Donald Trump Hush Money Verdict Is Set to Shape a Summer of Presidential Politics
Jury expected to begin deliberations this week in what may be the only trial Trump faces before Election Day


WSJ
NEW YORK—A jury of five women and seven men in Donald Trump’s hush-money trial is expected to begin this week the historic task of deciding whether to convict a former president, a verdict that could set the tone for an election year that has already turned off many voters.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, so far has emerged largely unscathed from his trial on 34 felony charges. But a conviction would be an ignominious first for a former president, threatening Trump’s standing with some voters and handing President Biden new ammunition to portray his rival as unfit for office. An acquittal—or even a hung jury—could be a career-defining moment for Trump, who likely would cast himself as having vanquished an improper political prosecution.

“The trial has just reaffirmed everyone’s opinion of Trump. His supporters see a rigged system, while his opponents focus on his moral shortcomings,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist in Washington. “So far the trial is just background noise for voters, but if the noise gets loud enough, people will notice.”

The 12 jurors deciding Trump’s fate include an investment banker, physical therapist, teacher and two lawyers. Their closed-door deliberations will come after more than a month of testimony in the first and perhaps only trial Trump will face before the election. Three other prosecutions of Trump, one in Georgia and two at the federal level, are facing legal hurdles and procedural delays.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, brought the hush-money case. His prosecutors have argued that Trump falsified business records to cover up a payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, who alleged an affair with the former president, on the eve of the 2016 election. The bogus records, prosecutors allege, constitute a felony because they were intended to conceal an unlawful effort by Trump and others to boost his electoral prospects by removing negative stories from the market.

Trump denies the affair, and his lawyers have told jurors that seeking to sway voters is legal. The former president, who was in the White House at the time of the alleged false records, had no role in their creation, they said.

Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the case, has scheduled closing arguments for Tuesday. He plans to instruct jurors Wednesday, then send them off to deliberate.

Whatever the jury’s verdict, Trump’s advisers say his post-trial schedule likely won’t change much immediately. He is expected to continue to attend a couple of campaign events a week, though he will have more freedom to travel to battleground states without being required to sit in court.

During a fundraising dinner Wednesday in Dallas, part of a $15 million day for the campaign, Trump noted that some commentators think the hush-money case and other prosecutions have helped him politically. Guests received packets of the latest polling showing Trump in the lead, according to a person who attended.

Trump’s fundraising shot up during the trial, while Biden continues to face economic headwinds and is struggling with nonwhite and young voters. Trump sought to emphasize that Thursday by holding a rally in the Bronx, a Democratic stronghold, that drew a large crowd.

The former president alluded to the trial and his broader legal issues briefly in an appearance at the Libertarian National Convention on Saturday night. “If I wasn’t a libertarian before, I sure as hell am a libertarian now,” he said during remarks that drew a mix of cheers from supporters and repeated boos from some parts of the audience.

Trump jabbed at the group as the booing continued, saying it should back him or remain a minor player. “Keep getting your 3% every four years,” he said.

A Biden official said the president’s team sees Trump’s post-trial return to the campaign trail as a positive development, believing it will provide a contrast for many voters who are not familiar with some of Trump’s recent remarks, including authoritarian rhetoric and pledges to close the southern U.S. border and increase oil drilling. The official said no final decisions had been made on how Biden might react to the outcome of the trial.

At the courthouse, Trump has had all the media exposure he could hope for, with television cameras fixed on him as he rails against the case and weighs in on issues of the day, including stubborn inflation dogging Biden. New York court rules don’t allow the trial to be televised, sparing Trump the embarrassment of live coverage of Daniels’s at times graphic testimony.

To find Trump guilty, jurors will need to be unanimous. If he is convicted, the judge would schedule a sentencing hearing as soon as several weeks later. Because the offenses in question carry no minimum prison term, Merchan would have significant discretion in determining any punishment for Trump, which could include a fine, probation or a jail sentence.

Trump almost certainly would appeal any conviction.

Among people who identified as Trump voters, 6% say a conviction would make them less likely to vote for him, while 24% said it would make them more likely and 68% said it wouldn’t make a difference, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

“Will a conviction sink Trump? The vast majority of his supporters say it would be no big deal,” polling analyst Tim Malloy said in announcing the results. “But in an extremely tight race, that 6% could tip the balance.”

An acquittal could give Trump new political momentum. It is possible a hung jury would, too. In that circumstance, prosecutors—who have faced criticism about the strength of the case—would have to decide whether to try Trump again. Any retrial at minimum would likely be months away.

Trump has previously questioned whether the New York jury would give him a fair shake, prompting Merchan to find for a 10th time that he violated a gag order that bars the former president from attacking jurors and others.

The names of jurors and their political affiliations aren’t publicly known. Unless jurors choose to speak after the verdict, the public won’t know how they reached their conclusion.

Some trial observers believe the deep blue jury pool could be a disadvantage for Trump in a case where the evidence may be viewed as equivocal.

“These people have to return to their spouses and partners and friends and family,” said Renato Stabile, a lawyer and jury consultant who has observed hundreds of mock jury deliberations. “I’m just not sure they will be able to vote not guilty and face them.”

Others said the panelists would likely set politics aside.

“Something goes on in that room that is a dynamic unto itself,” said white-collar defense attorney Thomas Curran. “People in Manhattan do not take the obligation to convict someone lightly. They do it soberly and carefully and they do it together.”

Alvin Bragg Hasn’t Proved His Case in the Trump Trial

The evidence shows why the charges should never have been brought.



WSJ Editorial Board
New York prosecutors rested their hush-money case against Donald Trump this week, but after 20 days in court and a trial transcript of 4,000 pages, the missing piece is still missing. The question is whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg presented the evidence necessary for a conviction, and if we were in the jury room, we’d say no.

Ignore the drama of Stormy Daniels on the witness stand, recalling her alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump in 2006. Focus on the law. To get a guilty verdict on the 34 bookkeeping felonies, Mr. Bragg must prove both that Mr. Trump falsified business records, and also that he did it with intent to commit or conceal a second crime. Yet there was essentially no direct evidence that Mr. Trump conceived of this all as a scheme to break the law.

The only real witness to Mr. Trump’s state of mind was his former fixer, Michael Cohen. When Ms. Daniels threatened to go public in the days before the 2016 election, Mr. Cohen testified that Mr. Trump authorized him to buy her silence for $130,000. “He expressed to me: Just do it,” Mr. Cohen said. “Go meet up with Allen Weisselberg and figure this whole thing out.” Mr. Weisselberg was Mr. Trump’s longtime CFO.

Mr. Bragg’s main argument for the second crime is that because the Stormy payoff was primarily meant to influence the 2016 election, it was in effect an illegal donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign. This interpretation of the law is dubious, though put a pin in that for a moment. Did it cross Mr. Trump’s mind that the transaction might be criminal? A nondisclosure agreement on its own is perfectly legal.

David Pecker, the National Enquirer impresario, was worried. In 2016 he laid out $150,000, plus work in his magazines, to quiet another alleged Trump fling, a former Playboy model named Karen McDougal. Mr. Pecker had a deal with Mr. Cohen to get repaid, but he declined after talking to his general counsel. “I am not going forward with this agreement,” he testified telling Mr. Cohen. “Rip it up.”

Then Mr. Cohen, at least, was on notice of legal exposure? Well, no. Here’s his memory of what Mr. Pecker said. “The Karen McDougal front cover on Men’s Health magazine had sold more copies than they had not only anticipated, I think that they had ever—the way David expressed it to me, that they had ever sold,” Mr. Cohen recalled. “He felt that it was, even for the $150,000, it was an excellent business deal.”

Trying to fill gaps, the DA’s team argued the jury should see an interview Mr. Trump gave Larry King in 1999. “Nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do,” he said, with typical puffery. The prosecutor: “We think that defendant’s admission that he has extensive knowledge of campaign finance laws is obviously directly relevant.”

Seriously? A transparent boast on TV in 1999 is proof Mr. Trump intended to facilitate an illegal campaign donation in 2016? Judge Juan Merchan sided with the defense on this, excluding it as “attenuated” and “speculation.”

When Mr. Trump repaid Mr. Cohen in 2017, the money was structured as income and then “grossed up” to cover taxes. That was Mr. Weisselberg’s idea, Mr. Cohen said, and he wasn’t informed why: “To be honest, I didn’t really even think about it. I just wanted to get my money back.” Mr. Weisselberg, who’s currently in jail, didn’t testify. Prosecutors said they were reluctant to call him, since he might take the Fifth Amendment, and his big-money severance package has a non-disparagement clause.

Then there’s the fateful legal question, which is whether paying hush money even counts as a campaign expense. Brad Smith, formerly of the Federal Election Commission, persuasively argues no. A political candidate might choose, for example, to settle a meritless lawsuit against his business rather than face questions on it from voters. But that motivation wouldn’t convert the settlement into campaign activity.

Mr. Smith was ready to take the stand this week, but the defense decided not to call him, given limits that Judge Merchan placed on his testimony. “It’s elementary that the judge instructs the jury on the law, so I understand his reluctance,” Mr. Smith wrote. Yet if Mr. Trump is convicted, the odds seem reasonable that an appellate court might say paying off Stormy wasn’t illegal in the first place.

***
Closing arguments are expected next week, and the wording of the jury instructions could matter a great deal. Judge Merchan said Tuesday he was reserving decision on a request by the defense to tell jurors Mr. Trump must have acted “willfully” to be found guilty. Either way, the reality is that hush money isn’t illegal, disguising the bookkeeping is a misdemeanor that’s past its statute of limitations, and Mr. Bragg jury-rigged the felonies using an alleged second crime that doesn’t look like a crime.

Conviction or no by a Manhattan jury, this is a case that should never have been brought.

“To get a guilty verdict on the 34 bookkeeping felonies, Mr. Bragg must prove both that Mr. Trump falsified business records, and also that he did it with intent to commit or conceal a second crime.“

If you’re just a person who isn’t following this story closely and separating wheat from chaff on a daily basis, the statement made in the quote above is extremely difficult to nail down. Of all the people in America who think they know enough about this trial to comment on whether it has merit or whether Trump appears to be guilty or not, how many of them could condense all of the information down to that single sentence? I’m guessing it would be a very small percentage. And I believe this appears to be part of a goal to defame Trump in order to impact the outcome of the general election. That is just an opinion. I can’t prove doodly squat.

Correct.

I would think that the acquittal is a logical conclusion to a prosecution that stinks to high heaven.

I heard CRAZY OLD LEFTY MAN Robert De Niro ranting outside the trail this morning. I laughed through the whole badly-written script.
He called Trump "A THING", and said if Trump wins he will declare himself dictator for life.
I'm looking for the video and transcript. There is just too much DUMBNESS there to remember right now.

Biden campaign sends allies De Niro and first responders to Trump’s NY trial to put focus on Jan. 6

By COLLEEN LONG and ZEKE MILLER
Updated 11:30 AM EDT, May 28, 2024

OK, here's some more and some clips.

Biden Campaign’s Press Conference Outside Trump Courtroom With Robert De Niro Backfires as Disgraced Actor Flips Out While Getting Mercilessly Trolled by Trump Fans (VIDEO)

by Cullen Linebarger May. 28, 2024 10:31 am

Trump Hush-Money Trial Jury Set to Begin Deliberations
Judge will give jurors legal instructions before setting them off to decide on verdict


WSJ
Donald Trump arrives at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York on Wednesday. PHOTO: CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/PRESS POOL
The jury tasked with deciding whether to convict Donald Trump of 34 felonies is expected to begin its deliberations Wednesday after receiving final legal instructions from the judge.

The instructions, which began shortly after 10 a.m. Eastern time, will usher in the final and critical phase of the trial. Jurors will deliberate behind a closed door guarded by a court officer. It could take them anywhere from hours to days to reach their verdict. If the 12-person jury can’t reach a unanimous conclusion, even after further prompting from the judge, the case could end in a mistrial.

“You are the judges of the facts,” Justice Juan Merchan said to the jury. “And you are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.”

Trump, wearing a gold tie, shifted in his seat, and occasionally looked toward the jury, while Merchan spoke. Some jurors took notes.

The jury of five women and seven men, in addition to six alternates, has heard from nearly two dozen witnesses over the past five weeks. Prosecutors have accused Trump of falsifying New York business records to cover up a conspiracy to corrupt the 2016 election. Trump did so, prosecutors say, by paying off porn star Stormy Daniels to silence her claims of an affair.

Trump has pleaded not guilty and denied the affair. His lawyer, Todd Blanche, told jurors that prosecutors hadn’t proved their case because they relied on the testimony of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen, he said, was the “human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”

Merchan is expected to explain to jurors how to weigh the falsifying records charges in question. How the judge explains specific key phrases—including intent to defraud, unlawful means and campaign expenses—has been the subject of debate between the prosecution and defense in recent weeks.

Still, the panel won’t have a copy of the written instructions to reference during their discussions, as is the norm in New York state courts. Panelists could write a note to the judge asking to hear certain sections.

The deliberations will cap a trial that brought presidential politics into and around the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse. Outside the courthouse Tuesday, campaigns for President Biden and Trump held dueling news conferences, trading attacks that were occasionally interrupted by protesters.

Inside, lawyers for both sides addressed the unusual status of the defendant.

“This isn’t a referendum on your views of President Trump,” said defense lawyer Blanche. “This is not a referendum on the ballot box; who you voted for in 2016, 2020 or who you plan on voting for in 2024.”

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass referenced a remark by Trump, who in 2016 said he could shoot someone in the middle of Manhattan and not lose votes. “There is no special standard for this defendant,” the prosecutor told the panel during his hourslong closing argument. “Donald Trump can’t shoot someone during rush hour on 5th Avenue and get away with it.”

Jury Deliberations Are Starting in Trump’s Trial.
Here’s How They Work.


NYT
The 12 unidentified jurors have retreated behind closed doors and started to debate whether the first president to be criminally prosecuted has committed felony crimes.

For the past five weeks, the 12 unidentified jurors in Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial have listened to opening statements, witness testimony, closing arguments and the judge’s final instructions.

Now is the time for their deliberations to begin. The jurors will retreat behind closed doors on Wednesday and start to debate whether the first president to be criminally prosecuted has committed felony crimes.

The first juror selected is serving as the foreperson and will likely lead the jury’s discussions during deliberations. His or her opinion and vote do not carry more importance than those of the others.

Justice Juan M. Merchan said the jury could deliberate until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, and beyond that, they will revisit how long deliberations go each day.

While the jury deliberates, it’s common to wait days, or even weeks, for a verdict. Prosecutors charged Mr. Trump with 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush-money payment to the porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.

The jurors’ verdict on each count — guilty or not guilty — must be unanimous.

During their deliberations, the jury can send back notes, signed by the foreperson, to ask questions to the court or have a witness’s testimony read back to them. Jurors will also have a laptop containing trial exhibits which they can refer to during their deliberations.

If one of the 12 jurors is unable to continue deliberating for any reason, an alternate would step in. They have watched the case for weeks and remain on site so they can tag in if necessary.

Mr. Trump also must remain inside the courthouse while the jury is deliberating.

If the jury finds that he is guilty of even one of the counts, the judge will sentence Mr. Trump at a later date. But if they find that he is not guilty of all of the charges, Mr. Trump will be acquitted.

If the jurors cannot reach a verdict, they will inform the judge, who will urge them to continue their deliberations. If they still remained deadlocked, the judge could declare a mistrial, and the prosecutors would then need to decide whether to bring the case again.

rfenst, I appreciate the selection of your posts. One that I associate w/left and the other w/right. Not always the case but generally I think they lean in those directions.

9 Damning Pieces Of Evidence Proving Trump Is Guilty

1. Trump said he's innocent: Exactly the sort of thing a guilty person would say.

2. Before the trial, the prosecution's star witnesses both said Trump was innocent: It doesn't get any more cut and dry.

3. The judge decided Trump was guilty before the trial even began: It was that obvious.

4. No one in America has ever been charged with a felony for this crime before: Trump is so guilty they had to make up new laws. Case closed.

5. Trump was in Home Alone 2 alongside notorious criminals "The Wet Bandits": What more evidence could you need?

6. Trump spent evenings after trial delivering pizza to firemen: Exactly what a hardened felon would do. Lock him up.

7. Trump's signature on the checks in question is kind of hard to read: The plain mark of criminal conspiracy.

8. Robert DeNiro said he is guilty: Game over.

9. He's not a Democrat: Clearly belongs behind bars. That's just how law works.

Two different slants ordinarily by each source, but the NYT article is objective and accurate about the jury process (regardless where it came from).

In NY, doesn't the prosecution have the last say in closings, unlike in every other state where the defense gets the last turn?

Last words are golden...

Yes. But, there are different theories about going first vs. going last. Primacy vs. Recency, so to speak.

One thing most people don't know is that the defense doesn't have to give their opening statement until the middle of trial, after the other party rests- if they choose. That's what happened in the Casey Anthony murder trial.

Interesting or boring?

refenst, can you help me understand why the jury doesn’t get written instructions from the judge? Are all of the judges rulings and remarks made available to the jury? Even when the jury is not present?

And one stupid question if you don’t mind. How could it take more than a couple days to reach a verdict in any trial by jury? Would they actually read the transcript out loud in jury deliberations and watch video witness testimonies over and over? The idea of a jury deliberating for weeks is a very curious thing to me.

The verdict will be in on Friday after lunch.

(They get a free lunch and still beat traffic)

Is that when the judge will have it finished for the jury?

I’ve answered jury summons several times but I’ve never made it past the questionnaire. I’m glad. My curiosity isn’t strong enough to make me want to endure that scenario. I would gladly do my duty if selected but I would not want to be selected. I’m a retired military white male so I’m guessing I don’t have to worry about being selected ever.

PS - thanks for sharing your thoughts, rfenst. You have interesting “stuff” to contribute.

Tangentially related:
I've been summoned 3x and never entered a courtroom. Wife got summoned. I told her no big deal. They'll probably send you home. She then got stuck for a week long murder trial. Blamed me naturally