2:00PM Water Cooler 5/20/2024 | bare capitalism

Trump (R) (Bragg/Merchan): “The Latest | Trump’s criminal trial set to enter final stretch as cross-examination of Cohen resumes” [Associated Press]. “The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money trial declined Monday to broaden the scope of testimony that the defense can elicit from a potential expert witness, Bradley A. Smith, a former Bill Clinton-appointed Republican Federal Election Commission member. Judge Juan M. Merchan echoed his pretrial ruling that, if called, Smith can give general background on the FEC — its purpose, background and the laws it enforces — and the definitions of such terms as ‘campaign contribution.’ Merchan rejected the defense’s renewed efforts to have Smith define three terms in federal election law, saying it would breach rules preventing expert witnesses from interpreting the law. Nor can Smith opine on whether the former president’s alleged actions violate those laws, Merchan said. If Smith were to testify about those issues, Merchan said, the prosecution would then be permitted to call an expert of its own. That would result in a ‘battle of the experts,’ the judge said, ‘which would only serve to confuse and not assist the jury.’” • Since a campaign finance violation could be the as-yet-unrevealed object offense that converts Trump’s alleged business records violations into felonies, I think Smith’s testimony should be narrow, not broad. If I wanted to claim bias by Merchan, this is IMNSHO the strongest example.

Trump (R) (Bragg/Merchan): “Opinion: I changed my mind about the strength of the prosecution’s case against Donald Trump. Here’s why” [CNN]. “What the prosecution left out of its case, however, is a second key witness to establish that Trump intended to falsify his business records to cover up another crime. Cohen’s testimony so far served to prove the elements of the alleged “other crime” [object offense] that the hush money payments resulted from a conspiracy to commit [a] campaign interference or to make an [b] illegal campaign contribution.” As readers know, I don’t buy [a] because nobody ever cites to a statute that distinguishes campaign interference from mere campaigning (see McCarthy immediately below), and [b] is regulated by Federal law, so I don’t think a state should be involved. Making the defense attorney author’s perspective on the first crime, the business records crime, all the more interesting: “But the DA also must prove the actual business records crime, for which Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. (He pleaded not guilty). How I see it, Cohen’s testimony only satisfied half the equation beyond a reasonable doubt. According to Cohen’s testimony, there were three people in the room at the Trump Tower meeting after the 2016 election to discuss his expected reimbursement for Daniels’ payment: Cohen, Trump and Allen Weisselberg, then-chief financial officer of the Trump Organization. Given Cohen’s credibility problems, it would make a stronger case for the DA’s office to call a second witness to back up his claims….. Weisselberg could be the linchpin to validate Cohen’s claims about Trump agreeing to reimburse him through Trump Organization, as a business expense…. But the prosecutors have a problem. Weisselberg also has credibility issues… [T]he safest thing for [the prosecution] to do is not call Weisselberg at all. It leaves a hole in the prosecution’s case, and that also could leave room for reasonable doubt…. It’s unlikely we will ever see Trump take the stand to explain his version. … While Cohen did an efficient job testifying about the first half of the scheme, to influence the election by buying Daniels’ story and keeping it quiet, he doesn’t know what happened when the business records that are the subject of the 34-count indictment were created. He wasn’t working for the Trump Organization in 2017 when the reimbursements began. He was a lawyer and not a bookkeeper. If one juror has uncertainty about whether Trump was involved with how Cohen’s payback was recorded on the records and by whom, there will be a hung jury and Trump will walk free. Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s personal secretary in the Oval Office, gave the defense team its biggest gift: She testified that Trump sometimes multitasked and that she had seen him sign a bunch of checks while on the phone or engaging in other activities. The defense can easily argue that Trump was running the presidency in DC and no longer micromanaging what was going on in New York at the Trump Organization. If he signed checks put in front of him, they could have easily been part of a busy work pile to be FedExed back to the company with Trump barely paying attention. If so, there would have been no intent to falsify the business records.”

Trump (R) (Bragg/Merchan): “Alvin Bragg’s Outrageous Conspiracy Theory” [Andrew McCarthy, National Review]. “Alvin Bragg, Manhattan’s elected progressive Democratic district attorney, is trying to hoodwink the jury into believing that (a) it is a crime for a candidate for public office to conspire with others to suppress politically damaging information, and (b) that Donald Trump was charged with such a conspiracy in the indictment that has resulted in the ongoing trial. In point of fact, there is no such information-suppression conspiracy crime in the law and the indictment against Trump does not charge a conspiracy — it charges 34 counts of falsifying business records with fraudulent intent to commit or conceal another crime.” • Worth a read, because it’s all still true, even after a month of trial.

Trump (R) (Bragg/Merchan): “A Trump Conviction Depends on Proving More Than a Hush-Money Coverup” [Wall Street Journal]. “Manhattan prosecutors have framed their case against Donald Trump as a simple story about the criminal coverup of a sex scandal. But to win a conviction, they would have to convince jurors that Trump orchestrated the coverup with the intent of concealing another crime. Jury deliberations in the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president could begin as early as this week. Closing arguments will be the prosecution’s last chance to spell out the alleged second crime [which was not done in the indictment, note well] and convince jurors that Trump intended to commit it.” And: ” Falsifying business records is a felony in New York only if it is done to conceal or commit another crime. Bragg’s indictment didn’t say what that other crime was. And prosecutors still haven’t identified the specific offense to jurors.” Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, .” I just don’t see how a misdemeanor can be converted into a felony by presenting the object offense that does so in closing arguments. That should have been in the indictment. More: “A conviction requires proof of Trump’s criminal intent. That could mean proving that when Trump was in the White House and signing checks made out to Cohen, he was intending to defraud the voting public. And it also means proving that Trump knew Cohen’s arrangement with [Stormy] Daniels violated campaign finance rules but approved it anyway. Some legal observers following the case have said the evidence of Trump’s intent is thin. ‘I’m really having a problem getting around who was intended to be defrauded by internal records that weren’t being used to anyone’s advantage or disadvantage,’ said [Michael Scotto, a New York-area defense lawyer and former longtime prosecutor. More: “Prosecutors say that payment—from Cohen’s own pocket and approved by the former president—amounted to an illegal campaign contribution to Trump that violated federal election law because it was well over what was then the $2,700 limit on individual donations to a presidential candidate. And that, in turn, constituted a conspiracy under state election law.” Which would explain why the Feds never charged him. Oh, wait… More: “Whether federal campaign finance rules apply to the hush money Cohen paid is a contested area of law.” • Grounds for appeal?

Trump (R) (Bragg/Merchan): “Will Trump Run as a Felon? A Big 2024 Question Will Soon Be Answered” [New York Times]. “In Trumpian shorthand, based on his previous statements, it will be a “total exoneration” if not guilty and “election interference” if convicted.” Where’s the lie? More: “But the Trump campaign, with a flair for the dramatic — and a limited travel schedule, owing to the trial — has scheduled a large rally in the Bronx on Thursday, the same day it is possible a jury could deliver a verdict, which could create a combustible situation for a country where violence has become an ugly part of the political landscape.” • Watch out for agent provocateurs. Frankly, I hope they put Trump in jail. He’d gain ten points.

Trump (R): “Donald Trump slams teleprompter blunder in Minnesota speech plagued by issues” [Daily Express]. “Donald Trump brutally mocked Joe Biden after a technical error at the start of his speech in Minnesota. The former President put his day off from his hush money trial to good use, attending son Barron’s high high school graduation in Florida before attending a Republican fundraiser. Trump headlined the state GOP’s annual Lincoln Reagan dinner in St. Paul, which coincides with the party’s state convention, in the traditionally Democratic state. After getting up on stage in Minnesota at 9pm EST, Trump confessed that there was a behind-the-scenes issue that could have caused chaos. ‘Before I got up the teleprompter fell down,’ he stated, before joking: ‘Well done fellas. Then they wanna knw why I don’t pay the bill.’ Trump then used the opportunity to mock Biden, who he will debate one-on-one next month, after his rival was led off stage at the White House on Monday after making ‘brief, incoherent marks’ following a speech on Monday. He continued: “Suppose that happened to Biden. He’d go like this – ‘bye’. He’d leave. ‘l’ll stay with you for an hour, we’ll have some fun.’… Later on, Trump pointed out that the stage kept tilting to the left, then shouted: ‘This place is falling apart. What a c—-y contractor.’ ‘This sucker is really tenuous. I’ve never had this before, that a podium is falling down.’” • Hmm. Anti-union subtext? (Nevertheless, hard to imagine another candidate riffing like that.) The “led off stage” part seems to be from Sky News; here’s the video, FWIW (I don’t think much).

Trump (R): “Trump agrees to third debate as NBC scrambles to catch up with rivals” [Semafor]. “But on Friday, the former president announced on Truth Social that he had agreed to participate in an additional debate, this one hosted by NBC News and Spanish-language network Telemundo. The third proposed debate caught the Biden campaign by surprise, and was the result of behind-the-scenes discussions between the Trump campaign and NBC News without the Biden team’s participation.” • The League of Women Voters should give the Trump campaign a call. Trump could accept and put Biden in the position of turning them down!

Trump (R): “Donald Trump’s 7 Debate Demands Revealed” [Babylon Bee]. “1. Benny Hill music must be played whenever Biden wanders around the stage.”

Biden (D): “Biden Says He Was Still VP During COVID and Obama Sent Him to ‘Fix It’” [Daily Beast]. “President Joe Biden erroneously claimed on Sunday he was still serving as vice president during the COVID-19 pandemic. Speaking at a dinner for the NAACP in Detroit, Michigan, Biden went on a tangent proclaiming he was on the ground in the state to help out as the virus raged on, at the request of former President Barack Obama. ‘And when I was vice president, things were kind of bad during the pandemic,’ Biden said. ‘And what happened was, Barack said to me, ‘Go to Detroit, and help fix it.’ Well the poor mayor, he spent more time with me than he thought he was ever going to have to. God love you.’” • Wowers. Biden erases Omicron (although you’d never know it from CDC’s charts, see below).

Biden (D): “Biden Trips on Stage at Fallen Officer’s Event” [Newsweek]. “President Joe Biden appeared to trip on stage on Wednesday while attending an event in Washington, D.C., to honor fallen officers. The video, taken from a distance, shows the president heading to the stage at the event commemorating National Peace Officers Memorial Day, which honors law enforcement officials who died in the line of duty, and slightly stumbling as he walks up one of the stairs. A photograph taken close to the stage as Biden walked up the stairs in front of the U.S. Capitol building appeared to show the stumble, as well.”

Biden (D): “OK, Now What?” [Brian Beutler, Off Message]. “But then [Biden’s] progress [after the successful State of the Union speech] stalled. In most averages, he still trails, to say nothing of enjoying a two- or three-point lead with favorables trending in the right direction…. I do think it will soon be time to revive the alternate-ticket conversation in some form…. There’s obviously a level of underperformance that would make resolute Biden supporters admit he’s not the ideal candidate. What if Democrats mount a new offensive, try a bunch of different things to upend the race, and they all fail? What if Trump opens up a three point lead? Five points? If Biden were down by an unbeatable margin on the eve of the convention, would all of his ride-or-die supporters really have full confidence that he should remain the nominee?… I’d make it someone’s job, both on the campaign and in the White House, to keep a daily-updated menu of free-media ideas that I and my surrogates could execute quickly, so that the overwhelming majority of information people were hearing about me wasn’t coming from Donald Trump and his army of propagandists.” • Rather a damp squib.

Biden (D): “Clyburn seeking to bolster Biden support among Black voters with swing-state tour” [The Hill]. • Yeah, that should do it.

Kennedy (I):

WHO promotes baggy blues [bangs head on desk]: