Quick Programming Note: To avoid another monster post like last night’s, I’ll try to break it up and address discrete issues, like the Judge’s ruling here, as stand-alones where possible, so you can get your trial updates in bite-sized pieces.
Absolutely. It will be a disaster. His lawyers don't just have to worry about cross-examination; I'm not so sure he can make it through direct without problems.
If he does take the stand, I guarantee he'll be lying the minute he starts to take the oath to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
He'll either implode or explode, depending on how nervous he gets.
I always read your missives from stem to stern...they are so interesting and full of information - makes me feel as if I'm there in the courtroom or in the meetings with his attys. Thank you for keeping us between the fence posts...I'm so grateful.
I agree. It didn't seem long to me. I'm really grateful to have this information presented in a way that's technically correct but accessible to all. Thanks, Joyce.
Professor, I am very interested in the NEW facts that the Prosecutor says will be proved.:
On 10/26/16;Trump called Cohen who opened a bank account to make a $130,000.00 payoff to Daniels the next day. Big bucks sloshed around; the Doorman got $30,0000.00
On Election Night Karen MacDougal's Attorney texted, "What have we done?"
Professor, CORRECTION & UPDATE: 9:20 PM & from the Court Transcript:
"You [Jurors] will also see evidence that on Election nights, as news outlets got closer to calling to calling the Election for Donald Trump, KEITH DAVIDSON, he was the lawyer for both Stormy Daniels & Karen MacDougal, texted DYLAN HOWARD at the National Enquirer [AMI] and he said "What have we Done".
Hat tip to Susan Craig & Vaughn Hillyard who reported from the Courthouse Today! & salute to Lawrence O'Donnell on tonight MSNBC Show for the Court Transcript.
We don't know this as a fact, but my wife thinks that Trump has admitted everything to Hope Hicks. This wouldn't come up in the Salazar hearing.
I wonder whether Cohen took her depo in his civil aces -- atty's fees. the Florida case, etc.? Cohen went from friend to foe. Did Cohen take a "fall?" How did Trump react? Did Hicks know whether or not Trump aggravated, exacerbated his pain and extended his jail time.
I know the prosecutor can't point out that the defendant is not taking the stand, but I wish the media would. List all the times Trump said people who aren't guilty will testify, and list all his quotes urging his followers to fight.
Urge him to show the courage of his convictions! Make the jury of public opinion realize that Trump’s afraid to stand up for himself.
Susan -- My 15 years before retirement were spent in the executive wing of a corporation and I feel such pride in how that company was run. I cannot imagine working in a company office or Oval Office of Donald Trump and facing the selfish, illegal and chaotic atmosphere on a daily basis. Those White House administrators who worked for Trump and refused to answer subpoenas for these court cases should be sitting with Donald Trump at the defendant's table. If we have to watch our democracy crumble after the 2024 election, I hope those administrators (Mark Meadows, Steve Miller, etc.) will receive the voters' and the media's thrashing they deserve.
Steve Bannon is going to his criminal trial in this courtroom on May 28. He’s being charged by the New York AG for his part of the fraud at the border because it involves New York citizens’ money. DOJ indicted him in 2020. Trump pardoned him on his last day in office. January 6 committee subpoenaed him and he refused to go; therefore he is appealing that. But his day in court in New York is coming and they’re batting 1000. Thank New York every day. He’s been found guilty of business fraud; E. Jean Caroll annihilated him; the election interference trial will be Trump’s undoing. I also hope the morally corrupt will be prosecuted. But more than that, I’d like to see Ginny Thomas indicted so Clarence would have to resign. Nothing short of that will force his resignation.
Sometimes I wish we could have one of those betting pools on this Substack - like the summertime World Series for the baseball and such. Even if we put a few pennies down, we could have some fun to see if example Steve Bannon would take a bath.
I've come up with more suggestions, such as counting the number of times MTG has forgotten what her REAL job is rather than earning a humongous salary for hating people, the number of times Trump and. DeSanctimonious have agreed to disagree, the number of Trump attorneys who are STILL waiting for their first check even though they know it will never happen, the number of House Speakers who will have been through the revolving door between January of last year and January 2025, the number of times Lindsey Graham has changed his mind about Trump during the past four years, the number of times Trump has mentioned his love for communist leaders, the number of times (if we can count that high) Trump has said the word "fake," and the average number of cheeseburgers Trump consumes in a seven-day period (I saved the "number of guesses" one for last).
We might have fun guessing Josh Hawley's all-time track record for running down a hallway that's filled with people.
Since most caskets usually contain bodies rather than small urns, we could guess what else might be found in the infamous casket at Trump's golf amusement park in New Jersey. The prize for the best opinion receives a broken bottle of ketchup that was left behind when Trump finally left the White House.
What else can you think of? The possibilities are endless . . . . .
I think he knows what he has done...I really do. He has to know he is not righteous...yes, he says that but he knows...just what I think. He knows he's lying. He thinks we are "that" stupid...
He's afraid to - it's that simple. I do wonder if the various witnesses will make him want to speak in his own defense and then we will have him...I can only hope.
I too doubt he will take the stand. If, and only if he does, it will be because he thinks he is so much smarter than anyone and that he can sway the Jurors to seeing things “his way”. His hubris will be his biggest downfall.
Which is exactly WHY I think he will take the stand! He won't be able to help himself. He thinks he's the only one that can properly defend himself. Sociopathic narcissists definitely think they're smarter than everyone.
I would never give Trump much credit for intellect or intelligence, but he does have a few survival skills and surely those would enable him to understand that even such a stable genius as himself couldn't possibly persuade or "sway" the jurors with strictly "yes" or "no" answers.
Yes Arne, He surely can do that because Alina Habbas has already set that up for him. She gave an interview in which she said: "I'd rather be pretty than smart, because I can fake being smart." (Like she's not faking the 'pretty' part with $250.00 worth of mascara on every day?). But that statement, right there, gives him an appeal because his very own attorney faked being smart when he hired her or whatever. Alina's interview is on You Tube. I watched it.
Reader/Writer : I agree -- let's not kid ourselves -- O.J. Simpson took a huge chance when he tried on that bloody glove, but I'm sure he was told it had undoubtedly shrunk because of the amount of blood on it, and he "lucked out' . He played the scene perfectly by stretching his hand and pretending it was too large for the glove.
Trump has backed down on testifying before this. Yes, he ostensibly has an enormous ego, but, as with many narcissists, it's ultimately a very flimsy one (like an overinflated balloon); that, paired with him knowing exactly what actions he took in the matters on trial - irrespective of whether he believes them wrong or not - will add up to him not testifying. At bottom, I think he's TERRIFIED of imprisonment (he doesn't know yet that he'll fit right in out on the yard!).
Alright, let's dive headfirst into this Trumpian circus, shall we? Judge Merchan's ruling on what skeletons can be dragged out of Trump's gold-plated closet is a real doozy. It's like watching a high-stakes poker game where the dealer just revealed Trump's hand is full of jokers.
Now, the burning question on everyone's mind: will the Don himself take the stand? Trump's ego is as inflated as his bank account, so part of him probably believes he can talk his way out of anything. But even a man with an orange tan and a questionable hairdo can see the writing on the wall. His lawyers will be begging him to keep his trap shut, and for once, he might just listen. Trump's best bet is to play the victim card, whining that the government's case is weaker than his last failed business venture. It's a strategy that might placate his die-hard fans, but to the rest of us, it'll sound like a broken record stuck on "fake news."
If Trump does decide to grace the witness stand with his presence, it'll be like watching a slow-motion train wreck. The man has a tenuous relationship with the truth, and under cross-examination, his lies will be laid bare like a bad toupee in a windstorm. He'll try to stick to the script, but his fragile ego won't allow it. It'll be a spectacle, but not the kind he's used to.
Sure, there are some things the prosecutors can't touch, like the E. Jean Carroll verdict and the Trump Organization's criminal case. But they've still got plenty of ammo to work with. It's like going to war with a slightly smaller arsenal – you can still do plenty of damage.
I've got a gut feeling that if Trump takes the stand, he'll be his own worst enemy. The jury will see through his bluster and send him packing faster than you can say "you're fired." And if that happens, it'll be the beginning of the end for the Trump political dynasty.
To be blunt, I'm obsessed with this trial. It's like a soap opera on steroids, a slow-motion implosion of a man who thought he was untouchable. "Who Shot J. R.?" from the 80s nighttime extravaganza "Dallas" was a mere sideshow compared to this main event.
It will be fascinating to see how this high-profile case unfolds and whether Trump ultimately decides to testify. The consequences of his decision could have far-reaching effects not only on the trial's outcome but also on his personal and political future.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a girl with a keyboard and a wild penchant for the absurd. One thing's for sure – this trial is going to be one hell of a ride. So buckle up, pour yourself a double, and let's watch the chaos unfold. It's going to be a wild one, folks.
Yep, Gloria, buckle up and wear your crash helmet. 💙I posted earlier (before reading yours) that a number of folks here have likely dusted off their televisions. We can't help but slow down for the awful accident on the freeway.
He can't. But first he complained that because he was required to be at the trial, he was going to miss his son's graduation. Judge said it depended on the trial's progress (sounded like a hint to me- all the delays have been Trump's doing). The corker is that apparently he did not attend any of his other children's graduation ceremonies. Does not surprise me.
Keep in mind, Orange 1 has to be found guilty unanimously on only one of the 34 counts --- and the jury has three predicate crimes (felonies) for it from which to choose.
Why are you wondering about the possibility of a mistrial?! With the MOUNTAIN of evidence that the prosecution has against TRump and literally reems of paperwork that shows his fraudulent and deceitful actions, how could anyone not understand that he committed these crimes?! I must be an optimist when it comes to taking down TRump. I don't see a mistrial coming at all
I have seen a few trials, civil and criminal, where a party, usually a defendant, had a meltdown on the stand in front of the jury and there wasn't time to get the jury out of the courtroom to avoid seeing the spectacle and a mistrial had to be declared because it was so prejudicial to the defense that the judge decided it would be better to start over.
I agree with the mistrial, or perhaps the loss of a quorum of jurors, before this is over. It is precarious, as everything is slung by the defense to cause chaos.
If they run out of alternates, they could reach the point where there is no longer enough people on the jury to continue. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
Um, yes, there is a problem, Bryan. Rebooting a trial takes a lot more than just pushing a button. Mistrial means more delay, at best, and a big mess. There is a reason for the extra jurors: it means that prosecution and judge recognizes the enormous pressure on the jury, and have anticipated the possibility of attrition. We lost two already, though in time to replace. I admire the guts it must take for the rest to hang in there.
Hi Marycat2021, Trump is well-known for his spontaneous eruptions. If he goes off at the first witness - ranting, yelling liar, the judge may not have time to remove the jury. They will have seen Trump's rant. So the judge could declare a mistrial (I think) and then would have to start anew. I'm not sure if the new start would include sequestering Trump in a 'quiet room' where he cannot be seen or heard for the new trial. Also, the judge needs to rule on his gag order violations: if he orders a fine, then ramps it up to jail, that may be considered in the new trial if there is one. Lawyers??!! (We need a legal opinion - but Judge Merchan will not allow this blatherskiting narcissist to ruin the people's case).
The jury would be polled on the record as to whether his mere shout of "liar" would destroy their ability to remain open minded. I've seen this in actual courtrooms. The judge's responsibility to insure Trump gets a fair trial includes the option of sequestering him in a room where he can listen to the proceedings yet not interfere in them. The cost of a new trial is such that a judge will not order one merely because a defendant shouts "liar" or anything else within earshot of the jury.
IMHO, we are in uncharted waters with Trump. No one can say definitively what the judge will do to protect the case. I don’t think ‘cost’ is going to be the determiner, when we’re talking about saving our Republic. Watch for Trump to act out. He cannot control himself.
During the coming weeks the uber conscientious Prof. Vance may want to tag-team here with Barb McQuade or another of her coterie to keep up with the torrent of info that will be pouring out as the result of Orange 1 infamy. I note that the defense got into trouble already with its opening statement requiring a conference with Merchan, who sustained several objections from the prosecution. And the point to be made about the defense contention that "influencing an election" is not a crime is that while that may be true (as far as it goes), the fact that crimes were allegedly committed to do so is the core issue here --- and especially relevant to the necessary compelling "story" the prosecution will attempt to tell the jury. Also --- apparently that appeal bond business has been settled (for now) with promises and stipulations to be memorialized in an agreement this week by Orange 1's mouthpiece.
Oh. My. Gosh. Influencing an election is not a crime? Why did we have the Russia investigation that wrongly found that Russia had not influenced Trump's 2016 election? (see Cambridge Analytica, Russian computer engineers - citizens from Russia not by heritage working the FB data for Trump with Zuckerberg not remembering a thing - not even where he had stayed the night prior when he testified to Congress). How could it be legal to influence an election?
The issue is whether withholding damaging information from the electorate is a crime per se or a matter of ethics and character. It all depends on what information was withheld (or alternatively, disseminated). And while there will no doubt be a good deal of testimony and probably documentary evidence that the payment wasn't made to protect his family, but to influence the election, he isn't actually charged with that. It's the alleged goal or end purpose of the crimes he is charged with --- the "why" he committed the alleged crimes, which is for the jury's benefit.
Thank you Dale for clarifying. I'm lost in the legal maze. I was plugging and chugging through my first Joyce Vance Law 101 and now I'm over my head. I'm now flowing along, having match tea.
No --- by all means don't be hard on yourself. It is confusing, especially with the emphasis by the prosecution (as it should be) on that bright, shiny assertion any of the jurors can immediately understand and focus on: he tried to influence or "interfere" in an election and maybe even tried to effectively negate your own vote. The issues of campaign finance law violations and tax fraud --- the alleged underlying crimes for this attempt to influence the election ---are a bit more complicated as you can appreciate. And how well the prosecution presents these necessary predicate crimes will be telling because the defense will almost certainly emphasize their interpretation in arguing there were no violations.
Barbara B, lunch in the court holding cell hardly qualifies for an entire overnight in jail (in my view). But as Joyce points to, the judge will likely graduate the event with a fine first, then the jail.
Hi Susan Jane, the male juror may have meant that he found him fascinating in the sense that he is an enigma - not necessarily a positive attribute. As I read through this substack, I am always so impressed - and curious - about responses from the readers who say: "I've lived with a narcissist and so I know he's going to do such and such." Many of them are now saying he will testify. So we will stay tuned for that one:)) 💙 I think as well that some of us are fascinated with Trump the way we can't turn away from an accident on the freeway. It's unpleasant and yet the cars slow down. I'm sure televisions that have gathered dust for years are tuning in on this circus.
I was thinking fascinating as in what you find when you turn over a rock. As a kid, I liked to draw them because they were so interesting. Other kids went "ew". Little did I know that it was the beginning of a lifetime of studying life's peculiarities. I became a scientist, but that grew out of trying to figure out the "why this and not that" part of life.
Mary Trump already did this for us. Bless her. It makes me queezy just thinking about it.
I am a great fan of Oliver Sacks, though. His writing is an amazing work that revealed the deep humanity of people most other people regard as peculiar or odd, but who are just people with wonky brains and real lives. He gave me a greater understanding of what being human means, and also enlarged my ability to empathize.
I have known narcissists though, and they are not in the same category. They are quite sane, but lack any sense of humanity. Trump is on the far end of that spectrum and I prefer not to look too closely. As a young woman I was targeted and stalked by a narcissist. It took a while to feel safe in the world again. I'm good at disappearing.
Once again, thank you for helping clarify all this for us laypeople. I have questions regarding the (closed to cameras!) trial. I recently read that there is a protocol for transcripts that they must be purchased directly from the court stenographer and not used for publication. Two questions: 1.) Outside of this protocol, are the transcripts filed into the public record? If so, when are they made available to the public? 2.) Failing this, is there a way for someone (WaPo? Legal advocacy group?) to negotiate some sort of compromise to pay for these transcripts and make them available publicly? As we all know, the importance of this trial for our country cannot be overstated. Do you have any thoughts or insight to share with on this? Thanks!
As a retired federal court reporter, I have had a lot of experience with transcripts. It is the common practice in nearly every court in the country, state and federal, for court reporters to have a somewhat "hybrid" employment. We are paid employees when we make the verbatim record and independent contractors when the government, defense, or other entity orders transcripts of the proceedings. If the record is being made by realtime reporters, which is generally unedited and unproofed, that is not official until it is proofed and certified and filed with the court. There is nothing nefarious going on with this practice, it is very common. And I don't know how the record is being made in this court, but that is one way the record is made; there are other ways. And our courts usually set the per-page rate that reporters can charge, and you simply cannot give one party a deal and not give it to another party at a different price, and no negotiation is done with the press or any other party. Once the final transcripts are filed, the public can buy copies also. Court reporters do not hold any copyright on court transcripts. There is so much more to this issue, but those are the basics.
"In New York — again, in a departure from the federal system and every other state — official rules state that transcripts of what gets said in court must be purchased from the court stenographers who have the job of recording, on a specialized keyboard, every word, action, and ruling in criminal cases. These court personnel, whose base salaries top $100,000 in many cases, can charge as much as $4.75 a page for transcripts, with the record of a single day of trial easily totaling several hundred dollars — money that goes into the pocket of the employee, not the court. And everyone who needs to see the transcripts — prosecutors, defense attorneys, members of the media, and even the court itself — has to buy transcripts from these workers, even though they are on the public payroll and get health benefits and pensions at public expense. And media organizations are forbidden from jointly purchasing and then publishing the transcripts; each outlet must buy its own copy, and publication is prohibited.
"This system should have been scrapped long ago. While compiling accurate official transcripts is a complicated and necessary skill, there is no earthly reason these public accounts of public proceedings should be hawked by court personnel who are already drawing a public salary. "
I believe NY court reporters retain publication rights to the transcripts and unless I'm mistaken, at least one transcript published online without the necessary permission (or payment ?) has been taken down as a result.
This is done all over the country in nearly every court system, state and federal. Some courts have digital recording, but you still have to pay to have the transcript, but by far reporting by a human being is considered a better record overall. I'm a retired federal court reporter, so obviously I'm biased, but there is nothing nefarious going on here. In federal court, once someone has ordered a transcript be made of proceedings or, as in trial, the parties agree to have "daily" transcripts made, the final edition that has been proofread will be filed in the case via the PACER system and others can buy it at a copy rate, which is lower than the original rate.
The issue is not that anything nefarious is going on. Undoubtedly the court reporters are following court policy and agreements. The question is ancillary use of a transcript after it's been paid for or put another way whether the "first sale doctrine" should apply here too. Does the reporter have some kind of explicit intellectual property protection for their transcript other than being able to sell it, or is it implied in their agreement or by law ?
No, the reporter does not hold any implicit or explicit copyright to the transcript. And in federal court, once a party orders the original, pays for it, and the reporter offers a copy to the other side (often one side will ask the reporter not to tell the other side they've ordered a transcript, but that's inappropriate and the reporter will not keep that a secret) the reporter has to file it on PACER and, with a few exceptions, it is available for anyone to get at the PACER price. I have prepared transcripts for press in the past, they pay for it obviously, and then I see it in the paper or quoted on social media, and you just learn to let it go. I don't know the NY policy on copies or even if the reporters have to file a transcript with the court. Hope that answers your question to the extent that I have knowledge. I am not aware that reporters have any kind of ownership of the original or copies, only to the extent that they produced it and are required to certify that the copy they've given to the purchaser is authentic.
Rather than keep chasing my tail on the matter, I think it behooves me to actually find out what the regs are with respect to secondary or ancillary use of NY court transcripts once they are sold. Will do when I have time and report back.
Hi Reader/Writer, if the reporter owns the transcript, can they negotiate the price? If so, this would be the opportunity for an entrepreneurial windfall. Launch a website with a single landing page and charge $1.00 per the entire day's transcript. The reporter could make $100,000 per day. Call it 'The Circus.' Even if one took in half that amount, over a six week period, that's a lot of income compared to the $4.75 per page paid by a few people.
No, the per-page price for transcripts in every court system I’m familiar with is set by statute in the state or, in the case of federal court, by the Administrative Office of the US Courts. And we had to file a report quarterly with the AO showing how many pages we produced and in what cases that quarter.
I hope he just gets up on the stand so that his attorneys can’t say because he didn’t there is reasonable doubt.
He is so prideful and arrogant that the prosecutors will easily catch him in lies.
Pamela Tracy informed there’s a new grift. “Melania is pitching a Mother’s Day necklace. For $245 you can buy some kind of charm on a chain that has her name on the back.” He will probably turn your neck green. Next up trump will sell a cuff link set I’m assuming getting ready for HIS cuffs.
He’s a coward and won’t take the stand. First he would want to spin every answer cause he can’t stick by yes or no. If his lawyers tried to rebuke those questions he would be allowed to go off on his tangents. Second I’m surprised he behaved in court today. Now onto the MSNBC Andrea Mitchell or whoever was on and carried TFG speaking after court, they sure don’t have the integrity of Nicolle or any of the hosts after her. I’m really disappointed. Plus it made me accidentally break my beloved 16 oz kitty coffee mug and Pfaltzgraff doesn’t have anymore of them. (My clumsy self bumped my side table).
I'm 77 by the way so I know something about getting old. What PBS did with Judy fixed a big problem, she has a talent for telling stories but she had lost her edge for hot interviews with people that absolutely didn't want to be pinned down by telling the truth, I'm not saying her replacements are great, they appear to be trying, but they are "news lite", not cutting edge journalists, for that I fault PBS's both sides policy. When one side speaks the truth and the other nothing but lies, why give the liars air time? I can't watch 6 - 8 weeks of Andrea Mitchell mumbling during this trial, MSNBC needs to get a replacement in there pronto.
I think she's clueless, maybe at one time in her life she was sharp, but that time is long gone. They are probably honoring her contract but whoever wrote the last one needs to be fired, she didn't instantly become clueless. PBS phased Judy out when it became obvious that she was lost, and gave her special assignment reporting which she's good at, MSNBC needs to do the same with Andrea, I can't watch her, and they have people in the wings that have a lot of talent.
thank you, Joyce!
Thank you, E. Jean Carroll!
+100
Yes! Thank you so, so much for all you went through to stand up to this monster. So thrilled you won twice!!
❤️
Hi E. Jean!
E. Jean,
You are my hero.
Thank you on behalf all of us who have been raped, molested, harmed, and damaged. Or murdered.
Current ratio:
one in four women.
That’s anyone’s sister, mother, wife or child.
Thank you E. Jean!
Thank you for your courage, E. Jean Carroll!
Thank YOU, E. Jean, for all that you've had to endure over the years, and for standing up to the subhuman aka tffg. You will be unforgettable.
We are all really hoping he takes the stand! Couldn't imagine a more fitting end!
Absolutely. It will be a disaster. His lawyers don't just have to worry about cross-examination; I'm not so sure he can make it through direct without problems.
🤣I’ll take the under on how many questions he will get through during direct before lying
Maurice,
If he does take the stand, I guarantee he'll be lying the minute he starts to take the oath to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
He'll either implode or explode, depending on how nervous he gets.
Schadenfreude..
I appreciate the short post focused on one topic. But I did stick with and read yesterday's long post - you make it so interesting!
I'm relieved to hear it! I know it ran long but there's just so much right now!
I always read your missives from stem to stern...they are so interesting and full of information - makes me feel as if I'm there in the courtroom or in the meetings with his attys. Thank you for keeping us between the fence posts...I'm so grateful.
Long, but very readable and information rich. Much appreciated.
And you tell it so well.
I didn’t find it to be long at all. Just very informative.
Omg, you are so generous! Why would you ever feel badly for that? Thank you!
I agree. It didn't seem long to me. I'm really grateful to have this information presented in a way that's technically correct but accessible to all. Thanks, Joyce.
Same
I'll second that opinion! ;)
I will 3rd that ... Motion carried :-)
Professor, I am very interested in the NEW facts that the Prosecutor says will be proved.:
On 10/26/16;Trump called Cohen who opened a bank account to make a $130,000.00 payoff to Daniels the next day. Big bucks sloshed around; the Doorman got $30,0000.00
On Election Night Karen MacDougal's Attorney texted, "What have we done?"
Professor, CORRECTION & UPDATE: 9:20 PM & from the Court Transcript:
"You [Jurors] will also see evidence that on Election nights, as news outlets got closer to calling to calling the Election for Donald Trump, KEITH DAVIDSON, he was the lawyer for both Stormy Daniels & Karen MacDougal, texted DYLAN HOWARD at the National Enquirer [AMI] and he said "What have we Done".
Hat tip to Susan Craig & Vaughn Hillyard who reported from the Courthouse Today! & salute to Lawrence O'Donnell on tonight MSNBC Show for the Court Transcript.
We don't know this as a fact, but my wife thinks that Trump has admitted everything to Hope Hicks. This wouldn't come up in the Salazar hearing.
I wonder whether Cohen took her depo in his civil aces -- atty's fees. the Florida case, etc.? Cohen went from friend to foe. Did Cohen take a "fall?" How did Trump react? Did Hicks know whether or not Trump aggravated, exacerbated his pain and extended his jail time.
I know the prosecutor can't point out that the defendant is not taking the stand, but I wish the media would. List all the times Trump said people who aren't guilty will testify, and list all his quotes urging his followers to fight.
Urge him to show the courage of his convictions! Make the jury of public opinion realize that Trump’s afraid to stand up for himself.
The man has no convictions beyond self-interest and a dedication to taking no responsibility for anything.
Of course he's afraid to stand up for himself: there's nothing positive to stand up for!
Susan -- My 15 years before retirement were spent in the executive wing of a corporation and I feel such pride in how that company was run. I cannot imagine working in a company office or Oval Office of Donald Trump and facing the selfish, illegal and chaotic atmosphere on a daily basis. Those White House administrators who worked for Trump and refused to answer subpoenas for these court cases should be sitting with Donald Trump at the defendant's table. If we have to watch our democracy crumble after the 2024 election, I hope those administrators (Mark Meadows, Steve Miller, etc.) will receive the voters' and the media's thrashing they deserve.
Steve Bannon is going to his criminal trial in this courtroom on May 28. He’s being charged by the New York AG for his part of the fraud at the border because it involves New York citizens’ money. DOJ indicted him in 2020. Trump pardoned him on his last day in office. January 6 committee subpoenaed him and he refused to go; therefore he is appealing that. But his day in court in New York is coming and they’re batting 1000. Thank New York every day. He’s been found guilty of business fraud; E. Jean Caroll annihilated him; the election interference trial will be Trump’s undoing. I also hope the morally corrupt will be prosecuted. But more than that, I’d like to see Ginny Thomas indicted so Clarence would have to resign. Nothing short of that will force his resignation.
I sure hope he takes a bath and shaves sometime between now and May 28th.
Hi Dianne,
Sometimes I wish we could have one of those betting pools on this Substack - like the summertime World Series for the baseball and such. Even if we put a few pennies down, we could have some fun to see if example Steve Bannon would take a bath.
Hi, Valere.
I've come up with more suggestions, such as counting the number of times MTG has forgotten what her REAL job is rather than earning a humongous salary for hating people, the number of times Trump and. DeSanctimonious have agreed to disagree, the number of Trump attorneys who are STILL waiting for their first check even though they know it will never happen, the number of House Speakers who will have been through the revolving door between January of last year and January 2025, the number of times Lindsey Graham has changed his mind about Trump during the past four years, the number of times Trump has mentioned his love for communist leaders, the number of times (if we can count that high) Trump has said the word "fake," and the average number of cheeseburgers Trump consumes in a seven-day period (I saved the "number of guesses" one for last).
We might have fun guessing Josh Hawley's all-time track record for running down a hallway that's filled with people.
Since most caskets usually contain bodies rather than small urns, we could guess what else might be found in the infamous casket at Trump's golf amusement park in New Jersey. The prize for the best opinion receives a broken bottle of ketchup that was left behind when Trump finally left the White House.
What else can you think of? The possibilities are endless . . . . .
Oh, he is righteous in his own eyes.
I think he knows what he has done...I really do. He has to know he is not righteous...yes, he says that but he knows...just what I think. He knows he's lying. He thinks we are "that" stupid...
Well said, Betty!
Too true!
He's afraid to - it's that simple. I do wonder if the various witnesses will make him want to speak in his own defense and then we will have him...I can only hope.
I too doubt he will take the stand. If, and only if he does, it will be because he thinks he is so much smarter than anyone and that he can sway the Jurors to seeing things “his way”. His hubris will be his biggest downfall.
Which is exactly WHY I think he will take the stand! He won't be able to help himself. He thinks he's the only one that can properly defend himself. Sociopathic narcissists definitely think they're smarter than everyone.
🤞
I would never give Trump much credit for intellect or intelligence, but he does have a few survival skills and surely those would enable him to understand that even such a stable genius as himself couldn't possibly persuade or "sway" the jurors with strictly "yes" or "no" answers.
No, but in his mind, he can ‘hear’ his run-on answers and Campaign Points being inserted between the N and O, or
Y (Crooked JoE Biden S). I hope his lawyers got paid before today, because he’s not paying them another red cent.
Don’t think he’d have to answer Y/N to all questions.
Maybe if he takes the stand and loses he can use "advice of counsel" in his appeals case?
Yes Arne, He surely can do that because Alina Habbas has already set that up for him. She gave an interview in which she said: "I'd rather be pretty than smart, because I can fake being smart." (Like she's not faking the 'pretty' part with $250.00 worth of mascara on every day?). But that statement, right there, gives him an appeal because his very own attorney faked being smart when he hired her or whatever. Alina's interview is on You Tube. I watched it.
😂
And that is exactly what he thinks. His sociopathy will not allow any other possibility.
Reader/Writer : I agree -- let's not kid ourselves -- O.J. Simpson took a huge chance when he tried on that bloody glove, but I'm sure he was told it had undoubtedly shrunk because of the amount of blood on it, and he "lucked out' . He played the scene perfectly by stretching his hand and pretending it was too large for the glove.
What a sad day in jurisprudence that OJ trial represented. Why his death got front page coverage is beyond me...
Also, putting on that shrunken mid-shaped glove Over a latex glove I’m sure made it stick, appearing even more not to fit.
🙏
You wouldn't expect him to testify or that his lawyers would want him to but Trump's ego could get the best of him.
"If you're a star, they let you do it!" Show time!
Perfect reply, Susan.
Trump has backed down on testifying before this. Yes, he ostensibly has an enormous ego, but, as with many narcissists, it's ultimately a very flimsy one (like an overinflated balloon); that, paired with him knowing exactly what actions he took in the matters on trial - irrespective of whether he believes them wrong or not - will add up to him not testifying. At bottom, I think he's TERRIFIED of imprisonment (he doesn't know yet that he'll fit right in out on the yard!).
LOL Marian 'he doesn't know yet that he'll fit right in out on the yard!'
He's more like a blimp than a mere balloon.
I doubt he will fit in with or without his fake tan makeup and toupee.
Fingers crossed!! 🤞🤞🤞
His impulsivity might get him up there.
Let us hope Trump will bully his attorneys and then take the stand.
Goodby Trump.
Do not pass Go,
Do not collect $100.
Go to jail!
It very well may, but seeing him practicing self control will be a sight to see. Can he do it...
Alright, let's dive headfirst into this Trumpian circus, shall we? Judge Merchan's ruling on what skeletons can be dragged out of Trump's gold-plated closet is a real doozy. It's like watching a high-stakes poker game where the dealer just revealed Trump's hand is full of jokers.
Now, the burning question on everyone's mind: will the Don himself take the stand? Trump's ego is as inflated as his bank account, so part of him probably believes he can talk his way out of anything. But even a man with an orange tan and a questionable hairdo can see the writing on the wall. His lawyers will be begging him to keep his trap shut, and for once, he might just listen. Trump's best bet is to play the victim card, whining that the government's case is weaker than his last failed business venture. It's a strategy that might placate his die-hard fans, but to the rest of us, it'll sound like a broken record stuck on "fake news."
If Trump does decide to grace the witness stand with his presence, it'll be like watching a slow-motion train wreck. The man has a tenuous relationship with the truth, and under cross-examination, his lies will be laid bare like a bad toupee in a windstorm. He'll try to stick to the script, but his fragile ego won't allow it. It'll be a spectacle, but not the kind he's used to.
Sure, there are some things the prosecutors can't touch, like the E. Jean Carroll verdict and the Trump Organization's criminal case. But they've still got plenty of ammo to work with. It's like going to war with a slightly smaller arsenal – you can still do plenty of damage.
I've got a gut feeling that if Trump takes the stand, he'll be his own worst enemy. The jury will see through his bluster and send him packing faster than you can say "you're fired." And if that happens, it'll be the beginning of the end for the Trump political dynasty.
To be blunt, I'm obsessed with this trial. It's like a soap opera on steroids, a slow-motion implosion of a man who thought he was untouchable. "Who Shot J. R.?" from the 80s nighttime extravaganza "Dallas" was a mere sideshow compared to this main event.
It will be fascinating to see how this high-profile case unfolds and whether Trump ultimately decides to testify. The consequences of his decision could have far-reaching effects not only on the trial's outcome but also on his personal and political future.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a girl with a keyboard and a wild penchant for the absurd. One thing's for sure – this trial is going to be one hell of a ride. So buckle up, pour yourself a double, and let's watch the chaos unfold. It's going to be a wild one, folks.
Popcorn, anyone?
Yep, Gloria, buckle up and wear your crash helmet. 💙I posted earlier (before reading yours) that a number of folks here have likely dusted off their televisions. We can't help but slow down for the awful accident on the freeway.
Popcorn -- oh yes! Two cases of it in the larder.
Well at least Trump's family will be at the trial supporting him.
... Oh, wait
Exactly. And they've asked him to stay away from Barron's graduation (although he's pretending he 'can't go.'
He can't. But first he complained that because he was required to be at the trial, he was going to miss his son's graduation. Judge said it depended on the trial's progress (sounded like a hint to me- all the delays have been Trump's doing). The corker is that apparently he did not attend any of his other children's graduation ceremonies. Does not surprise me.
Joyce, I agree with your prediction. I also believe there is the possibility of a mistrial.
Keep in mind, Orange 1 has to be found guilty unanimously on only one of the 34 counts --- and the jury has three predicate crimes (felonies) for it from which to choose.
Thank you Dale.
Why are you wondering about the possibility of a mistrial?! With the MOUNTAIN of evidence that the prosecution has against TRump and literally reems of paperwork that shows his fraudulent and deceitful actions, how could anyone not understand that he committed these crimes?! I must be an optimist when it comes to taking down TRump. I don't see a mistrial coming at all
It would only take one holdout Magat to fail to find him guilty. Hung jury, no matter how long they hold them in a hotel.
This jury is not sequestered, at this point at least. And that situation would only result in a mistrial and then a subsequent retrial.
I have seen a few trials, civil and criminal, where a party, usually a defendant, had a meltdown on the stand in front of the jury and there wasn't time to get the jury out of the courtroom to avoid seeing the spectacle and a mistrial had to be declared because it was so prejudicial to the defense that the judge decided it would be better to start over.
I agree with the mistrial, or perhaps the loss of a quorum of jurors, before this is over. It is precarious, as everything is slung by the defense to cause chaos.
This is a criminal trial. As such, the verdict must be unanimous. There is no quorum in a criminal trial.
If they run out of alternates, they could reach the point where there is no longer enough people on the jury to continue. Let's hope that doesn't happen.
6 Alternates Is "a lot" by common standards.
I cannot recall the last mistrial in any Court
. IF that did happen -- just reboot. No problem
.
Um, yes, there is a problem, Bryan. Rebooting a trial takes a lot more than just pushing a button. Mistrial means more delay, at best, and a big mess. There is a reason for the extra jurors: it means that prosecution and judge recognizes the enormous pressure on the jury, and have anticipated the possibility of attrition. We lost two already, though in time to replace. I admire the guts it must take for the rest to hang in there.
Just IMHO only as to"6 alternates is plenty".But, my respect for the trial management of Judge Juan Merchan grows daily. :-)
Why?
I see a talk of a mistrial as premature and not an issue right now.
Hi Marycat2021, Trump is well-known for his spontaneous eruptions. If he goes off at the first witness - ranting, yelling liar, the judge may not have time to remove the jury. They will have seen Trump's rant. So the judge could declare a mistrial (I think) and then would have to start anew. I'm not sure if the new start would include sequestering Trump in a 'quiet room' where he cannot be seen or heard for the new trial. Also, the judge needs to rule on his gag order violations: if he orders a fine, then ramps it up to jail, that may be considered in the new trial if there is one. Lawyers??!! (We need a legal opinion - but Judge Merchan will not allow this blatherskiting narcissist to ruin the people's case).
The jury would be polled on the record as to whether his mere shout of "liar" would destroy their ability to remain open minded. I've seen this in actual courtrooms. The judge's responsibility to insure Trump gets a fair trial includes the option of sequestering him in a room where he can listen to the proceedings yet not interfere in them. The cost of a new trial is such that a judge will not order one merely because a defendant shouts "liar" or anything else within earshot of the jury.
Hi MaryCat,
IMHO, we are in uncharted waters with Trump. No one can say definitively what the judge will do to protect the case. I don’t think ‘cost’ is going to be the determiner, when we’re talking about saving our Republic. Watch for Trump to act out. He cannot control himself.
During the coming weeks the uber conscientious Prof. Vance may want to tag-team here with Barb McQuade or another of her coterie to keep up with the torrent of info that will be pouring out as the result of Orange 1 infamy. I note that the defense got into trouble already with its opening statement requiring a conference with Merchan, who sustained several objections from the prosecution. And the point to be made about the defense contention that "influencing an election" is not a crime is that while that may be true (as far as it goes), the fact that crimes were allegedly committed to do so is the core issue here --- and especially relevant to the necessary compelling "story" the prosecution will attempt to tell the jury. Also --- apparently that appeal bond business has been settled (for now) with promises and stipulations to be memorialized in an agreement this week by Orange 1's mouthpiece.
Oh. My. Gosh. Influencing an election is not a crime? Why did we have the Russia investigation that wrongly found that Russia had not influenced Trump's 2016 election? (see Cambridge Analytica, Russian computer engineers - citizens from Russia not by heritage working the FB data for Trump with Zuckerberg not remembering a thing - not even where he had stayed the night prior when he testified to Congress). How could it be legal to influence an election?
The issue is whether withholding damaging information from the electorate is a crime per se or a matter of ethics and character. It all depends on what information was withheld (or alternatively, disseminated). And while there will no doubt be a good deal of testimony and probably documentary evidence that the payment wasn't made to protect his family, but to influence the election, he isn't actually charged with that. It's the alleged goal or end purpose of the crimes he is charged with --- the "why" he committed the alleged crimes, which is for the jury's benefit.
Thank you Dale for clarifying. I'm lost in the legal maze. I was plugging and chugging through my first Joyce Vance Law 101 and now I'm over my head. I'm now flowing along, having match tea.
No --- by all means don't be hard on yourself. It is confusing, especially with the emphasis by the prosecution (as it should be) on that bright, shiny assertion any of the jurors can immediately understand and focus on: he tried to influence or "interfere" in an election and maybe even tried to effectively negate your own vote. The issues of campaign finance law violations and tax fraud --- the alleged underlying crimes for this attempt to influence the election ---are a bit more complicated as you can appreciate. And how well the prosecution presents these necessary predicate crimes will be telling because the defense will almost certainly emphasize their interpretation in arguing there were no violations.
He tried to negate my vote in 2016 and 2020. The degree of criminality by Trump is astonishing. And we only hear about the charged cases.
Saying that influencing an election isnt a crime is like saying taking money out of a bank isn’t a crime.
Bank robbery is a discrete, chargeable criminal offense. Withholding (or disseminating) information may or may not be depending on what it is.
I would dearly love to see him on the stand especially if he's not sedated.
What's the over/under for how many days before he does his first night in jail?
I think lunch in the court holding cell should qualify.
Barbara B, lunch in the court holding cell hardly qualifies for an entire overnight in jail (in my view). But as Joyce points to, the judge will likely graduate the event with a fine first, then the jail.
I hope he takes the stand because unless the jury is made up of morons, he'll hang himself.
Didn't one male juror who made the cut say that he found him fascinating?
Hi Susan Jane, the male juror may have meant that he found him fascinating in the sense that he is an enigma - not necessarily a positive attribute. As I read through this substack, I am always so impressed - and curious - about responses from the readers who say: "I've lived with a narcissist and so I know he's going to do such and such." Many of them are now saying he will testify. So we will stay tuned for that one:)) 💙 I think as well that some of us are fascinated with Trump the way we can't turn away from an accident on the freeway. It's unpleasant and yet the cars slow down. I'm sure televisions that have gathered dust for years are tuning in on this circus.
I was thinking fascinating as in what you find when you turn over a rock. As a kid, I liked to draw them because they were so interesting. Other kids went "ew". Little did I know that it was the beginning of a lifetime of studying life's peculiarities. I became a scientist, but that grew out of trying to figure out the "why this and not that" part of life.
If you can figure out this specimen, please let us know!
Mary Trump already did this for us. Bless her. It makes me queezy just thinking about it.
I am a great fan of Oliver Sacks, though. His writing is an amazing work that revealed the deep humanity of people most other people regard as peculiar or odd, but who are just people with wonky brains and real lives. He gave me a greater understanding of what being human means, and also enlarged my ability to empathize.
I have known narcissists though, and they are not in the same category. They are quite sane, but lack any sense of humanity. Trump is on the far end of that spectrum and I prefer not to look too closely. As a young woman I was targeted and stalked by a narcissist. It took a while to feel safe in the world again. I'm good at disappearing.
Trump is a borderline psychopath.. Impossible to empathize with that!
I do get that. He is quite the flaming spectacle.
That won't be a problem so long as the juror remains objective. I too find Trump fascinating, but I still detest him.
Fascinating. Lock him up!
Once again, thank you for helping clarify all this for us laypeople. I have questions regarding the (closed to cameras!) trial. I recently read that there is a protocol for transcripts that they must be purchased directly from the court stenographer and not used for publication. Two questions: 1.) Outside of this protocol, are the transcripts filed into the public record? If so, when are they made available to the public? 2.) Failing this, is there a way for someone (WaPo? Legal advocacy group?) to negotiate some sort of compromise to pay for these transcripts and make them available publicly? As we all know, the importance of this trial for our country cannot be overstated. Do you have any thoughts or insight to share with on this? Thanks!
I found the answer to my question. The transcripts will be posted by the court at: https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml
Score one for the people!
As a retired federal court reporter, I have had a lot of experience with transcripts. It is the common practice in nearly every court in the country, state and federal, for court reporters to have a somewhat "hybrid" employment. We are paid employees when we make the verbatim record and independent contractors when the government, defense, or other entity orders transcripts of the proceedings. If the record is being made by realtime reporters, which is generally unedited and unproofed, that is not official until it is proofed and certified and filed with the court. There is nothing nefarious going on with this practice, it is very common. And I don't know how the record is being made in this court, but that is one way the record is made; there are other ways. And our courts usually set the per-page rate that reporters can charge, and you simply cannot give one party a deal and not give it to another party at a different price, and no negotiation is done with the press or any other party. Once the final transcripts are filed, the public can buy copies also. Court reporters do not hold any copyright on court transcripts. There is so much more to this issue, but those are the basics.
This article appeared in New York Magazine on April 15, 2024:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/free-the-trump-hush-money-trial-transcripts.html
"In New York — again, in a departure from the federal system and every other state — official rules state that transcripts of what gets said in court must be purchased from the court stenographers who have the job of recording, on a specialized keyboard, every word, action, and ruling in criminal cases. These court personnel, whose base salaries top $100,000 in many cases, can charge as much as $4.75 a page for transcripts, with the record of a single day of trial easily totaling several hundred dollars — money that goes into the pocket of the employee, not the court. And everyone who needs to see the transcripts — prosecutors, defense attorneys, members of the media, and even the court itself — has to buy transcripts from these workers, even though they are on the public payroll and get health benefits and pensions at public expense. And media organizations are forbidden from jointly purchasing and then publishing the transcripts; each outlet must buy its own copy, and publication is prohibited.
"This system should have been scrapped long ago. While compiling accurate official transcripts is a complicated and necessary skill, there is no earthly reason these public accounts of public proceedings should be hawked by court personnel who are already drawing a public salary. "
Thanks, L.D.! That's the exact article I read. My granny-brain appreciates the validation. *wink-wink*
I believe NY court reporters retain publication rights to the transcripts and unless I'm mistaken, at least one transcript published online without the necessary permission (or payment ?) has been taken down as a result.
This is done all over the country in nearly every court system, state and federal. Some courts have digital recording, but you still have to pay to have the transcript, but by far reporting by a human being is considered a better record overall. I'm a retired federal court reporter, so obviously I'm biased, but there is nothing nefarious going on here. In federal court, once someone has ordered a transcript be made of proceedings or, as in trial, the parties agree to have "daily" transcripts made, the final edition that has been proofread will be filed in the case via the PACER system and others can buy it at a copy rate, which is lower than the original rate.
The issue is not that anything nefarious is going on. Undoubtedly the court reporters are following court policy and agreements. The question is ancillary use of a transcript after it's been paid for or put another way whether the "first sale doctrine" should apply here too. Does the reporter have some kind of explicit intellectual property protection for their transcript other than being able to sell it, or is it implied in their agreement or by law ?
No, the reporter does not hold any implicit or explicit copyright to the transcript. And in federal court, once a party orders the original, pays for it, and the reporter offers a copy to the other side (often one side will ask the reporter not to tell the other side they've ordered a transcript, but that's inappropriate and the reporter will not keep that a secret) the reporter has to file it on PACER and, with a few exceptions, it is available for anyone to get at the PACER price. I have prepared transcripts for press in the past, they pay for it obviously, and then I see it in the paper or quoted on social media, and you just learn to let it go. I don't know the NY policy on copies or even if the reporters have to file a transcript with the court. Hope that answers your question to the extent that I have knowledge. I am not aware that reporters have any kind of ownership of the original or copies, only to the extent that they produced it and are required to certify that the copy they've given to the purchaser is authentic.
Rather than keep chasing my tail on the matter, I think it behooves me to actually find out what the regs are with respect to secondary or ancillary use of NY court transcripts once they are sold. Will do when I have time and report back.
Hi Reader/Writer, if the reporter owns the transcript, can they negotiate the price? If so, this would be the opportunity for an entrepreneurial windfall. Launch a website with a single landing page and charge $1.00 per the entire day's transcript. The reporter could make $100,000 per day. Call it 'The Circus.' Even if one took in half that amount, over a six week period, that's a lot of income compared to the $4.75 per page paid by a few people.
No, the per-page price for transcripts in every court system I’m familiar with is set by statute in the state or, in the case of federal court, by the Administrative Office of the US Courts. And we had to file a report quarterly with the AO showing how many pages we produced and in what cases that quarter.
I hope he just gets up on the stand so that his attorneys can’t say because he didn’t there is reasonable doubt.
He is so prideful and arrogant that the prosecutors will easily catch him in lies.
Pamela Tracy informed there’s a new grift. “Melania is pitching a Mother’s Day necklace. For $245 you can buy some kind of charm on a chain that has her name on the back.” He will probably turn your neck green. Next up trump will sell a cuff link set I’m assuming getting ready for HIS cuffs.
Melanie should have designed a pair of tiny cuffs, or maybe those bull balls that real cowboys hang from the back of their jacked-up trucks.
👏👏
He’s a coward and won’t take the stand. First he would want to spin every answer cause he can’t stick by yes or no. If his lawyers tried to rebuke those questions he would be allowed to go off on his tangents. Second I’m surprised he behaved in court today. Now onto the MSNBC Andrea Mitchell or whoever was on and carried TFG speaking after court, they sure don’t have the integrity of Nicolle or any of the hosts after her. I’m really disappointed. Plus it made me accidentally break my beloved 16 oz kitty coffee mug and Pfaltzgraff doesn’t have anymore of them. (My clumsy self bumped my side table).
Andrea Mitchell is a chaos junkie and hasn't been a decent journalist in decades... I personally think she's enamored with TRump.
I personally think she needs to retire cause she stumbles on her words too much or just keep her for international issues.
Exactly this. It's annoying to watch her struggle to get the words out.
I'm 77 by the way so I know something about getting old. What PBS did with Judy fixed a big problem, she has a talent for telling stories but she had lost her edge for hot interviews with people that absolutely didn't want to be pinned down by telling the truth, I'm not saying her replacements are great, they appear to be trying, but they are "news lite", not cutting edge journalists, for that I fault PBS's both sides policy. When one side speaks the truth and the other nothing but lies, why give the liars air time? I can't watch 6 - 8 weeks of Andrea Mitchell mumbling during this trial, MSNBC needs to get a replacement in there pronto.
I think she's clueless, maybe at one time in her life she was sharp, but that time is long gone. They are probably honoring her contract but whoever wrote the last one needs to be fired, she didn't instantly become clueless. PBS phased Judy out when it became obvious that she was lost, and gave her special assignment reporting which she's good at, MSNBC needs to do the same with Andrea, I can't watch her, and they have people in the wings that have a lot of talent.
Try Replacements, Ltd online.