Trump’s attorneys fail MISERABLY in court on first official trial date
Summary
TLDRIn this episode of 'Legal Breakdown,' hosts Brian and Glenn discuss the opening day of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan. They highlight the prosecution's strong opening statement, backed by considerable evidence against Trump, and the defense's struggle to undermine it. The hosts also address Trump's claims of paying Michael Cohen for legal services, which they argue is a cover-up for reimbursements related to hush money payments. They touch on Trump's defense attorney's statement about influencing elections and the implications of Trump falling asleep during the trial, suggesting it might indicate the toll the proceedings are taking on him. The conversation concludes with a discussion about the jury composition, including concerns about a juror who gets news exclusively from platforms like Truth Social and Twitter, and the importance of jurors maintaining impartiality based on evidence presented.
Takeaways
- 📚 The first day of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan has concluded, marking his first criminal trial.
- 🔍 The prosecution presented a strong opening statement with considerable evidence against Trump, described as 'mountainous'.
- 🧐 The defense did not appear to provide substantial counter-evidence to the prosecution's case during their opening statement.
- 🚩 The prosecution's strategy included highlighting incriminating evidence, acknowledging weaknesses, and building credibility with the jury.
- 🤔 Trump's defense attorney's statement that 'there's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election' was critiqued as misleading in the context of legal violations.
- 💤 Donald Trump was observed falling asleep during the trial, which some interpret as a sign of his unconcern or exhaustion from the proceedings.
- 📉 The trial is one of four criminal trials against the former president, indicating a potentially heavy toll on him.
- 🤨 The presence of two lawyers on the jury raised discussions about the potential impact of their legal expertise on the trial's outcome.
- 📰 One juror's admission of getting news exclusively from Twitter and Truth Social raised concerns about potential bias, but was not a disqualifying factor on its own.
- 👀 The prosecution had the opportunity to strike jurors they deemed unfit, and the fact they did not strike the juror from Truth Social suggests they believe the juror can be fair and impartial.
- 📈 The trial is being closely followed, and the legal analysis will continue to cover its developments as they unfold.
Q & A
What is the significance of the first day of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan?
-It marks the first time a former president of the United States has faced a criminal trial, setting a historic precedent in the American legal system.
What does the prosecution aim to accomplish during their opening statement in a trial?
-The prosecution aims to highlight the incriminating evidence, address any weaknesses in their case by 'drawing the sting', and build credibility with the jurors to establish themselves as an honest broker of the facts and the law.
What is the difference between the legal payment for services and the alleged crime committed by Donald Trump?
-Donald Trump has the right to pay for legal services, but the issue is that the payments in question were not for legal services. Instead, they were reimbursements for hush money payments to suppress damaging information during his presidential campaign, which is a violation of campaign finance laws and falsification of business records.
How did Michael Cohen's reimbursement of $130,000 evolve into a more significant figure?
-Michael Cohen was reimbursed not only for the $130,000 he paid to Stormy Daniels but also an additional $20,000 to disguise the payment as income for legal services rendered, which was not the case.
What is the defense's argument regarding the nature of influencing an election?
-The defense argues that there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election, but this argument is challenged by the prosecution, which differentiates between legal forms of influencing an election and illegal activities such as campaign finance violations and falsification of business records.
Why did the defense attorney's use of the phrase 'use your common sense' stand out to the speakers?
-The phrase stood out because it is a common tactic used by attorneys to encourage jurors to apply their own judgment and reasoning to the evidence presented. However, it was used in a context that seemed to downplay the seriousness of the charges against Donald Trump.
What is the significance of having two lawyers on the jury?
-Having lawyers on the jury can be beneficial as they are expected to have a deeper understanding of the legal process and instructions. They can help keep other jurors focused on the evidence and the judge's instructions, potentially preventing speculation or deviation from the facts.
How did the news consumption habits of one of the jurors raise concerns?
-Juror number two reportedly gets their news exclusively from Truth Social and Twitter, which could imply a potential bias or susceptibility to unverified information. This raised concerns about the juror's ability to be impartial and make decisions based solely on the evidence presented in court.
null
-null
Why did the prosecution not strike the juror who gets news from Truth Social and Twitter?
-The prosecution likely believed that the juror demonstrated enough understanding and commitment to being fair and impartial, despite their news sources. They may have assessed that the juror's other statements and responses were sufficient to satisfy their criteria for jury service.
What is the implication of Donald Trump falling asleep during his trial?
-While it is not uncommon for individuals to fall asleep during trials, it is unusual for the defendant. It could suggest that Trump is either unconcerned about the proceedings or that the stress and pressure are taking a toll on him, potentially indicating the significance of the charges against him.
How does the speaker assess the defense's opening statement?
-The speaker suggests that the defense's opening statement did not present concrete evidence to counter the prosecution's strong case. The defense's argument that there's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election was critiqued as it did not address the illegal methods alleged to have been used.
What is the importance of the opening statement in a trial?
-The opening statement serves as a roadmap for the jury, outlining what the lawyers expect the evidence to prove. It sets the stage for the trial, providing the jury with a preliminary understanding of the case's direction and the key points that will be argued.
Outlines
📚 Opening Statements in Trump's Criminal Trial
The first paragraph discusses the commencement of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan, marking his first such trial. The hosts, Glenn and Brian, introduce themselves as the commentators for the trial and encourage viewers to subscribe for continuous coverage. They summarize the day's events, highlighting the prosecution's strong opening statement and the defense's lack of concrete counterarguments. The paragraph also explains the purpose of opening statements and the strategy of addressing potential weaknesses in one's case to build credibility with the jury.
💸 Trump's Reimbursement Scheme and Defense Strategy
The second paragraph delves into the specifics of the financial arrangement between Trump and his lawyer, Michael Cohen, regarding the payment to Stormy Daniels. It outlines how the payment was disguised as a legal fee and how it resulted in multiple falsifications of business records, a felony under New York law. The discussion also critiques Trump's defense attorney's argument about the legitimacy of influencing an election and the contrast between legal and illegal campaign tactics. Additionally, the paragraph touches upon Trump's courtroom behavior, specifically his sleeping during the trial, which the hosts interpret as a sign of the strain the process is putting on him.
🕰 The Weight of Trump's Criminal Trials
The third paragraph reflects on the historic nature of the trial as the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president. It mentions that this is one of four criminal trials that Trump is facing. The conversation ponders the psychological impact of the trials on Trump, speculating whether his ability to sleep during the trial is indicative of his mental state and the gravity with which he is对待 (treating) the charges against him. The paragraph also discusses the potential influence of jurors' backgrounds, particularly those who are lawyers, and how they might approach the evidence and judge's instructions.
👥 Juror Selection and the Role of Media Influence
The fourth paragraph focuses on the selection of jurors and the potential impact of their media consumption habits on their ability to be impartial. It raises concerns about a juror who gets news exclusively from platforms perceived as biased, such as Truth Social, and the challenge of discerning fact from fiction. The hosts debate the value of having lawyers on a jury, with one arguing that their legal understanding can be beneficial in keeping deliberations focused and grounded in the evidence. The paragraph concludes with a note of optimism that the prosecution's decision not to strike certain jurors indicates confidence in their ability to be fair and impartial.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Criminal trial
💡Prosecution
💡Defense
💡Opening statement
💡Michael Cohen
💡Reasonable doubt
💡Falsification of business records
💡Hush money payments
💡Campaign finance violations
💡Juror
💡Truth Social
Highlights
Donald Trump's first criminal trial in Manhattan has begun.
The prosecution opened strong, presenting considerable evidence against Trump.
The defense did not appear to offer concrete evidence to counter the prosecution's case.
The prosecution's opening statement was solid, persuasive, and highlighted the incriminating evidence.
The defense faces an uphill battle to convince jurors of reasonable doubt.
Opening statements serve as a roadmap for the jury, outlining what the lawyers expect the evidence to prove.
Prosecutors aim to highlight incriminating evidence, admit weaknesses, and build credibility with the jury.
Michael Cohen, a convicted felon, is a key witness, and his testimony is supported by corroborating evidence.
Trump's defense argues that paying to suppress damaging information is a form of election influence, which is a misrepresentation of legality.
The defense's use of 'common sense' is questioned, as it seems to downplay the illegality of falsifying business records.
Trump's presence in the courtroom, including instances of him falling asleep, is noted as unusual for a defendant.
The historic nature of the trial as the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president is emphasized.
The psychological impact of the trial on Trump is discussed, with speculation on whether his behavior indicates stress or indifference.
The presence of lawyers on the jury is debated, with some arguing they can help keep deliberations grounded in legal reasoning.
One juror's reliance on Truth Social and Twitter for news raises concerns about potential bias.
The prosecution's decision not to strike a juror who gets news from specific sources suggests confidence in their impartiality.
The trial continues to be covered, with updates and analysis provided by the hosts.
Transcripts
you're watching the legal breakdown so
we've got the first day of the actual
trial on the books for Donald Trump in
Manhattan this is his first criminal
trial so we're going to cover that right
now but first just for those watching
Glenn and I will be covering the
entirety of the Trump trial uh happening
right now in Manhattan so if you want to
follow along with our coverage which
will be brief and right to the point
please subscribe to both of our channels
I'll put the links on this screen and
also in the post description of this
video okay so Glenn day one is done what
did we learn from today you know what we
learned Brian is the prosecution open
strong as we've been predicting all
along the evidence against Donald Trump
is considerable I would go so far as to
call it mountainous it's very strong and
what we also learned is that the defense
um doesn't seem to have brought much to
the juror's attention that is concrete
that undercuts the quality the strength
or the quantity of the incriminating
evidence that Alvin Bragg and his team
of prosecutors have masked against
Donald Trump and we'll talk in a few
minutes about some of the highlights
maybe more accurately low lights of some
of what the defense opened on but what I
took away from reading all of the
accounts many of them coming out of the
courtroom in real time is it was a very
strong solid and persuasive opening
statement by the prosecution and it
looks like the defense has an uphill
climb if they're going to be able to
persuade the jurors that they're really
is some Reasonable Doubt some
significant weakness or shortfall in the
prosecution's case so was today
essentially opening statements that
would outline what uh what both the
prosecutors and the defense are going to
focus on moving forward yes opening
statements are in essence a roadmap that
the parties the lawyers give to the jury
regarding what they expect the evidence
to prove you know now when the
prosecutors open basically they try to
accomplish three things they obviously
highlight the incriminating evidence
they front the weaknesses in their case
we call that drawing The Sting the
reason we do that is because the last
thing any prosecutor ever wants to hear
a defense attorney open on is let me
tell you what the prosecution didn't
tell you Michael Cohen is a convicted
felon and a liar so that's why the
prosecution fronts that evidence but
then talks about all of the corbor a
that supports and affirms everything
Michael Cohen will testify about so we
draw the sting and then the last thing
the prosecutors do in their opening is
they want to build their credibility
with the jurors you want that jury to
look at you the prosecutor as the voice
of reason as an honest broker of the
facts and the law and I've given so many
opening statements uh Brian in my 30
years as a prosecutor it's funny because
you watch the faces of the jurors when
you begin to talk about the weaknesses
in your case and you can see the wheels
turning they're like wait a minute this
guy's trying to prove his case Beyond A
Reasonable Doubt but he's telling us
about the weaknesses what does it do it
gives the jurors a comfort level that
you're going to bring them the case The
Good the Bad and the Ugly warts and all
and you're going to explain why those
weaknesses are really not that
significant because you've got
corroboration and ultimately you know I
didn't pick as the prosec computer I
didn't pick Michael Cohen as a witness
you know who picked Michael Cohen as a
witness Donald Trump is co- his
co-conspirator when he entered into this
corrupt scheme to falsify business
records to cover up hush money payments
to gain unfair advantage in this uh in
the 2016 presidential election now Trump
has been going around saying that you
know this is outside of Court saying
that he paid Michael Cohen for legal
services and that he has uh the total
right to do that why is that a lie um
well first of all Donald Trump does have
a complete right to pay Michael Cohen
for Legal Services here's the problem he
wasn't paying him for Legal Services he
was reimbursing Michael Cohen because
Michael Cohen Donald Trump Alan
weisselberg the Chief Financial Officer
and David pecker you can't make that
name up who is the head of Ami American
Media Incorporated which runs the
national Inquirer tabloid they entered
into an agreement uh an agreement a
conspiracy a criminal agreement to try
to catch and kill stories pay to cover
up damaging information about Donald
Trump and interestingly also to run what
were false stories about Donald Trump's
political opponents remember how Ted
Cruz's dad was apparently in League with
the JFK assassin yes that was a product
of the national Inquirer um they entered
into this criminal agreement and as part
of the Criminal agreement the conspiracy
Michael Cohen paid stormmy Daniels
$130,000 out of his own funds and then
Donald Trump had to pay him back really
interesting part of the opening
statement today was that um part of this
Arrangement was that Michael Cohen got
reimbursed the
$130,000 but not just
$130,000 he agreed with Alan weiselberg
that they would Pat it they would make
it4 $20,000 why so they could uh
disguise what was reimbursement payments
and pretend that it was income for legal
services rendered which it absolutely
wasn't and they falsified business
records 34 times over each one being a
four-year felony under the laws of New
York so again to recap you ask doesn't
Donald Trump get to pay his lawyer for
business expenses and legal fees of
course he does but that is not what was
going on here now Trump's defense
attorney had a line that stuck out at me
um and I'm sure it's the same line that
stuck out at you and that line was
there's nothing wrong with trying to
influence an election it's called
democracy what was your reaction hearing
that well you know it depends on how you
Define influence an election if you
Define influence an election by knocking
on doors putting election campaign signs
in your yard and making stump speeches
as a candidate I'm with you nothing
wrong with that you're trying to
influence the election you're trying to
win or have your candidate win but you
know there really is something wrong
with violating the state laws of New
York to try to cover up the fact that
you are paying to suppress information
that is directly relevant to your
suitability to be a candidate
particularly a candidate for president
of the United States hide that from the
voters and then
cover it up by creating false business
records in violation of New York state
law you know that kind of influencing an
election actually constitutes a crime
Glen there was another line from Trump's
defense attorney that was also
interesting I'm going to read that uh
quote listen use your common sense we're
New Yorkers that's why we're here
wouldn't Common Sense suggest the polar
opposite that that a guy who clearly
wanted a hide damaging information from
the American people ahead of an imminent
election would then commit campaign
Finance violations and subsequent
falsification of business records to do
exactly that Brian that's a great catch
here's the thing I use a version of that
line in every single case I have ever
tried you know what I say I say ladies
and gentlemen the good news is as jurors
you don't check your common sense at the
door you bring it into the courtroom you
bring it into the jury box and you sure
bring it in to the deliberation room
when you are given this case to decide
and when you apply your common sense to
the evidence that you have seen
developed during the course of this
trial you already know the conclusion
that you're going to reach and that is
that Donald Trump committed these crimes
and that he needs to be held accountable
for his decision to commit these crimes
and Common Sense is one of the most
important tools you're going to have in
deciding this case and uh finally let's
cover this uh this was the fourth day
out of five that Donald Trump's been
sitting in this courtroom in Manhattan
that he's fallen asleep mid trial can I
get your thoughts on that you know first
of all In fairness lots of folks fall
asleep during criminal trials I've seen
it happen over and over again in my
career but but H how how many of those
people are engaged in a political
campaign where their principal attack
against their rival is that the other
guy is Sleepy yeah I mean sleepy Joe
Biden how about drowsy Don the defendant
that's really what we should be talking
talking about here but what I was going
to say is I've seen people fall asleep
in the jury box uh I've seen members of
the audience fall asleep I've even seen
a judge doze off every now and then and
the judge's law clerk would would give
the judge A little nudge under the bench
um what you usually don't see is the
defendant fall asleep that one is
unusual I've even seen an attorney or
two fall asleep during the course of the
trial day so um you know Donald Trump is
either you know completely unconcerned
with what's going on um but but I'm
guessing all of this is actually just
taking a toll some of the people who
were reporting from the courtroom said I
mean Trump looks so tired so Haggard so
old and uh he seems to be struggling to
stay awake and struggling to sort of um
behave appropriately in other ways that
I'm not going to go into but um I I
think Donald Trump uh it's all catching
up with him and it's not just his age
and it's not just a lack of sleep
because he's posting incessantly at 2
a.m. about the Witch Hunt um I think
this has got to be weighing on him
because Brian nobody should forget today
was historic because it was the first
opening statement ever in a criminal
trial against the former president of
the United States but this is only the
first of four criminal trials against a
former president of the United States so
you know you do have to wonder how much
one man can take when all of his crimes
have finally come home to roost Glen I
don't want to get too psychological here
but I I feel like for myself if I was in
Donald Trump's position I mean I don't
know if I would ever sleep much less
sleep in the courtroom where my fate is
being determined does it say anything
about the guilt or innocence of a
defendant when that person kind of is
able to fall asleep in mid- trial when
their own freedom is on the line yeah
when things weigh on our minds we
generally have a hard time sleeping um
when things weigh on our minds like
being falsely accused of a crime we
didn't commit you know I I don't know
that you could ever get any shut eye at
all you know there is this phenomenon
and um I I've heard police officers say
that um a defend a defendant who's being
interrogated who's been arrested for a
crime is in an interrogation room is
being interrogated and the detectives
take a break they walk out usually the
cameras continue to run because these
days we video all custodial
interrogations which is a good thing um
a guilty man will fall asleep every time
but on those occasions when somebody has
been arrested and it turns out that
person is innocent when they take a
break in the interrogation and they walk
out you can actually see somebody who
turns out to be innocent of what they're
being accused of virtually bouncing off
the interrogation room walls because
they are so wound up and Ang anxious
about the fact that they're in a
situation that they really don't deserve
to be in I don't know that it's a
perfect parallel between those anecdotes
and what we're seeing of Donald Trump
but I think there may be something to it
and that's obviously something that the
court staff and the attorneys would have
some mindfulness of but that isn't
something that the jury would understand
because these are all first timers in a
situation like this is that right well
but we have two lawyers on the jury and
I've heard so much discussion over the
last 48 hours or so from legal analysts
uh from trial lawyers included uh about
whether it's a good idea or a bad idea
to have lawyers on the jury I think most
criminal litigators are of the opinion
that they don't want lawyers on their
juries I had the opposite uh view when I
was a prosecutor I actually liked and
had lawyers on my juries routinely
because I didn't strike them I didn't
move to strike them and it was because I
actually got to talk to a number of them
after the trial had concluded in my
local prosecutions not my federal
prosecutions I did both and in federal
court you're not allowed to talk to the
jurors after the trial is over except
with express permission of the judge and
I had these lawyers SL jurors often tell
me the same thing you know Glenn there
were people in there that were really
not following the judge's legal
instructions that we are Duty bound to
follow and they would start sort of
wildly speculating and spinning out of
control about alternate theories that
were not based in the evidence or the
lack of evidence so what I did as a
lawyer who was abiding by the judges
instructions I would bring them back to
the judge's instructions I'd say let's
review the instructions the judge gave
us about how we are not to speculate
right that's not what Reasonable Doubt
is it's not a speculative or fanciful
doubt that is precisely the language of
the Reasonable Doubt instruction of law
that the judge gives the juries so I
came to believe that lawyers on juries
are generally a good thing well to that
point there was a list of all of the
news sources I believe it was the New
York Times I compiled a list of all of
the news sources where the jurors who'd
been selected for this trial get their
news and one of the jurors juror number
two was the only one who got their news
exclusively from truth social and from X
um so didn't exactly bode well for
somebody who's like open to to the truth
and that that part actually worried me
quite a bit there was also one jur jur
number four who got their news from zero
news sources so everyone's like hey good
on that person just living living your
best life and unencumbered by by having
to read any news source but for jur
number two who only got their news from
True social and from X or Twitter I I
was worried about that but but I'm
presuming that you're going to say that
this isn't really a worrisome moment for
you because you know to that exact point
there are lots of folks on the jury who
can recognize like you know uh um your
your your personal preferences or
affiliations or allegiances aside if
you're just going to focus on what the
evidence presents in this case that
these people will be able to look beyond
that yeah and and here are a couple of
thoughts about that juror I saw that as
well and it piqued my interest and all
things being equal I wouldn't put that
in the plus column for a sort of fair
impartial and informed juror who says
they get their news on Twitter or X and
Truth social but there are also a lot of
people who say look I watch MSNBC and
fox and there are things on Twitter and
on X that are from reputable news
organizations I post on Twitter I'm not
saying I'm a news organization but MSNBC
and CNN and the Wall Street Journal and
the New York Times and lots of other
Publications post on Twitter so you know
I don't want to project the best case
scenario here but somebody could say
yeah I look at all that stuff on X I
also look at truth social because who's
not interested in what Donald Trump is
posting um and I can discern fact from
fiction but here's the thing Brian just
because a juror says this is where I
generally go each day to see what's
going on in the world X and Truth social
that does not disqualify somebody um
from sitting fairly and impartially in
isolation as long as they can say look
regardless of how I absorb my news or
try to keep myself informed what I
pledge that I can do your honor is look
at the evidence in the case and make a
decision based only on the evidence that
is presented to us not based on whatever
is going on on X or truth social or on
Fox news or on MSNBC or CNN so you know
no one answer in isolation disqualifies
a juror so I'm hoping that the balance
of the answers that that particular
juror gave gave the prosecution a
comfort level that you know okay perhaps
not the ideal juror but they've other
said enough things that satisfy us that
they can be fair and impartial if
they're selected you know to serve on
the jury in this case right I'm kind of
leaning on the fact that these um that
these prosecutors had the ability to
preemptor strike any jurors that they
didn't think could sit and uh and and
you know give an impartial uh view of
this case and the fact that they didn't
strike this juror you know I'm going to
perhaps naively but just assume that
they that they knew what they were doing
by virtue of leaving that juror on the
jury so with that said we will continue
to cover the entirety of this trial as
it continues to play out for those
watching right now if you want to follow
along with the Trump trial that's
happening in Manhattan right now please
make sure to subscribe the links to both
of our channels are right here on this
screen I'm Brian terer Cohen and I'm
Glenn kersner you're watching the legal
breakdown
[Music]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)