The ‘major issue’ Lawrence O’Donnell says Trump’s lawyer left ‘completely unresolved’
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
🕵️♂️ 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.
🗣️ 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.
📝 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
💡Summation
💡Evidence
💡Defense argument
💡Reasonable doubt
💡Testimony
💡Admonishment
💡Mandatory minimum prison sentence
💡Referendum
💡Liar
💡Access Hollywood tape
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
THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS ONCE
YOU HAVE RUNG THAT BELL, YOU
CAN'T UNRING IT.
>> SO, ALSO JOINING US NOW,
MSNBC'S LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, HOST
OF "THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE
O'DONNELL," WHO HAS BEEN INSIDE
THE COURTROOM TODAY.
YOU'RE THE FIRST PERSON WE'RE
TALKING TO WHO HAS DONE THAT.
IN CASE YOU JOINED A LITTLE
LATE, ANDREW WEIZMAN, WHEN ASKED
TO SUM UP THE CLOSING, SAID IT
WAS FAIRLY STANDARD AND
PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.
I'LL JUST SPEAK FOR MYSELF, MY
COLLEGE DEBATE TEAM, IF SOMEBODY
CALLED MY PERFORMANCE THAT, I
WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO CRAZY
ABOUT IT.
BUT GIVE US THE SENSE, YOUR
SENSE, OF WHAT YOU SAW AND HEARD
AND PARTICULARLY THE MOOD INSIDE
THAT ROOM TODAY.
>> WELL, IT IS VERY TENSE, AS IT
ALWAYS IS, FOR SUMMATIONS IN THE
CASE LIKE THIS.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT TODD
BLANCHE DID THE BEST HE COULD
GIVEN THE EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD
TO WRESTLE WITH.
HE LEFT ONE MAJOR ISSUE
COMPLETELY UNRESOLVED, WHICH IS
WHAT WAS THE $130,000 DOING AND
ALLEN WEISSELBERG'S WRITTEN
CALCULATION OF HOW MUCH MICHAEL
COHEN WOULD BE PAID.
BECAUSE THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT IS
THAT MICHAEL COHEN -- THE
PAYMENTS TO MICHAEL COHEN WERE A
PAYCHECK.
THEY WERE FOR SERVICES RENDERED.
THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT IS THAT
THAT MONEY, $35,000, TO MICHAEL
COHEN EVERY MONTH, HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH STORMY DANIELS.
WELL, THEN WHY IS $130,000 THE
BASIS OF THAT CALCULATION?
THAT WAS NEVER EXPLAINED BY THE
DEFENSE.
THEY CERTAINLY NEVER EXPLAINED
IT DURING TESTIMONY.
AND I WAS SITTING THERE ALL
MORNING, WAITING FOR THAT
MOMENT, WHERE THAT CAN BE
EXPLAINED WITHIN THIS DEFENSE
THEORY OF THOSE WERE PAYCHECKS
TO MICHAEL COHEN.
THEY NEVER EXPLAINED IT.
THEY LEFT IT UNRESOLVED.
IT IS A DEFENSE THEORY,
CONFLICTING WITH A DEFENSE
THEORY.
THE REAL ARGUMENT WAS MICHAEL
COHEN CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
MICHAEL COHEN IS THE EMBODIMENT
OF REASON ANNUAL DOUBT, AS TODD
BLANCHE FINISHED STRONGLY WITH.
IT WAS ALL A YOU CANNOT BELIEVE
MICHAEL COHEN ARGUMENT AND WHAT
IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT AND
WHAT HE SAID FIVE TIMES WAS THE
ONLY TESTIMONY LINKING DONALD
TRUMP TO THE STORMY DANIELS
PAYMENT, WHEN IT WAS MADE IN
OCTOBER 2016, COMES FROM MICHAEL
COHEN AND FROM NO ONE ELSE, AND
THIS JURY SIMPLY CANNOT BELIEVE
MICHAEL COHEN.
AS TO THAT LAST POINT YOU WERE
DISCUSSING WITH ANDREW, ABOUT
THE TODD BLANCHE BEGINNING A
LINE OF ARGUMENT SAYING YOU
CAN'T SEND A MAN TOO PRISON ON
THE WORD OF MICHAEL COHEN, TODD
BLANCHE WAS ADMONISHED BY THE
JUDGE FOR THAT, AFTER THE JURY
LEFT THE ROOM AND THE JUDGE DID
SAY THAT HE WOULD ISSUE A
CURATIVE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WHAT TODD
BLANCHE SAID IN THAT MOMENT.
AND, OF COURSE, DONALD TRUMP IS
NOT FACING A MANDATORY MINIMUM
PRISON SENTENCE IN ANY, ANY OF
THE CASES WHERE HE HAS BEEN
CRIMINALLY CHARGED.
NOT ONE OF THEM CARRIES A
MANDATORY MINIMUM PRISON
SENTENCE.
SO, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY AS THE
JUDGE SAID TO TODD BLANCHE AS AN
EXPERIENCED PROSECUTOR, YOU KNEW
WHAT YOU WERE DOING, YOU WERE
TRYING TO GET THIS JURY WORRIED
ABOUT THE BURDEN THEY WOULD HAVE
OF SENDING DONALD TRUMP TO
PRISON.
ANOTHER REALLY IMPORTANT POINT
TOWARD THE END OF THE ARGUMENT
WAS TODD BLANCHE SAYING TO THIS
MANHATTAN JURY, THIS ISN'T A
REFERENDUM.
THIS IS NOT THE BALLOT BOX.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO
YOU PREFER AS A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE OR WHO YOU REFER IN
THE PAST AS A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE.
SOMETHING THAT HE FELT I THINK
UNDERSTANDABLY COMPELLED TO SAY
TO A JURY IN MANHATTAN, WHERE
THE VOTE WAS 85% FOR JOE BIDEN
AGAINST DONALD TRUMP.
>> HE ALSO MADE A POINT NUMEROUS
TIMES, LAWRENCE, OF TALKING
ABOUT HOW HE WAS THE FORMER
PRESIDENT AND WHAT HE WAS DOING
AT THE TIME OF THE PAYMENTS.
I WONDER IF YOU FOUND ANYTHING
PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE FROM TODD
BLANCHE WHILE YOU WERE WATCHING,
ANY MOMENTS WHERE THE JURY
REACTED?
THERE WAS ONE THAT I THOUGHT WAS
ZEEPT
DECENT, I WAS IN THE OVERFLOW
ROOM, THE SIMPLEST ANSWER IS
OFTENTIMES THE CORRECT ANSWER,
THE RIGHT ONE.
HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT MAKES MORE
SENSE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS
PAYING HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY
$35,000 A MONTH PURSUANT TO AN
AGREEMENT THAT HE MADE WITH
COHEN BEFORE HE TOOK OFFICE, OR
THAT COHEN WAS GOING TO WORK FOR
FREE AND WORK AS A CONSULTANT
AND THEN GET 30K FOR A HUSH
MONEY PAYMENT.
THE IDEA THAT MICHAEL COHEN
WOULD BE WORNG FOR DONALD
TRUMP AS HIS PERSONAL ATTORNEY
AND NOT BILLING HIM BECAUSE HE
HAD NOTHING TO DO, HE CALLED
THAT NOT BELIEVABLE.
DO YOU THINK THAT RANG TRUE
WHILE YOU WERE INSIDE THE COURT?
>> I DON'T THINK IT DOES TO ANY
OF THE JURORS WHO HEARD THE
TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT
THAT.
MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFYING THAT HE
DID WHAT HE CALLED MINIMAL WORK
FOR DONALD TRUMP AND
OCCASIONALLY FOR DONALD TRUMP'S
WIFE DURING THAT PERIOD WHEN HE
WAS BEING PAID.
MICHAEL COHEN'S EXPLANATION OF
WHAT THAT PAYMENT WAS BASED ON
USING ALLEN WEISSELBERG'S
HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF THE
$130,000 AND THE OTHER ITEMS,
PLUS THE TAX IMPACT TO MICHAEL
COHEN, IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY MAKE
IT, AN EFFECTIVE REIMBURSEMENT,
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE THE
AMOUNT OF THE $130,000 BECAUSE
IT WILL NOW BE TAXED AS IT GOES
TO MICHAEL COHEN IN THIS FORM.
AND SO I THINK THAT PART OF
MICHAEL COHEN'S TESTIMONY
ACTUALLY STANDS UP RATHER WELL,
CERTAINLY BETTER THAN THE
SO-CALLED LOGIC OF THE DEFENSE
THEORY ABOUT THAT.
THE STRONGEST POINT THAT THE
DEFENSE HAD THIS MORNING, BY
FAR, IS THE IDEA THAT YOU SIMPLY
CANNOT BELIEVE MICHAEL COHEN,
ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY ABOUT
WHAT DONALD TRUMP KNEW IN 2016,
IN OCTOBER, ABOUT THE PAYMENT TO
STORMY DANIELS.
AND WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT
THAT IS IF THEY CAN CONVINCE THE
JURY OR AT LEAST CREATE
REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT'S ALL
THEY HAVE TO DO, THEY DON'T HAVE
TO CONVINCE THE JURY OF
ANYTHING, IF THEY CAN CREATE
REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT DONALD
TRUMP KNOWING ABOUT THAT PAYMENT
BEFORE THE ELECTION, THEN THAT
REMOVES DONALD TRUMP'S
MOTIVATION OF ELECTION
INTERFERENCE OR ELECTION
INFLUENCE BY MAKING THAT
PAYMENT.
SO, IT IS THE LINCHPIN OF THE
DEFENSE.
AND, THE PHRASE THAT I THINK
YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IN THAT
TRANSCRIPT MORE THAN ANY OTHER
IS REASONABLE DOUBT.
REASONABLE DOUBT.
THIS WAS NOT AN INNOCENCE
DEFENSE.
THIS WAS NOT SOMEONE GETTING UP
THERE SAYING, MY CLIENT HAS
NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN HIS
LIFE, THIS IS ENTIRELY A
REASONABLE DOUBT DEFENSE AND
TODD BLANCHE KEPT SAYING, HERE
ARE THE TOP TEN REASONS AT THE
END, THE TOP TEN REASONS FOR
REASONABLE DOUBT.
NOT TOP TEN REASONS FOR
INNOCENCE.
NOT TOP TEN REASONS WHY HE DID
NOTHING, BUT TOP TEN REASONS
JUST TO DOUBT, JUST TO IN SOME
WAY DOUBT THE PROSECUTION CASE.
>> AND, LAWRENCE, THEY HAVE DONE
A COUNT AND THE WORD LIAR WAS
USED 25 TIMES.
SO IT IS BETWEEN REASONABLE
DOUBT AND LIAR YOU MIGHT FIND
FREQUENCY OF THE VERBIAGE, BUT
IT ALSO SEEMED TO THOSE OF US,
YOU CERTAINLY PROMINENTLY WHO
COVERED THAT CAMPAIGN, VERY
SPECIOUS ARGUMENT THAT THE
"ACCESS HOLLYWOOD" TAPE WAS NOT
A CAUSE OF CONCERN.
IN THIS CASE ALONE, YOU HAVE
HOPE HICKS AND OTHERS TESTIFYING
HOW CONCERNED THE CANDIDATE
DONALD TRUMP WAS.
CHRIS JANSING WAS COVERING IT ON
HER SHOW, I COVERED IT, YOU
COVERED IT AT THE DEBATE, THAT
WAS A VERY BIG DEAL AT THE TIME.
IT SEEMED TO ME THAT IT IS A BIG
LEAP FOR THE JURY TO ACCEPT THE
DEFENSE ARGUMENT THAT, OH, THAT
WAS KIND OF NOTHING AND HE
WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED SO HARD
TO -- FOR THE COVER-UP.
>> THE THING TO REMEMBER
ABOUT -- THE THING TO REMEMBER
ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF A DEFENSE
ARGUMENT IS THAT IT DOES NOT
HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED.
A PROSECUTION ARGUMENT HAS TO BE
ACCEPTED.
ALL THE DEFENSE NEEDS TO DO IS
CREATE A DOUBT.
THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO OFFER A
COUNTERARGUMENT, AND SO I DON'T
THINK THERE IS A JUROR THERE WHO
DOESN'T THINK THE "ACCESS
HOLLYWOOD" VIDEO WAS A BIG DEAL.
REMEMBER, THEY ALL LIVED THROUGH
IT THEMSELVES AS AMERICANS AT
THE TIME.
THEY KNOW IT WAS A BIG DEAL.
THE LEGAL QUESTION IS DID THAT
INCREASE DONALD TRUMP'S
EAGERNESS, HIS PERSONAL
EAGERNESS TO PAY OFF STORMY
DANIELS IMMEDIATELY.
AND FOR THAT, THE EVIDENCE COMES
DOWN TO MICHAEL COHEN.
AND THAT IS WHY MICHAEL COHEN IS
SUCH AN IMPORTANT LINCHPIN IN
THAT PRE-ELECTION DECISION TO
PAY OFF STORMY DANIELS, THAT
MICHAEL COHEN INSISTS DONALD
TRUMP APPROVED THAT DECISION
BEFORE THE ELECTION, AND
APPROVED IT IN ORDER TO
INFLUENCE THE ELECTION AND
THAT'S WHY TODD BLANCHE WAS
LEANING SO HEAVILY ON YOU CANNOT
BELIEVE MICHAEL COHEN ON THAT.
>> THERE IS ALSO A KIND OF
CONFLICTING ARGUMENT THAT THE
DEFENSE MADE THAT DONALD TRUMP
WAS VERY DETAIL ORIENTED WHEN IT
CAME TO PAYMENTS AND KEEPING
TRACK OF HIS FINANCES, THAT HE
WOULD NEVER PAY -- OVERPAY
MICHAEL COHEN, THAT'S ABSURD.
AND THEN AFTER THE ELECTION, HE
WAS NOT VERY DETAIL ORIENTED
BECAUSE HE WAS SO BUSY.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
THERE IS THE ARGUMENT THAT ALL
THE DEFENSE NEEDS TO DO IS PROVE
THAT DONALD TRUMP MIGHT NOT HAVE
KNOWN ABOUT THE PAYMENT IN
OCTOBER.
MAYBE NOT.
JUST THE REASONABLE DOUBT THERE.
BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE
DEFENSE UNDERCUT THEIR OWN
ARGUMENT BY CLAIMING HE WAS SO
HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE MONEY
MANAGING OF HIS ORGANIZATION.
>> WELL, THE POINT THAT THEY
WERE MAKING ABOUT HOW MUCH WAS
HE PAYING ATTENTION WHEN HE WAS
IN THE WHITE HOUSE SIGNING THOSE
CHECKS, THERE IS A BOOKKEEPER
WHO SAID SHE ALWAYS ATTACHED THE
INVOICES TO THE CHECK.
SO THAT, IF DONALD TRUMP SAW THE
INVOICES, WHEN HE WAS SIGNING
THE CHECK, THAT MAKES THOSE
INVOICES TRUMP BUSINESS RECORDS
AND BECAUSE MICHAEL COHEN SAYS
HE FALSIFIED HIS INVOICES, THEY
BECOME FALSIFIED TRUMP BUSINESS
RECORDS.
AND THE BOOKKEEPER SAID
SOMETIMES DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T
NECESSARILY LOOK AT THE INVOICES
THAT WERE ATTACHED TO BILLS.
AND SO THE WORD SOMETIMES IS A
PERFECT REASONABLE DOUBT
OPENING.
THE POSSIBILITY THAT MAYBE
DONALD TRUMP DIDN'T NECESSARILY
LOOK AT THESE INVOICES WHEN HE
WAS SIGNING CHECKS IN THE OVAL
OFFICE, THE DEFENSE NEEDS THE
JURY TO TAKE -- TO HAVE SOME
REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT
OF REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THEM
THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE IS
DID DONALD TRUMP KNOW ABOUT THE
PAYMENTS TO STORMY DANIELS?
DID HE APPROVE THOSE PAYMENTS IN
OCTOBER OF 2016 AND THAT'S WHERE
THEY'RE PLACING ALL OF THEIR
REASONABLE DOUBT WEIGHT.
AND TODD BLANCHE DID AS GOOD A
JOB AS YOU COULD DO WITH THE
FACTS AS THEY STAND ON THAT
PARTICULAR POINT.
>> DID YOU SEE THE JURY REACT TO
ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR?
REACT AT ALL?
>> NO, THIS JURY REACTS VERY
LITTLE.
THERE ARE ONLY A COUPLE OF NOTE
TAKERS.
I COULD SEE MOST OF THE JURY,
BUT NO ONE CAN SEE ALL OF THE
JURY.
AND NO ONE CAN SEE THEIR HANDS
ALL THE TIME TO THEY WILL
WHETHER THEY'RE WRITING.
THERE IS ONE PARTICULAR JUROR,
THE MOST ACTIVE NOTE TAKER
DURING THE TRIAL AND THAT JUROR
TOOK VIRTUALLY NO NOTES THIS
MORNING.
WE ALL HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GUESS
WHO THE TWO LAWYERS ARE IN THE
JURY BOX.
I HAVE A THEORY ABOUT WHO THEY
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
Jury hears secret recording of Trump discussing catch-and-kill payment
George Conway: Stormy Daniels’ second day of cross-examination a ‘fiasco’ for Trump defense
Anderson Cooper describes ‘severely damaging’ moment during Cohen’s testimony
Judge Jeanine: This was Trump lawyer's 'big bang' during closing arguments
Trump on trial: New York vs. Donald Trump Day 9 Highlights
Trump LOSES IT Over SHOCKING MOMENT at Trial