The ‘major issue’ Lawrence O’Donnell says Trump’s lawyer left ‘completely unresolved’

MSNBC

28 May 202412:10

Summary

TLDRIn the transcript from MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell,' the discussion centers around the closing arguments in a courtroom case involving payments to Stormy Daniels. Todd Blanche, the defense attorney, is criticized for leaving critical issues unaddressed, such as the $130,000 payment and its relation to the alleged hush money. The defense's strategy hinges on casting doubt on Michael Cohen's credibility, emphasizing that he is the sole testimony linking Donald Trump to the payment. The judge admonishes Blanche for suggesting that the jury should be wary of sending Trump to prison based solely on Cohen's word. The conversation highlights the tension in the courtroom and the challenge for the defense to create reasonable doubt about Trump's knowledge and involvement in the payments prior to the 2016 election.

Takeaways

🔔 The significance of the phrase 'once you've rung the bell, you can't unring it' is emphasized, suggesting that actions have irreversible consequences.
📺 Lawrence O'Donnell from MSNBC's 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' provides his perspective from inside the courtroom.
🤔 The defense's handling of the $130,000 payment and Allen Weisselberg's written calculation is questioned, as it was left unexplained and seems inconsistent with their argument.
🎯 The defense's main strategy appears to be casting doubt on Michael Cohen's credibility, with the repeated emphasis on the jury not trusting him.
⚖️ Todd Blanche, the prosecutor, was admonished by the judge for suggesting that the jury shouldn't send Donald Trump to prison based solely on Cohen's word, and the judge promised a curative instruction to the jury.
🏆 The case is not about politics but about the legality of the payments made, with Blanche reminding the jury that it's not a referendum on presidential candidates.
💬 The transcript shows a focus on the timing and intention behind the payments, particularly whether Trump knew about them before the election, which is central to the case.
📝 The defense's argument is that Trump was detail-oriented before his presidency but less so afterward, which seems contradictory and is a point of contention.
🤷‍♂️ The word 'liar' is used 25 times in the defense's argument, highlighting their strategy to discredit Michael Cohen as a witness.
📈 The 'Access Hollywood' tape is mentioned as a potential influence on Trump's decision-making, but the defense downplays its significance, which could be a stretch for the jury to accept.
📑 The defense's case hinges on creating reasonable doubt about Trump's knowledge and involvement in the payments to Stormy Daniels in October 2016.

Q & A

What is the significance of the phrase 'you can't unring the bell' in the context of the trial?
-The phrase 'you can't unring the bell' suggests that once certain actions have been taken, such as the payments made in this case, they cannot be undone and their implications must be dealt with, even if they are later disputed.
Who is Lawrence O'Donnell and what was his role in the courtroom?
-Lawrence O'Donnell is the host of 'The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell' on MSNBC. He was present in the courtroom as an observer and later provided analysis on the proceedings.
What was the general mood inside the courtroom during the summations?
-The general mood inside the courtroom was described as very tense, which is common for summations in a high-stakes case like this.
What was the defense's main argument regarding the $130,000 payment to Michael Cohen?
-The defense argued that the $130,000 payments to Michael Cohen were a paycheck for services rendered, and had nothing to do with Stormy Daniels.
Why was the $130,000 amount significant in Allen Weisselberg's calculation?
-The $130,000 amount was significant because it was the basis of the calculation for how much Michael Cohen would be paid, which was left unexplained by the defense and created a conflict within their theory.
What was the judge's response to Todd Blanche's argument about sending Donald Trump to prison based on Michael Cohen's word?
-The judge admonished Todd Blanche for suggesting that the jury should be worried about the burden of sending Donald Trump to prison based on Michael Cohen's word, stating that Blanche, as an experienced prosecutor, knew what he was doing.
What was Todd Blanche's closing argument focused on?
-Todd Blanche's closing argument focused on creating reasonable doubt about Michael Cohen's testimony, emphasizing that the jury cannot believe Michael Cohen.
How did Todd Blanche address the issue of the 'Access Hollywood' tape in the defense's argument?
-Todd Blanche did not directly address the 'Access Hollywood' tape in the defense's argument, but the implication is that the defense tried to downplay its significance, which could be challenged given the public's awareness of its impact.
What was the defense's strategy in arguing that Donald Trump might not have known about the payment to Stormy Daniels?
-The defense's strategy was to create reasonable doubt about whether Donald Trump knew about the payment to Stormy Daniels in October 2016, suggesting that he might not have been detail-oriented after the election due to being busy.
How did Lawrence O'Donnell assess Michael Cohen's testimony regarding the payment?
-Lawrence O'Donnell believed that Michael Cohen's testimony, which included details about the $130,000 payment and its tax implications, stood up well against the defense's theory.
What was the jury's reaction to the arguments presented?
-The jury was described as reacting very little, with only a couple of note takers. One particularly active note taker during the trial took virtually no notes during the summations.

Outlines

00:00

🕵️‍♂️ Unresolved Payment Issue and Defense Strategy

In the courtroom, the defense left a critical issue unaddressed: the purpose of the $130,000 payment and Allen Weisselberg's calculation for Michael Cohen's reimbursement. The defense claimed the payments were for services rendered, not related to Stormy Daniels, but failed to clarify the $130,000 basis of the calculation. The prosecution highlighted this inconsistency, emphasizing that the defense's argument was self-contradictory. The prosecution's main argument revolved around the credibility of Michael Cohen, asserting that the only testimony linking Donald Trump to the Stormy Daniels payment was Cohen's, and thus the jury should not trust him. Todd Blanche's argument was admonished by the judge for suggesting that the jury should be worried about sending Trump to prison, which was deemed inappropriate given that Trump was not facing a mandatory minimum sentence. Blanche also emphasized the case was not a political referendum but a legal matter.

05:03

🗣️ Defense's Doubt and Credibility Tactics

The defense's strongest point was casting doubt on Michael Cohen's credibility, especially concerning Trump's knowledge of the payment to Stormy Daniels in October 2016. The defense aimed to create reasonable doubt about whether Trump was aware of the payment before the election, which is crucial for establishing his motivation for election interference. The strategy was not to prove innocence but to provide reasons for doubt, focusing on the inconsistency of Trump's involvement in financial details before and after the election. The defense also leveraged the word 'liar' frequently, suggesting that the jury should not trust Cohen's testimony. The prosecution, however, argued that the defense's argument about Trump's attention to detail was conflicting and that the evidence, particularly Cohen's, stood strong against the defense's theory.

10:05

📝 Invoices and Checks: The Potential for Reasonable Doubt

A bookkeeper testified that invoices were always attached to checks signed by Trump, which could have informed him of the payments. However, there was an admission that Trump did not always look at the attached invoices, introducing the possibility of reasonable doubt regarding his awareness of specific payments. The defense aimed to exploit this to cast doubt on whether Trump knew about the payments to Stormy Daniels in October 2016. The prosecution, led by Todd Blanche, tried to counter this by emphasizing the facts as they stood, suggesting that the defense's case was built on creating doubt rather than presenting a solid counterargument. The jury's reaction was minimal, with few note-takers and one particularly active juror taking no notes during the morning session.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Unring the bell

The phrase 'unring the bell' is used metaphorically to indicate that once an action has been taken, it cannot be undone. In the context of the video, it suggests that the legal actions taken are irreversible and have significant consequences. The script does not provide a direct example of this phrase being used, but it sets the tone for the discussion that follows.

💡Summation

In a legal context, 'summation' refers to the final arguments made by both the prosecution and defense at the end of a trial before the case is given to the jury. The script mentions that the mood during summations in a case like this is very tense, indicating the high stakes and seriousness of the situation.

💡Evidence

Evidence is the information or material presented in a court proceeding to prove or disprove a fact or claim. The script discusses how Todd Blanche wrestled with the evidence he had and how a major issue was left unresolved, specifically the $130,000 and its relation to Michael Cohen's payment.

💡Defense argument

A defense argument is the strategy or reasoning put forth by the defense team to counter the prosecution's case. The script highlights that the defense argued the payments to Michael Cohen were a paycheck for services rendered and not related to Stormy Daniels, but this was challenged due to the unresolved $130,000 issue.

💡Reasonable doubt

Reasonable doubt is a legal standard that requires a jury to be uncertain about a defendant's guilt. The script emphasizes that the defense's strategy was to create reasonable doubt about Donald Trump's knowledge and involvement in the payments to Stormy Daniels before the election.

💡Testimony

Testimony refers to the evidence presented by a witness under oath during a trial. The script mentions that Michael Cohen's testimony was crucial, as it was the only testimony linking Donald Trump to the Stormy Daniels payment.

💡Admonishment

Admonishment in a court setting means a formal rebuke or warning, often given by a judge to an attorney for misconduct. The script describes how Todd Blanche was admonished by the judge for suggesting that the jury should worry about sending Donald Trump to prison.

💡Mandatory minimum prison sentence

A mandatory minimum prison sentence is a legally required minimum sentence that a judge must impose in certain criminal cases. The script clarifies that none of the cases where Donald Trump has been criminally charged carry a mandatory minimum prison sentence.

💡Referendum

A referendum is a vote in which the public decides on a specific issue. In the script, Todd Blanche tells the jury that the trial is not a referendum, emphasizing that it should not be influenced by political preferences but based solely on the legal merits of the case.

💡Liar

The term 'liar' is used in the script to describe Michael Cohen, indicating that the defense's strategy heavily relied on discrediting him as a witness. The word was used 25 times, suggesting an attempt to cast doubt on his testimony and thus create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.

💡Access Hollywood tape

The 'Access Hollywood' tape refers to a 2005 recording of Donald Trump making inappropriate comments about women. The script mentions that the defense tried to downplay the significance of the tape, but it was a major concern during the campaign and is relevant to the case.

Highlights

The significance of the statement 'once you've rung the bell, you can't unring it' in the context of the trial.

Lawrence O'Donnell's presence in the courtroom and his role as a commentator.

Andrew Weizman's closing statement deemed 'fairly standard and perfectly acceptable'.

Tense atmosphere during the summations in the case.

Todd Blanche's handling of the evidence and the unresolved issue of the $130,000 payment.

Defense argument that payments to Michael Cohen were a paycheck for services rendered.

The lack of explanation for the $130,000 calculation by the defense.

The argument that Michael Cohen cannot be trusted as the main defense strategy.

The judge's admonishment of Todd Blanche for a line of argument regarding sending a man to prison on Michael Cohen's word.

Donald Trump not facing a mandatory minimum prison sentence in any of the cases where he has been criminally charged.

Todd Blanche emphasizing that the trial is not a referendum or related to presidential candidate preferences.

The defense's argument that Donald Trump was detail-oriented before the election but not after due to being busy.

The importance of Michael Cohen's testimony regarding Donald Trump's knowledge and approval of the Stormy Daniels payment.

The defense's strategy to create reasonable doubt about Donald Trump's awareness of the payment before the election.

The word 'liar' used 25 times in the defense's argument to cast doubt on Michael Cohen's testimony.

The defense's conflicting argument about Donald Trump's level of detail orientation with payments before and after the election.

The observation of the jury's reaction, or lack thereof, to the arguments presented.