury for Trump and his organization. He hired them because they are willing to do that for him.
The defense is going to have a hard time arguing that Trump had no knowledge of all this. The jury will be attacked if they find Trump guilty.
Turley’s last desperate attempt to paint Trump as a victim may fall short after closing arguments.
“The defense is going to have a hard time arguing that Trump had no knowledge of all this.”
New George, you are proving yourself ignorant of the law. It is the prosecutors job to prove Trump had knowledge. You live in a world where men are guilty until proven innocent.