Opening Statements in Trump's First Election Interference Case

[NWRatCon]

Any predictions? I think there will be heavy emphasis on the purpose of the scheme rather than the nature of the sleaze. Hush money was the method, not the purpose.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I agree. I think it will be all about falsifying business records, and very little about the **** sucking. As it should be.

 

[Mycroft]

Any predictions? I think there will be heavy emphasis on the purpose of the scheme rather than the nature of the sleaze. Hush money was the method, not the purpose.

Opening Statements in Trump's First Election Interference Case​

Election interference? According to the media, this is about hush money. Oh, wait...that's not right. It's campaign finance violations. That's according to Cohen, right? According to Ginger Ale, it's about falsifying business records.

Predictions? I predict there will be a lot of shit thrown against the wall in the hopes that SOMETHING sticks.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Any predictions? I think there will be heavy emphasis on the purpose of the scheme rather than the nature of the sleaze. Hush money was the method, not the purpose.

What I'm afraid of is that the DA will make the focus of the case "election interference" instead of Cohen's established fact of criminal campaign fraud.

IMHO - "Election Interference" opens up to much wiggle room. Keep the focus on how New York State business records were falsified (misdemeanor) and why Cohen's felony convict was the enhancement crime that FPOTUS#45 was scheming to hide/aid in. Many will question (to the detriment of the case) "Is it election interference for a candidate to want negative information not to come out?" and that muddies the waters.

Show how FPOTUS#45 falsified documents, show how he improperly arranged for "Attorney's Fees" (tax deducible) through a business instead of paying directly from personal accounts (non-tax deductible) or through the business as a non-tax deductible expense. The paper trail that FPOTUS#45 cheated on taxes? That's a no brainer, the Trump Organization and it's CFO were already convicted of that very action.

WW

 

[NWRatCon]

IMHO - "Election Interference" opens up to much wiggle room. Keep the focus on how New Yorkgree State business records were falsified (misdemeanor) and why Cohen's felony convict was the enhancement crime that FPOTUS#45 was scheming to hide/aid in. Many will question (to the detriment of the case) "Is it election interference for a candidate to want negative information not to come out?" and that muddies the waters.

Show how FPOTUS#45 falsified documents, show how he improperly arranged for "Attorney's Fees" (tax deducible) through a business instead of paying directly from personal accounts (non-tax deductible) or through the business as a non-tax deductible expense. The paper trail that FPOTUS#45 cheated on taxes? That's a no brainer, the Trump Organization and it's CFO were already convicted of that very action.

WW

Here's two people who agree with you: me and the author. It's how I think the Opening Statements will go:

Opinion: I’ve been a criminal attorney for decades. Here’s what I think about the case against Trump (CNN)​

 

[Callen]

Will be interesting to see how the prosecution sets things up and how the defense counters it. Anyone know whether the prosecution must give the defense an advance copy of their opening statements?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Will be interesting to see how the prosecution sets things up and how the defense counters it. Anyone know whether the prosecution must give the defense an advance copy of their opening statements?

I doubt it.

Both sides are required to present to the court their witness lists and evidence.

Neither side is required to provide details of strategy.

WW

 

[PoliSciPulse]

They're going to have to mention Stormy so the jury understands -why- the records were falsified. But yeah, defense lawyers will probably focus more on the alleged affair as a distraction, hoping to elicit more of a "lucky guy" response from jury, while prosecution will focus more on falsifying records. Stormy is an adult film star, so focusing on her as a means of distraction might work. All depends on how strong the defense thinks they are.

 

[Loulit01]

I'm watching on CNN and they appear to be on an never ending commercial break.

Switched to Sky News.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I'm watching on CNN and they appear to be on an never ending commercial break.

Switched to Sky News.

"Never ending commercial break." I love it! Yeah, CNN doesn't do a good job of that. I don't know how Cuomo was on CNN, but on NewsNation, he can actually tell you the length of the break.

 

[NWRatCon]

I'm going to add some commentary. The prosecution is starting smart. They started not with Stormy Daniels, but David Pecker and Karen MacDougal. That sets the stage for the overall theme - this was a scheme that preceded Stormy Daniels, and was a conspiracy between Pecker, Trump and Cohen. Stormy Daniels is, essentially, an "additional count" of election interference.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo described the alleged scheme to buy porn star Stormy Daniels' story for $130,000 in order to keep it from American voters: "It was election fraud, pure and simple." He laid out that much of the evidence will be corroborated by Trump's own words - through tapes - and a paper trail that includes phone logs and business documents.

Short, simple, straightforward.

Blanche's approach is necessarily different, because he's the defense. He laid points out that he'll bring back in argument - indeed, he got shut down several times trying to argue in the opening, which is a definite violation - laying what he considers mines without giving away any strategy. The biggest problems are twofold. First, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said his team will refer to Trump as "President Trump" throughout the trial "out of respect for the office he held" (no one believes that). Blanche added about his client: "He's also a man. He's a husband. He's a father. He's a person, just like you and just like me." Again, trying to do that with a straight face. I don't think the jury can buy this, or that Trump wants them to. These are contradictory assertions and juries see through this posturing pretty easily.

An interesting legal issue is this: Todd Blanche said a series of payments Trump sent to Michael Cohen weren't payback for Cohen paying porn star Stormy Daniels hush money. That beggars credulity. The prosecution, meanwhile, can demonstrate that they were reimbursement payments. Blanche said Cohen was Trump's personal attorney. According to prosecutors, Trump falsely labeled his checks to Cohen as being for legal services. Here's a professional tip: Reimbursements for expenses to lawyers are not legal fees. As a matter of law, Blanche has no leg to stand on and may get caught in this lie later. It got worse when he claimed, "There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy." I don't think anyone bought that, and that will hurt him.

Blanche also spent considerable time trying to muddy up Cohen. I don't think that will work, plus, it got a sustained objection. Jurors pay attention to these things.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm going to add some commentary. The prosecution is starting smart. They started not with Stormy Daniels, but David Pecker and Karen MacDougal. That sets the stage for the overall theme - this was a scheme that preceded Stormy Daniels, and was a conspiracy between Pecker, Trump and Cohen. Stormy Daniels is, essentially, an "additional count" of election interference.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo described the alleged scheme to buy porn star Stormy Daniels' story for $130,000 in order to keep it from American voters: "It was election fraud, pure and simple." He laid out that much of the evidence will be corroborated by Trump's own words - through tapes - and a paper trail that includes phone logs and business documents.

Short, simple, straightforward.

Blanche's approach is necessarily different, because he's the defense. He laid points out that he'll bring back in argument - indeed, he got shut down several times trying to argue in the opening, which is a definite violation - laying what he considers mines without giving away any strategy. The biggest problems are twofold. First, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said his team will refer to Trump as "President Trump" throughout the trial "out of respect for the office he held" (no one believes that). Blanche added about his client: "He's also a man. He's a husband. He's a father. He's a person, just like you and just like me." Again, trying to do that with a straight face. I don't think the jury can buy this, or that Trump wants them to. These are contradictory assertions and juries see through this posturing pretty easily.

An interesting legal issue is this: Todd Blanche said a series of payments Trump sent to Michael Cohen weren't payback for Cohen paying porn star Stormy Daniels hush money. That beggars credulity. The prosecution, meanwhile, can demonstrate that they were reimbursement payments. Blanche said Cohen was Trump's personal attorney. According to prosecutors, Trump falsely labeled his checks to Cohen as being for legal services. Here's a professional tip: Reimbursements for expenses to lawyers are not legal fees. As a matter of law, Blanche has no leg to stand on and may get caught in this lie later. It got worse when he claimed, "There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy." I don't think anyone bought that, and that will hurt him.

Blanche also spent considerable time trying to muddy up Cohen. I don't think that will work, plus, it got a sustained objection. Jurors pay attention to these things.

Serious question:

So this is what I don't get.

Since when is a candidate trying to keep negative information out of the public square "election fraud". I get its immoral, slimy, underhanded, etc. I understand the intent is to keep the information out of the public square, but how is that illegal?

Ya, there is the campaign violations road to go down with contributions and a candidate making contributions but not submitting them to the bean counters at the campaign, yada, yada, yada.

I still say they should be emphasizing the DIRECT tie to Cohen and is conviction as a federal crime for campaign finance fraud and how the falsification of business records were done to hide that. That is an actual crime that was charged and the individual went to prison. You can point to it as an established fact.

What am I missing?

WW

 

[Callen]

Serious question:

So this is what I don't get.

Since when is a candidate trying to keep negative information out of the public square "election fraud". I get its immoral, slimy, underhanded, etc. I understand the intent is to keep the information out of the public square, but how is that illegal?

Ya, there is the campaign violations road to go down with contributions and a candidate making contributions but not submitting them to the bean counters at the campaign, yada, yada, yada.

I still say they should be emphasizing the DIRECT tie to Cohen and is conviction as a federal crime for campaign finance fraud and how the falsification of business records were done to hid that. That is an actual crime that was charged and the individual went to prison.

What am I missing?rine

WW

I agree. The prosecution never mentioned the campaign contributions violation which I thought was the underlying crime. It's not illegal to try and keep negative information from the voting public and nobody has been charged with such a thing. It's pretty darn clear that the information was supressed but so what? The prosecutor who gave opening arguments is supposedly brilliant and a previous DOJ prosecutor and the other two lawyers are supposedly very skilled so I must be missing something. ......but missing it I am! Has Bragg ever identified the underlying crime? Perhaps I just assumed it was the campaign contributions issue. Hoping it all cones clear but as of now, I'm confused.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I agree. The prosecution never mentioned the campaign contributions violation which I thought was the underlying crime. It's not illegal to try and keep negative information from the voting public and nobody has been charged with such a thing. It's pretty darn clear that the information was supressed but so what? The prosecutor who gave opening arguments is supposedly brilliant and a previous DOJ prosecutor and the other two lawyers are supposedly very skilled so I must be missing something. ......but missing it I am! Has Bragg ever identified the underlying crime? Perhaps I just assumed it was the campaign contributions issue. Hoping it all cones clear but as of now, I'm confused.

And as anti-Trumpers...

If we are confused, then the prosecution could be in trouble when it comes to the jury. If there are FPOTUS#45 types on the jury (which if they can be honest is fine) they can latch on to not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep it simple, keep it undeniable.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

@NWRatCon, what say you?

WW

 

[NWRatCon]

Serious question:

So this is what I don't get.

Since when is a candidate trying to keep negative information out of the public square "election fraud". I get its immoral, slimy, underhanded, etc. I understand the intent is to keep the information out of the public square, but how is that illegal?

Ya, there is the campaign violations road to go down with contributions and a candidate making contributions but not submitting them to the bean counters at the campaign, yada, yada, yada.

I still say they should be emphasizing the DIRECT tie to Cohen and is conviction as a federal crime for campaign finance fraud and how the falsification of business records were done to hid that. That is an actual crime that was charged and the individual went to prison.

What am I missing?

WW

I think they'll get there. I think... and this is mostly speculation at this point... that putting Pecker on first is good strategy. Pecker is a Trump loyalist, still, but he got his... well, he got caught, and had to enter an agreement to testify truthfully. Here's why I think that sets up the prosecution well: Pecker is "the press" but was actively helping with the election. That is also election fraud (are you listening Fox?). It was, essentially, giving a valuable contribution without reporting it. This was a dirty, dirty deal, and overt. That's the scheme. So they are starting with something that will make the jurors squirm.

You ask: "Since when is a candidate trying to keep negative information out of the public square 'election fraud'." It's the expense and purpose, frankly. John Edwards was charged with a similar scheme - but was acquitted on a technicality, and the jury hung on 5 other charges and didn't re-prosecute. Edwards had a better defense, because it was over a long period of time, and really was outside of the election framework. But... none of those conditions apply here.

It's not so much that they were keeping relevant information from the public, but how. They were paying people to keep quiet 1) in coordination with the campaign (essentially making unrecorded campaign contributions), but also, 2) the gravamen is the charge is that they faked business records to cover it up. (They didn't learn from Nixon - it's the cover-up that kills you.)

So, you are correct, and I think they will argue "the DIRECT tie to Cohen and his conviction as a federal crime for campaign finance fraud" - on behalf of Donald Trump.

 

[Callen]

And as anti-Trumpers...

If we are confused, then the prosecution could be in trouble when it comes to the jury. If there are FPOTUS#45 types on the jury (which if they can be honest is fine) they can latch on to not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep it simple, keep it undeniable.

WW

In my view they have the misdemeanor nailed and it is also clear it was really all about the election but what's the underlying crime that makes it a felony? Perhaps their strategy is to not confuse the jury by making it look too technical at this point but rather first demonstrate clearly the payments were all about the election, nail the fraudulent books entry and then argue the payment was in fact a campaign contribution and link that logically to Cohens convictions. We'll see these are smart people.......

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think they'll get there. I think... and this is mostly speculation at this point... that putting Pecker on first is good strategy. Pecker is a Trump loyalist, still, but he got his... well, he got caught, and had to enter an agreement to testify truthfully. Here's why I think that sets up the prosecution well: Pecker is "the press" but was actively helping with the election. That is also election fraud (are you listening Fox?). It was, essentially, giving a valuable contribution without reporting it. This was a dirty, dirty deal, and overt. That's the scheme. So they are starting with something that will make the jurors squirm.

You ask: "Since when is a candidate trying to keep negative information out of the public square 'election fraud'." It's the expense and purpose, frankly. John Edwards was charged with a similar scheme - but was acquitted on a technicality, and the jury hung on 5 other charges and didn't re-prosecute. Edwards had a better defense, because it was over a long period of time, and really was outside of the election framework. But... none of those conditions apply here.

It's not so much that they were keeping relevant information from the public, but how. They were paying people to keep quiet 1) in coordination with the campaign (essentially making unrecorded campaign contributions), but also, 2) the gravamen is the charge is that they faked business records to cover it up. (They didn't learn from Nixon - it's the cover-up that kills you.)

So, you are correct, and I think they will argue "the DIRECT tie to Cohen and his conviction as a federal crime for campaign finance fraud" - on behalf of Donald Trump.

What worries me is that reporting on the prosecutions opening statement seemed to focus on the idea that hiding information from the public is election fraud, not that Cohen wasn't mentioned.

But it didn't appear to be the main thrust of the argument.

Thanks for the response.

WW

 

[NWRatCon]

I think to help clarify: These are Opening Statements - about what the case is and the evidence they will hear. These are NOT arguments. Attorneys can, as Blanche did, get in trouble for arguing the case before it is presented.

I don't think that they are confusing the jury at all, and I want to push back on the idea that suppressing information is not a campaign violation. It is. It "not getting out" is not the same as "suppressing" it.

Here, though, it has to do with how the NY statute is put together.

The underlying crime is "falsification of business records". They will prove that in spades. The enhancement is "another felony" crime, which bumps it up from 1-year misdemeanor to 4-year felony. They don't have to prove that they committed that additional crime, only that they intended to, or were concerned that they would. Once they have the evidence in, they can then argue that particular pieces of evidence would have been a campaign violation, or tax fraud, or other felony level crime. Indeed, there are at least three, maybe more, potential felonies involved:

Tax fraud (taking deductions one is not entitled to); unreported campaign contributions in excess of contribution limits; and unreported campaign expenditures, as well as the fraudulent reporting associated with each of those activities.

 

[NWRatCon]

In my view they have the misdemeanor nailed and it is also clear it was really all about the election but what's the underlying crime that makes it a felony? Perhaps their strategy is to not confuse the jury by making it look too technical at this point but rather first demonstrate clearly the payments were all about the election, nail the fraudulent books entry and then argue the payment was in fact a campaign contribution and link that logically to Cohens convictions. We'll see these are smart people.......

Exactly.

 

[PoliSciPulse]

I'm going to add some commentary. The prosecution is starting smart. They started not with Stormy Daniels, but David Pecker and Karen MacDougal. That sets the stage for the overall theme - this was a scheme that preceded Stormy Daniels, and was a conspiracy between Pecker, Trump and Cohen. Stormy Daniels is, essentially, an "additional count" of election interference.

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo described the alleged scheme to buy porn star Stormy Daniels' story for $130,000 in order to keep it from American voters: "It was election fraud, pure and simple." He laid out that much of the evidence will be corroborated by Trump's own words - through tapes - and a paper trail that includes phone logs and business documents.

Short, simple, straightforward.

Blanche's approach is necessarily different, because he's the defense. He laid points out that he'll bring back in argument - indeed, he got shut down several times trying to argue in the opening, which is a definite violation - laying what he considers mines without giving away any strategy. The biggest problems are twofold. First, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said his team will refer to Trump as "President Trump" throughout the trial "out of respect for the office he held" (no one believes that). Blanche added about his client: "He's also a man. He's a husband. He's a father. He's a person, just like you and just like me." Again, trying to do that with a straight face. I don't think the jury can buy this, or that Trump wants them to. These are contradictory assertions and juries see through this posturing pretty easily.

An interesting legal issue is this: Todd Blanche said a series of payments Trump sent to Michael Cohen weren't payback for Cohen paying porn star Stormy Daniels hush money. That beggars credulity. The prosecution, meanwhile, can demonstrate that they were reimbursement payments. Blanche said Cohen was Trump's personal attorney. According to prosecutors, Trump falsely labeled his checks to Cohen as being for legal services. Here's a professional tip: Reimbursements for expenses to lawyers are not legal fees. As a matter of law, Blanche has no leg to stand on and may get caught in this lie later. It got worse when he claimed, "There's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It's called democracy." I don't think anyone bought that, and that will hurt him.

Blanche also spent considerable time trying to muddy up Cohen. I don't think that will work, plus, it got a sustained objection. Jurors pay attention to these things.

The easiest way for prosecution to disprove the bold it seems is to a) prove who the Trump Campaign lawyer actually was (if any) and b) show that the retainer payments were actually stopped before the campaign was over. Do you agree?

 

[Callen]

Exactly.

Really !!!!!! Now that's a compliment!!!!!

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think to help clarify: These are Opening Statements - about what the case is and the evidence they will hear. These are NOT arguments. Attorneys can, as Blanche did, get in trouble for arguing the case before it is presented.

I don't think that they are confusing the jury at all, and I want to push back on the idea that suppressing information is not a campaign violation. It is. It "not getting out" is not the same as "suppressing" it.

Here, though, it has to do with how the NY statute is put together.

The underlying crime is "falsification of business records". They will prove that in spades. The enhancement is "another felony" crime, which bumps it up from 1-year misdemeanor to 4-year felony. They don't have to prove that they committed that additional crime, only that they intended to, or were concerned that they would. Once they have the evidence in, they can then argue that particular pieces of evidence would have been a campaign violation, or tax fraud, or other felony level crime. Indeed, there are at least three, maybe more, potential felonies involved:

Tax fraud (taking deductions one is not entitled to); unreported campaign contributions in excess of contribution limits; and unreported campaign expenditures, as well as the fraudulent reporting associated with each of those activities.

I get you.

Tax fraud (taking deductions one is not entitled to); unreported campaign contributions in excess of contribution limits; and unreported campaign expenditures, as well as the fraudulent reporting associated with each of those activities.

What I'm not getting is why omit #4 (which IMHO should be #1) the established fact that Cohen committed felony federal campaign finance fraud and went to jail. Then tie that as the additional crime warranting the felony enhancement based on the the planning involved with hiding it and the aid involved via the falsification.

Hit that nail early in the opening statement in telling the jury about what the case is and the evidence they will hear

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The easiest way for prosecution to disprove the bold it seems is to a) prove who the Trump Campaign lawyer actually was (if any) and b) show that the retainer payments were actually stopped before the campaign was over. Do you agree?

The bold/underline. They can't show that payments stopped before the campaign was over since the campaign was over in January 2017 when FPOTUS#45 was sworn in and the payments continued through December 2017 after he was in office.

WW

 

[NWRatCon]

The easiest way for prosecution to disprove the bold it seems is to a) prove who the Trump Campaign lawyer actually was (if any) and b) show that the retainer payments were actually stopped before the campaign was over. Do you agree?

Yes. Especially as we know there was no retainer agreement.

Moreover, although this may seem technical, reimbursing an attorney for non-legal expenses is not "legal expenses" (which are tax deductible for a business.) I think someone may have pointed this out here or on another thread.

Let me clarify:

"Legal expenses" are the fees paid to an attorney for their work, usually billed on an hourly basis or percentage of recovery (which is why they broke it up over several months, to hide the character of the payments). They might also include things like filing fees, service fees, and copies.

But, judgments and contract payments to third parties are not "legal expenses". The contracts with AMI, Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were just that - contracts with third parties. The point of the scheme was to hide the nature of the expenses through... false documents. It's basically money laundering.