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.

Transcripts

00:01

THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS ONCE

00:03

YOU HAVE RUNG THAT BELL, YOU

00:04

CAN'T UNRING IT.

00:06

>> SO, ALSO JOINING US NOW,

00:09

MSNBC'S LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, HOST

00:11

OF "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE

00:12

O'DONNELL," WHO HAS BEEN INSIDE

00:14

THE COURTROOM TODAY.

00:15

YOU'RE THE FIRST PERSON WE'RE

00:17

TALKING TO WHO HAS DONE THAT.

00:19

IN CASE YOU JOINED A LITTLE

00:21

LATE, ANDREW WEIZMAN, WHEN ASKED

00:23

TO SUM UP THE CLOSING, SAID IT

00:25

WAS FAIRLY STANDARD AND

00:26

PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

00:28

I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF, MY

00:30

COLLEGE DEBATE TEAM, IF SOMEBODY

00:32

CALLED MY PERFORMANCE THAT, I

00:33

WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO CRAZY

00:34

ABOUT IT.

00:35

BUT GIVE US THE SENSE, YOUR

00:37

SENSE, OF WHAT YOU SAW AND HEARD

00:40

AND PARTICULARLY THE MOOD INSIDE

00:43

THAT ROOM TODAY.

00:44

>> WELL, IT IS VERY TENSE, AS IT

00:46

ALWAYS IS, FOR SUMMATIONS IN THE

00:48

CASE LIKE THIS.

00:49

AND I WOULD SAY THAT TODD

00:51

BLANCHE DID THE BEST HE COULD

00:53

GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD

00:55

TO WRESTLE WITH.

00:56

HE LEFT ONE MAJOR ISSUE

00:59

COMPLETELY UNRESOLVED, WHICH IS

01:03

WHAT WAS THE $130,000 DOING AND

01:06

ALLEN WEISSELBERG'S WRITTEN

01:08

CALCULATION OF HOW MUCH MICHAEL

01:10

COHEN WOULD BE PAID.

01:12

BECAUSE THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT IS

01:13

THAT MICHAEL COHEN -- THE

01:16

PAYMENTS TO MICHAEL COHEN WERE A

01:17

PAYCHECK.

01:18

THEY WERE FOR SERVICES RENDERED.

01:21

THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT IS THAT

01:24

THAT MONEY, $35,000, TO MICHAEL

01:25

COHEN EVERY MONTH, HAD NOTHING

01:28

TO DO WITH STORMY DANIELS.

01:32

WELL, THEN WHY IS $130,000 THE

01:34

BASIS OF THAT CALCULATION?

01:35

THAT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED BY THE

01:36

DEFENSE.

01:37

THEY CERTAINLY NEVER EXPLAINED

01:38

IT DURING TESTIMONY.

01:40

AND I WAS SITTING THERE ALL

01:42

MORNING, WAITING FOR THAT

01:44

MOMENT, WHERE THAT CAN BE

01:46

EXPLAINED WITHIN THIS DEFENSE

01:47

THEORY OF THOSE WERE PAYCHECKS

01:48

TO MICHAEL COHEN.

01:50

THEY NEVER EXPLAINED IT.

01:52

THEY LEFT IT UNRESOLVED.

01:54

IT IS A DEFENSE THEORY,

01:58

CONFLICTING WITH A DEFENSE

01:59

THEORY.

02:00

THE REAL ARGUMENT WAS MICHAEL

02:02

COHEN CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

02:05

MICHAEL COHEN IS THE EMBODIMENT

02:08

OF REASON ANNUAL DOUBT, AS TODD

02:11

BLANCHE FINISHED STRONGLY WITH.

02:13

IT WAS ALL A YOU CANNOT BELIEVE

02:15

MICHAEL COHEN ARGUMENT AND WHAT

02:16

IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT AND

02:20

WHAT HE SAID FIVE TIMES WAS THE

02:22

ONLY TESTIMONY LINKING DONALD

02:25

TRUMP TO THE STORMY DANIELS

02:27

PAYMENT, WHEN IT WAS MADE IN

02:30

OCTOBER 2016, COMES FROM MICHAEL

02:32

COHEN AND FROM NO ONE ELSE, AND

02:35

THIS JURY SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE

02:36

MICHAEL COHEN.

02:37

AS TO THAT LAST POINT YOU WERE

02:40

DISCUSSING WITH ANDREW, ABOUT

02:42

THE TODD BLANCHE BEGINNING A

02:43

LINE OF ARGUMENT SAYING YOU

02:45

CAN'T SEND A MAN TOO PRISON ON

02:48

THE WORD OF MICHAEL COHEN, TODD

02:51

BLANCHE WAS ADMONISHED BY THE

02:52

JUDGE FOR THAT, AFTER THE JURY

02:54

LEFT THE ROOM AND THE JUDGE DID

02:57

SAY THAT HE WOULD ISSUE A

03:00

CURATIVE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY

03:02

SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT TODD

03:04

BLANCHE SAID IN THAT MOMENT.

03:06

AND, OF COURSE, DONALD TRUMP IS

03:09

NOT FACING A MANDATORY MINIMUM

03:11

PRISON SENTENCE IN ANY, ANY OF

03:13

THE CASES WHERE HE HAS BEEN

03:15

CRIMINALLY CHARGED.

03:16

NOT ONE OF THEM CARRIES A

03:18

MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON

03:20

SENTENCE.

03:21

SO, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY AS THE

03:23

JUDGE SAID TO TODD BLANCHE AS AN

03:25

EXPERIENCED PROSECUTOR, YOU KNEW

03:27

WHAT YOU WERE DOING, YOU WERE

03:28

TRYING TO GET THIS JURY WORRIED

03:30

ABOUT THE BURDEN THEY WOULD HAVE

03:32

OF SENDING DONALD TRUMP TO

03:33

PRISON.

03:33

ANOTHER REALLY IMPORTANT POINT

03:35

TOWARD THE END OF THE ARGUMENT

03:38

WAS TODD BLANCHE SAYING TO THIS

03:40

MANHATTAN JURY, THIS ISN'T A

03:41

REFERENDUM.

03:42

THIS IS NOT THE BALLOT BOX.

03:44

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO

03:47

YOU PREFER AS A PRESIDENTIAL

03:48

CANDIDATE OR WHO YOU REFER IN

03:50

THE PAST AS A PRESIDENTIAL

03:51

CANDIDATE.

03:52

SOMETHING THAT HE FELT I THINK

03:55

UNDERSTANDABLY COMPELLED TO SAY

03:56

TO A JURY IN MANHATTAN, WHERE

03:59

THE VOTE WAS 85% FOR JOE BIDEN

04:02

AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.

04:03

>> HE ALSO MADE A POINT NUMEROUS

04:05

TIMES, LAWRENCE, OF TALKING

04:06

ABOUT HOW HE WAS THE FORMER

04:07

PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE WAS DOING

04:08

AT THE TIME OF THE PAYMENTS.

04:10

I WONDER IF YOU FOUND ANYTHING

04:13

PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE FROM TODD

04:14

BLANCHE WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING,

04:16

ANY MOMENTS WHERE THE JURY

04:17

REACTED?

04:19

THERE WAS ONE THAT I THOUGHT WAS

04:23

ZEEPT

04:24

DECENT, I WAS IN THE OVERFLOW

04:26

ROOM, THE SIMPLEST ANSWER IS

04:28

OFTENTIMES THE CORRECT ANSWER,

04:28

THE RIGHT ONE.

04:30

HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT MAKES MORE

04:31

SENSE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS

04:34

PAYING HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY

04:35

$35,000 A MONTH PURSUANT TO AN

04:37

AGREEMENT THAT HE MADE WITH

04:39

COHEN BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE, OR

04:41

THAT COHEN WAS GOING TO WORK FOR

04:43

FREE AND WORK AS A CONSULTANT

04:46

AND THEN GET 30K FOR A HUSH

04:48

MONEY PAYMENT.

04:50

THE IDEA THAT MICHAEL COHEN

04:52

WOULD BE WORNG FOR DONALD

04:53

TRUMP AS HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY

04:55

AND NOT BILLING HIM BECAUSE HE

04:57

HAD NOTHING TO DO, HE CALLED

04:58

THAT NOT BELIEVABLE.

04:59

DO YOU THINK THAT RANG TRUE

05:03

WHILE YOU WERE INSIDE THE COURT?

05:05

>> I DON'T THINK IT DOES TO ANY

05:08

OF THE JURORS WHO HEARD THE

05:10

TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT

05:10

THAT.

05:11

MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFYING THAT HE

05:16

DID WHAT HE CALLED MINIMAL WORK

05:19

FOR DONALD TRUMP AND

05:20

OCCASIONALLY FOR DONALD TRUMP'S

05:21

WIFE DURING THAT PERIOD WHEN HE

05:21

WAS BEING PAID.

05:22

MICHAEL COHEN'S EXPLANATION OF

05:24

WHAT THAT PAYMENT WAS BASED ON

05:26

USING ALLEN WEISSELBERG'S

05:28

HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF THE

05:31

$130,000 AND THE OTHER ITEMS,

05:33

PLUS THE TAX IMPACT TO MICHAEL

05:36

COHEN, IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY MAKE

05:39

IT, AN EFFECTIVE REIMBURSEMENT,

05:40

YOU WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE THE

05:42

AMOUNT OF THE $130,000 BECAUSE

05:43

IT WILL NOW BE TAXED AS IT GOES

05:46

TO MICHAEL COHEN IN THIS FORM.

05:48

AND SO I THINK THAT PART OF

05:50

MICHAEL COHEN'S TESTIMONY

05:52

ACTUALLY STANDS UP RATHER WELL,

05:54

CERTAINLY BETTER THAN THE

05:55

SO-CALLED LOGIC OF THE DEFENSE

05:57

THEORY ABOUT THAT.

05:58

THE STRONGEST POINT THAT THE

06:00

DEFENSE HAD THIS MORNING, BY

06:03

FAR, IS THE IDEA THAT YOU SIMPLY

06:07

CANNOT BELIEVE MICHAEL COHEN,

06:09

ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY ABOUT

06:11

WHAT DONALD TRUMP KNEW IN 2016,

06:14

IN OCTOBER, ABOUT THE PAYMENT TO

06:16

STORMY DANIELS.

06:17

AND WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT

06:18

THAT IS IF THEY CAN CONVINCE THE

06:20

JURY OR AT LEAST CREATE

06:21

REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT'S ALL

06:22

THEY HAVE TO DO, THEY DON'T HAVE

06:23

TO CONVINCE THE JURY OF

06:26

ANYTHING, IF THEY CAN CREATE

06:28

REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT DONALD

06:30

TRUMP KNOWING ABOUT THAT PAYMENT

06:33

BEFORE THE ELECTION, THEN THAT

06:36

REMOVES DONALD TRUMP'S

06:38

MOTIVATION OF ELECTION

06:39

INTERFERENCE OR ELECTION

06:40

INFLUENCE BY MAKING THAT

06:42

PAYMENT.

06:43

SO, IT IS THE LINCHPIN OF THE

06:46

DEFENSE.

06:46

AND, THE PHRASE THAT I THINK

06:48

YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IN THAT

06:50

TRANSCRIPT MORE THAN ANY OTHER

06:51

IS REASONABLE DOUBT.

06:53

REASONABLE DOUBT.

06:54

THIS WAS NOT AN INNOCENCE

06:55

DEFENSE.

06:56

THIS WAS NOT SOMEONE GETTING UP

06:59

THERE SAYING, MY CLIENT HAS

07:01

NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN HIS

07:03

LIFE, THIS IS ENTIRELY A

07:04

REASONABLE DOUBT DEFENSE AND

07:06

TODD BLANCHE KEPT SAYING, HERE

07:08

ARE THE TOP TEN REASONS AT THE

07:10

END, THE TOP TEN REASONS FOR

07:11

REASONABLE DOUBT.

07:12

NOT TOP TEN REASONS FOR

07:13

INNOCENCE.

07:14

NOT TOP TEN REASONS WHY HE DID

07:17

NOTHING, BUT TOP TEN REASONS

07:18

JUST TO DOUBT, JUST TO IN SOME

07:20

WAY DOUBT THE PROSECUTION CASE.

07:22

>> AND, LAWRENCE, THEY HAVE DONE

07:24

A COUNT AND THE WORD LIAR WAS

07:26

USED 25 TIMES.

07:27

SO IT IS BETWEEN REASONABLE

07:30

DOUBT AND LIAR YOU MIGHT FIND

07:33

FREQUENCY OF THE VERBIAGE, BUT

07:35

IT ALSO SEEMED TO THOSE OF US,

07:38

YOU CERTAINLY PROMINENTLY WHO

07:40

COVERED THAT CAMPAIGN, VERY

07:42

SPECIOUS ARGUMENT THAT THE

07:44

"ACCESS HOLLYWOOD" TAPE WAS NOT

07:44

A CAUSE OF CONCERN.

07:45

IN THIS CASE ALONE, YOU HAVE

07:48

HOPE HICKS AND OTHERS TESTIFYING

07:51

HOW CONCERNED THE CANDIDATE

07:54

DONALD TRUMP WAS.

07:55

CHRIS JANSING WAS COVERING IT ON

07:58

HER SHOW, I COVERED IT, YOU

07:59

COVERED IT AT THE DEBATE, THAT

08:01

WAS A VERY BIG DEAL AT THE TIME.

08:02

IT SEEMED TO ME THAT IT IS A BIG

08:05

LEAP FOR THE JURY TO ACCEPT THE

08:07

DEFENSE ARGUMENT THAT, OH, THAT

08:08

WAS KIND OF NOTHING AND HE

08:10

WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED SO HARD

08:11

TO -- FOR THE COVER-UP.

08:13

>> THE THING TO REMEMBER

08:14

ABOUT -- THE THING TO REMEMBER

08:15

ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF A DEFENSE

08:17

ARGUMENT IS THAT IT DOES NOT

08:18

HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED.

08:20

A PROSECUTION ARGUMENT HAS TO BE

08:22

ACCEPTED.

08:22

ALL THE DEFENSE NEEDS TO DO IS

08:24

CREATE A DOUBT.

08:26

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO OFFER A

08:28

COUNTERARGUMENT, AND SO I DON'T

08:29

THINK THERE IS A JUROR THERE WHO

08:31

DOESN'T THINK THE "ACCESS

08:33

HOLLYWOOD" VIDEO WAS A BIG DEAL.

08:34

REMEMBER, THEY ALL LIVED THROUGH

08:36

IT THEMSELVES AS AMERICANS AT

08:36

THE TIME.

08:38

THEY KNOW IT WAS A BIG DEAL.

08:41

THE LEGAL QUESTION IS DID THAT

08:43

INCREASE DONALD TRUMP'S

08:44

EAGERNESS, HIS PERSONAL

08:45

EAGERNESS TO PAY OFF STORMY

08:47

DANIELS IMMEDIATELY.

08:48

AND FOR THAT, THE EVIDENCE COMES

08:50

DOWN TO MICHAEL COHEN.

08:52

AND THAT IS WHY MICHAEL COHEN IS

08:55

SUCH AN IMPORTANT LINCHPIN IN

08:57

THAT PRE-ELECTION DECISION TO

08:59

PAY OFF STORMY DANIELS, THAT

09:02

MICHAEL COHEN INSISTS DONALD

09:04

TRUMP APPROVED THAT DECISION

09:05

BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND

09:07

APPROVED IT IN ORDER TO

09:09

INFLUENCE THE ELECTION AND

09:10

THAT'S WHY TODD BLANCHE WAS

09:12

LEANING SO HEAVILY ON YOU CANNOT

09:13

BELIEVE MICHAEL COHEN ON THAT.

09:15

>> THERE IS ALSO A KIND OF

09:17

CONFLICTING ARGUMENT THAT THE

09:19

DEFENSE MADE THAT DONALD TRUMP

09:22

WAS VERY DETAIL ORIENTED WHEN IT

09:24

CAME TO PAYMENTS AND KEEPING

09:26

TRACK OF HIS FINANCES, THAT HE

09:28

WOULD NEVER PAY -- OVERPAY

09:30

MICHAEL COHEN, THAT'S ABSURD.

09:32

AND THEN AFTER THE ELECTION, HE

09:33

WAS NOT VERY DETAIL ORIENTED

09:36

BECAUSE HE WAS SO BUSY.

09:37

BUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

09:39

THERE IS THE ARGUMENT THAT ALL

09:41

THE DEFENSE NEEDS TO DO IS PROVE

09:44

THAT DONALD TRUMP MIGHT NOT HAVE

09:45

KNOWN ABOUT THE PAYMENT IN

09:46

OCTOBER.

09:46

MAYBE NOT.

09:48

JUST THE REASONABLE DOUBT THERE.

09:49

BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE

09:51

DEFENSE UNDERCUT THEIR OWN

09:53

ARGUMENT BY CLAIMING HE WAS SO

09:56

HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE MONEY

09:59

MANAGING OF HIS ORGANIZATION.

10:00

>> WELL, THE POINT THAT THEY

10:02

WERE MAKING ABOUT HOW MUCH WAS

10:04

HE PAYING ATTENTION WHEN HE WAS

10:06

IN THE WHITE HOUSE SIGNING THOSE

10:08

CHECKS, THERE IS A BOOKKEEPER

10:10

WHO SAID SHE ALWAYS ATTACHED THE

10:12

INVOICES TO THE CHECK.

10:14

SO THAT, IF DONALD TRUMP SAW THE

10:16

INVOICES, WHEN HE WAS SIGNING

10:19

THE CHECK, THAT MAKES THOSE

10:21

INVOICES TRUMP BUSINESS RECORDS

10:22

AND BECAUSE MICHAEL COHEN SAYS

10:25

HE FALSIFIED HIS INVOICES, THEY

10:28

BECOME FALSIFIED TRUMP BUSINESS

10:29

RECORDS.

10:31

AND THE BOOKKEEPER SAID

10:33

SOMETIMES DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T

10:35

NECESSARILY LOOK AT THE INVOICES

10:37

THAT WERE ATTACHED TO BILLS.

10:39

AND SO THE WORD SOMETIMES IS A

10:42

PERFECT REASONABLE DOUBT

10:43

OPENING.

10:44

THE POSSIBILITY THAT MAYBE

10:46

DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T NECESSARILY

10:47

LOOK AT THESE INVOICES WHEN HE

10:50

WAS SIGNING CHECKS IN THE OVAL

10:53

OFFICE, THE DEFENSE NEEDS THE

10:54

JURY TO TAKE -- TO HAVE SOME

10:56

REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

10:57

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT

10:58

OF REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THEM

11:00

THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE IS

11:02

DID DONALD TRUMP KNOW ABOUT THE

11:05

PAYMENTS TO STORMY DANIELS?

11:06

DID HE APPROVE THOSE PAYMENTS IN

11:08

OCTOBER OF 2016 AND THAT'S WHERE

11:11

THEY'RE PLACING ALL OF THEIR

11:12

REASONABLE DOUBT WEIGHT.

11:13

AND TODD BLANCHE DID AS GOOD A

11:15

JOB AS YOU COULD DO WITH THE

11:16

FACTS AS THEY STAND ON THAT

11:17

PARTICULAR POINT.

11:18

>> DID YOU SEE THE JURY REACT TO

11:20

ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR?

11:22

REACT AT ALL?

11:24

>> NO, THIS JURY REACTS VERY

11:25

LITTLE.

11:26

THERE ARE ONLY A COUPLE OF NOTE

11:28

TAKERS.

11:29

I COULD SEE MOST OF THE JURY,

11:30

BUT NO ONE CAN SEE ALL OF THE

11:31

JURY.

11:32

AND NO ONE CAN SEE THEIR HANDS

11:35

ALL THE TIME TO THEY WILL

11:37

WHETHER THEY'RE WRITING.

11:38

THERE IS ONE PARTICULAR JUROR,

11:40

THE MOST ACTIVE NOTE TAKER

11:42

DURING THE TRIAL AND THAT JUROR

11:44

TOOK VIRTUALLY NO NOTES THIS

11:45

MORNING.

11:45

WE ALL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GUESS

11:47

WHO THE TWO LAWYERS ARE IN THE

11:48

JURY BOX.

11:49

I HAVE A THEORY ABOUT WHO THEY

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Tags associés
Courtroom DramaMichael CohenDonald TrumpStormy DanielsLegal StrategySummation TensionReasonable DoubtElection InfluenceTestimony AnalysisJury Reaction
Avez-vous besoin d'un résumé en français?