2/ I know these are random, but I have very little time before my phone connection will go out again, I’m sure. McB:
During the civil trial, after Trump violated Engoron's gag order, the judge put Trump on the stand and the court found that he lied, says Colangelo. Its "hard to think of something more probative than" lying under oath "in a courthouse 200 yds from here—if not closer—6 mths ago."
3/ Colangelo says that the evidence shows that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll by lying publicly and publishing defamatory statements with actual malice—that's critical evidence the jury ought to consider in determining his credibility, he says.
4/ Next entry is Trump v. Clinton case in SDFL. Bove says it's another situation in which a judicial finding is disputed, a whole core of underlying facts, in a context where the govt is not without other permissible material to impeach Trump. "This is so far afield" from this case.
5/ Merchan questions Bove's characterization of "dispute," Bove says it's the pending appeal. Merchan quotes the court, which wrote "here we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed," frivolous, and in bad faith. "If that's not Sandoval, I don't know what is."
6/ Trump v. Clinton, about which Merchan said "If that's not Sandoval, I don't know what is," Bove said he understands what Merchan is saying, but only if that was the People's only entry. Merchan says the amount of evidence should have no bearing, nor is factual overlap.
11/ Bove moves to the last entry at issue: James v. Trump Foundation.
Inner City Press:
Bove: That was based on the judge's urging, and says it was not as admission.
Prosecutor II: The parties left open to the judge the question of Mr. Trump violating his fiduciary duty.
Merchan asks a follow up to Bove: several times on some of these cases you dispute the findings. Is it your position that bc a case is appealed or might be appealed that therefore it can't be used in Sandoval? Not categorically, Bove says, but should be salient to decision.
To People now: any caselaw or citations regarding the use of non-criminal matters Merchan can rely upon when dealing with prior convictions?
First, the defense's presidential immunity reargument premotion letter (4/16)—that the courts should preclude a number of exhibits under pres immunity, esp now that it is timely. Merchan's decision remains the same, says Trump couldve raised this when motions in limine were filed
Second defense premotion letter delimiting instruction regarding Cohen plea to FECA and AMI nonprosecution agreement (4/18), defense had submitted language to be used, People respond orally now.
I think the judge just said he'll address that as it comes at trial.
Next, the judge says he'll rule next week on Trump's claim that "he believes his conduct was legal because Cohen as an attorney negotiated the payments in question."
Justice Merchan: Defense cannot continue to submit pre-motion letters asking the Court to reconsider each and every decision. 👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼 At some point you have to accept my rulings. Opening statements on Monday, this trial is starting.👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼🥳
Justice Merchan: Defense cannot continue to submit pre-motion letters asking the Court to reconsider each and every decision. 👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼 At some point you have to accept my rulings. Opening statements on Monday, this trial is starting.👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼🥳
Merchan discusses more premotion letters and says, "Defense is literally targeting individual decisions one, by one, by one, by one, with these premotion letters...There comes a point where you accept my rulings. I've entertained your motions, your arguments, in good faith."
Steinglass raises defense's 4/17 letter about the Access Hollywood tape, which he calls a "third bite at the apple."
Merchan asks, So your Apr 17 letter sought to reargue the clarification I made on Apr 15 clarifying a March 18 in limine ruling? (rhetorically, and exhaustedly) "This sounds suspiciously like the half an hour we spent debating this on Monday," Steinglass says to Blanche's pushback. Steinglass calls it "just another tactic," and asks Merchan to reject it.
Steinglass understood Merchan's ruling to mean that the Access Hollywood tape itself was too prejudicial, bc it contained Trump's voice and person walking off the bus, but the transcript was admissible. Merchan will reread transcript from Monday to make sure no misunderstanding.
Necheles rises for one more issue: "Of course we don't want any delay," [Me: 😂🤦🏻♀️]she says, and renews defense's request to get at least one witness name from the prosecution.
👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼"Whether you get the name or not, you're not going to delay the trial," Merchan says.👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼🥳
Steinglass says that unless Merchan orders it, he won't grant that, also says defense won't get time to cross Monday anyway, but will provide one witness name to defense counsel Sunday evening—but if they're tweeted, that'll never happen again.
@GottaLaff: I'm sure having to use your phone instead of your computer didn't help, but you still captured the day's events in rare form. Impressive! And a very positive public service too. 👍
@GottaLaff: I get that. I much prefer to use a computer when I have to type a lot. Trying to do that on a phone or even an iPad is a pain. Would it have been possible to tether your laptop to your phone when your regular internet was out?
@GottaLaff I've been afraid that he would get by without ever seeing justice. Your reporting on this has really made me feel hopeful and is putting me in a fantastic mood for the weekend. Thank you truly for all the hard work you're putting in (and especially your commentary)!
@GottaLaff@nashenas agree. Thank you so much. Your threads kept me going and distracted me during a very bumpy flight this week. I furiously screen shotted them all so I could read without internet access. Thank you.
Defense had argued at the time Weisselberg had "gone rogue," Colangelo says, but the government was trying to prove that Trump knew about his actions. He passes up Merchan's own ruling, who said it was fair for the People to say that the owners of the corporation "knew it."
Bottom line: Colangelo argues that the corporate criminal convictions of the corporations which a defendant owned or closely controlled should be admissible.
Add comment