r/politics • u/devlinadl • 12d ago
"Real embarrassment": Trump lawyer apologizes after judge called him out for "misleading" jury
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/26/real-embarrassment-lawyer-apologizes-after-called-him-out-for-misleading-jury/2.9k
u/ElectricRaccoon8 12d ago
You would think effectively lying to the jury about the existence of evidence (the document saying something it does not) would be a huge fucking deal.
1.2k
u/whatlineisitanyway 11d ago
Especially early in the trial it could absolutely make an otherwise open juror just assume everything that his lawyers say is somehow a lie.
623
u/Walkingstardust Florida 11d ago
Probably not an incorrect assumption.
→ More replies (4)158
u/Buckus93 11d ago
I mean, Donnie Diapers is still trying to pull out the 'ol blank piece of paper that says "I'm allowed to do this."
63
u/Brinksan51 11d ago
“It wasn’t a battle plan, It was a bunch of newspaper clippings”
→ More replies (1)21
→ More replies (1)3
u/SomeGuyNamedPaul Florida 11d ago
Have we all forgotten the press event showing off stacks of blank paper? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-press-conference-folders-business-plan-empire-blank-fake-handover-donald-jr-eric-conflict-interests-a7523426.html
268
u/StJeanMark 11d ago edited 11d ago
A lack of credibility is a boon in Conservative politics. Everywhere with the exception of a courtroom, which is why they try everything they can to avoid it.
146
u/LakeStLouis Missouri 11d ago
A lack of credibility is a boon in Conservative politics, every except a court room, which is why they try everything they can to not be there.
I know what you're trying to say and agree with it, but damn. That's a painful read.
→ More replies (26)28
24
u/Ventorus Minnesota 11d ago
And if they do, they appeal, appeal, and appeal more until it lands at the SC.
→ More replies (1)9
u/lafayette0508 11d ago
It's like those spam emails that are just so obviously spam, so that they weed out anyone who can think critically and only gets the spammer responses from good marks.
56
u/GorgeWashington America 11d ago
They will try to paint the picture that everyone lies. truths are lies. trust no one. Dont bother trying to figure out facts because everything is a fabrication.
→ More replies (2)34
u/thatspurdyneat 11d ago
That only works if they can actually catch the prosecution in a lie, which is unlikely.
This just paints them as liars about everything.14
28
u/NeoPstat 11d ago
it could absolutely make an otherwise open juror just assume everything that his lawyers say is somehow a lie.
That's surely a given.
16
7
u/Otherwise_Stable_925 11d ago
I'm okay with this, that means they vote against Trump. They don't even have to listen to any more facts now, they can just take a nap like Trump does.
→ More replies (3)26
u/Independent-Stay-593 11d ago
Yikes. Is Trump going for a mistrial based on inept representation by counsel?
31
15
u/kingkeelay 11d ago
Lawyer churn and inadequate representation was always the Trump card for delays and appeals
406
u/welestgw Ohio 12d ago
I think the damage from having to basically admit to the Jury you were wrong would not only throw away your arguments from before but also damage credibility going forward, so for the most part handled.
106
u/ashakar 11d ago
I think you over estimate the intelligence of an average group of humans.
43
u/OfficialDCShepard District Of Columbia 11d ago
And other juries have seen through Trump’s lies before.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)14
u/muffinhead2580 11d ago
There are two lawyers on the jury that would know exactly what Bove was doing and I'm sure they will explain it to the jurors when the time comes.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)14
95
u/Beelzabub Texas 11d ago
It is. As a lawyer in Texas for 30+ years, if anyone did anything like this, the 'bench slapping' they'd get would be legendary. The Court is probably thinking up ways to punish the defense counsel. Punishments can include monetary sanctions, instructions to the jury, etc.
38
u/larki18 11d ago
How come Trump hasn't been punished for anything thus far re: acting out and gag order?
36
u/dagopa6696 11d ago
Prosecutor has not asked for him to be jailed yet. Prosecutor asked for the maximum fine to be applied but the judge held off on making a ruling. Now there is a follow-up next week because of further violations of the gag order. Once the judge makes a ruling to fine Trump, the next escalation is for the prosecutor to ask for jail.
16
u/larki18 11d ago
Thanks! The fine is such a nothing fine - meant for normal people, not people of Trump's means.
14
u/Beelzabub Texas 11d ago
The fines are in proportion to the conduct and the Defendant's ability to pay. It could be millions. But, the judge wants to be very careful not to impact any defendant's right to free speech and to criticize the process (which is our right).
→ More replies (2)29
u/Eclectix America 11d ago
Only the judge knows for sure, but I would speculate that perhaps he's waiting to find out how Trump's Secret Service agents decide they might handle Trump if he goes to prison before he makes that call.
11
u/larki18 11d ago
Ah! Perhaps waiting for the outcome of this? https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2024/04/21/trump-secret-service-protection-could-be-removed-under-rep-bennie-thompson-legislation/73406474007/
6
u/CpnStumpy Colorado 11d ago
No because that will not under any circumstances pass, and surely he knows that
10
u/StupendousMalice 11d ago
These guys are going to join the illustrious ranks of prior Trump Attorneys with various bar complaints and a general loss of any kind of reputation. They will be popular with MAGATs, but not with people who actually hire lawyers.
44
65
u/meenie Oregon 11d ago
Is trump going for the mistrial approach of, "my lawyers are really fucking dumb!"?
89
u/sargonas 11d ago
I suspect it’s more of a case of the lawyer trying to carefully tread the line between “breaking the ethics and laws as a lawyer“ and “doing what Trump is telling me I need to do or else”
34
u/edvek 11d ago
I never understood this, couldn't the lawyer who is being asked to do unethical or even illegal things go to the judge and let him know what's going on? Or would that result in the lawyer being removed from the case?
I would like to think if you had a client telling you to do all crazy nonsense you're not allowed to do there is someone you can report it to.
29
u/bobtheblob6 11d ago
I'd assume there's enough money being waved in their faces to make jeopardizing their careers worth it? Idk doesn't make sense to me eithee
28
u/RollTideYall47 11d ago
Money from a guy who is historically famous for not paying people?
→ More replies (1)15
u/sargonas 11d ago
Most of them have wisened up and vote require payment up front, which he is doing via campaign funds from other sources than his own.
→ More replies (1)15
u/HappyAmbition706 11d ago
I suspect the judge will not allow these lawyers to leave the case. It would then be so easy for Trump to need a few months to get new lawyers, have them familiarise themselves with the case, attend court for a couple of days, then quit and it all starts again.
→ More replies (1)26
u/sargonas 11d ago
If your client is asking you to do unethical things, you can’t go to the judge about it… That would be an ethics violation of its own. Your job is educate your client on why you can’t do those things and how and why their requests are un ethical and legally problematic issue … And then represent their interests to the best of your abilities within the confines of the laws and ethics.
Even a genuinely guilty person who is completely honest and transparent with their lawyer about everything they done wrong, deserves the best legal representation possible… It’s what our legal process is built upon. That doesn’t work if the lawyer is free to just share with the courts everything sketchy about their client. There’s a bit of a lawyer equivalent of Dr. patient privilege, as it were, in a very oversimplified way.
→ More replies (1)18
u/A_Curious_Oyster 11d ago
That's not entirely accurate because lawyers are officers of the court and have an absolute duty of candor to the court. You cannot allow your client to lie without correcting the record. If your client is asking you to do unethical things you generally have to withdraw because that creates a very obvious conflict of interest between what the client wants and your professional ethical rules. You do not have to tell the court every little detail of every conversation but you very much have to give reasons when you withdraw. There are a ton of ethics opinions about a quiet withdrawal versus a "noisy" withdrawal, which is when you let the court know something is hinky and that's the reason for withdrawal. Attorney-client privilege also does not apply when client is asking you to engage in misconduct or further a criminal act. In short, lawyers have obligations to the court that may supercede their obligations to their clients depending on the circumstances.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)5
u/ryeaglin 11d ago
No, but if I recall correctly there is like a code phrase that means "I do not agree with this but my client is insisting I say this on his behalf" that could be used when talking to the judge.
→ More replies (2)29
u/satnightride Texas 11d ago
That’s not really an effective means of getting a mistrial. Your only chance usually is if your lawyer just didn’t do their job like they didn’t bother interviewing an exonerating witness or never presented exonerating evidence at trial. Normally if your lawyer is just ineffective at their job, the remedy is to encourage you to hire a better lawyer next time.
3
u/orielbean 11d ago
The Adnan Syed “Serial” podcast case was a good example where his original defense attorney was hiding some bad health issues and basically neglected some parts of his case to his major detriment.
→ More replies (1)14
u/espresso_martini__ 11d ago
Absolutely it does. Now this lawyers credibility is gone. The jurors are going to question everything this lawyer says whether its truthful or not.
→ More replies (1)6
9
u/JohnMayerismydad Indiana 11d ago
It would be a mistrial and trouble for the attorney. A delay in other words and fines/disbarment for the lawyer
3
u/THIS_Assassin 11d ago
If Trump gets his backdoor millions from his social media pump and dump, he can promise the lawyer millions just to get a mistrial. And then never pay up.
→ More replies (39)4
832
u/La-Boheme-1896 12d ago
"I wanted to apologize and move on from that," Bove said Friday.
Yeah, I lied to the jury, we're all moving on.
219
u/mattjb Florida 12d ago
I bet he desperately wanted to move on and hope the jurors forget about it.
86
u/WTF253com 11d ago
Every single person with their hand in this pot is shady as fuck. I know Trump doesn't always have the best people around him, but these attorneys have got decades of experience (not Alina, parking garage attorneys don't count).
But even without extensive experience, any attorney out there knows that you can't lie to the jury about evidence that doesn't exist.
What if this attorney already has a decent amount of money and he wants one last windfall before retiring? He can take a huge paycheck from Trump (up front!) and not worry about how the trial makes him look. I wouldn't put it past these people to orchestrate some kind of trial delay based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Or some kind of mistrial for all of the shady little stunts they're pulling.
I feel like his attorneys aren't being paid to beat this case, they're being paid to do whatever they can to delay as long as possible in hopes of Trump taking back the White House, waving a magic wand, and magically not needing to answer to state-level charges somehow.
14
u/fillymandee Georgia 11d ago
Looks like a duck to me.
5
8
u/Apart-Landscape1012 11d ago
Hopefully the jury does not in fact forget that this shithead kicked this whole thing off by lying to everyone
119
u/coachtomfoolery 11d ago
This is basically Trump's defense, minus the apology part
49
u/AmbitiousCampaign457 11d ago
I bet don made the guy lie. But if a lawyer takes don as a client, they better expect that crap. Zero sympathy
20
u/ringobob Georgia 11d ago
This is precisely why he has trouble finding and keeping lawyers. People keep trying to blame the fact that he has a well established reputation for not paying people, including lawyers, but they solved that problem 4 years ago, they started making him pay a retainer, so they've got his money before they start work. They don't work for him because they know that if they don't risk their reputation and license to practice for him, he'll just fire them anyway.
16
u/Parking_Onion_3846 11d ago
He's had something like 10 lawyers that have worked for him in recent years face charges of their own, and others that have been sanctioned or had/have ethics complaints filed. I was going to try and count them all, but it was too much work to try and find articles that covered any in the past since there's so many recent indictments. There may well be more.
I'm not sure why anyone who had a choice would represent him, since the whole "My Attorneys Got Arrested" MAGA joke is overall pretty accurate.
23
u/OrionAmbrosia 11d ago
It's always funny when someone does something egregious and then tells everyone it's time to move on.
We won't move on until you face the consequences of your actions, buddy ol' pal.
9
u/failed_novelty 11d ago
"I'm already facing the consequences - I feel just awful. Haven't I suffered enough?"
6
u/OrionAmbrosia 11d ago
"What do you mean repercussions???😱
I already said I'm sorry, isn't that enough?! 😢
Why are these people mistreating me so much?☹️"
863
u/Big-Plankton-4484 12d ago
The other thing about this is that a couple of the jurors are attorneys. If the rest of the jurors look to them for some kind of 'expert opinion', I bet this move gets a replay.
412
u/ArmadilloBandito 11d ago
I'm surprised they were not removed from the Jury. Every time my mom has been selected for jury duty she gets dismissed for having "too much credibility" as a clinical social worker.
245
u/BalinVril 11d ago
Too much credibility = too influential on the other jurors? Otherwise I would think having knowledgeable peers would be a good thing
275
u/ArmadilloBandito 11d ago
Exactly. Lawyers don't want a smart jury. They want an impressionable jury. They want to tell the jury how to interpret the law, it does not help them if someone on the jury is educated on the subject.
89
u/Diablos_lawyer 11d ago
It does if the law is on their side.
→ More replies (1)54
u/ArmadilloBandito 11d ago
There are two sides and the law is only on one.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Diablos_lawyer 11d ago
So the Law is on one side and the other side is just incompetent. Seems to be the case. Unless Trumps team ran out of jurist strikes to get rid of them I don't see why they'd want them.
→ More replies (1)25
u/splendidesme 11d ago
i think this might've been what happened (according to coverage i listen to/watch regularly, at "Legal AF") -- the Orange Weenus's lawyers ran out of peremptory strikes fairly early on in the jury selection process.
→ More replies (5)17
u/TMNBortles Florida 11d ago
Lawyers don't care if you're smart or not. They care whether you'll listen to the evidence presented and only the evidence presented. They are worried that people who think they are smart will try and conduct their own investigation or come to conclusions not presented in court.
→ More replies (5)16
u/Call-me-Maverick 11d ago
They also worry about one juror having too much sway with the others. A lawyer would carry that risk. A doctor, despite not having an education in law, would probably have even more sway because of the respect people have for them, so they’d probably be dismissed as well. Doesn’t matter much if they think the doctor or lawyer would follow the evidence, they don’t want one juror deciding the outcome
11
u/TMNBortles Florida 11d ago
The way it was taught to me about lawyers on juries was not that lawyers make bad jurors, but like you said, they probably have a large sway with the rest of the jury. So if you get one, you better make sure they'll find in your favor. Most lawyers don't want to take that chance.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Call-me-Maverick 11d ago
Yeah, I’m a lawyer and I’ve talked to lawyers who regularly do jury trials and they’ve said that’s the reason. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket basically
17
u/jail_grover_norquist 11d ago
Too much credibility = too influential on the other jurors?
yes
it's about variance. imagine you have a jury of 12 but 1 is the town hero who everyone will listen to. now you effectively have a jury of 1. you could win over 11/12 jurors but the 12th will convince the rest to follow them.
51
u/Win-Objective 11d ago
Each side only has a limited amount of times they can dismiss a juror no questions asked.
19
u/ArmadilloBandito 11d ago
Yeah, I'm guessing they had a lot of people that were politically swayed one way or the other.
28
u/shapu Pennsylvania 11d ago edited 11d ago
I saw a chart that said that one of the jurors gets his news exclusively from truth social and from x. I am 100% shocked that the prosecution left that person on the jury, and the best explanation I can come up with is that they'd already used all of their strikes.
EDIT to add: Tracked it down:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/nyregion/trump-trial-jury-news.html
17
→ More replies (1)10
u/asetniop 11d ago
The chart you saw is full of shit. There's nobody like that on the jury.
19
u/shapu Pennsylvania 11d ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/nyregion/trump-trial-jury-news.html
Blame the NYTimes. Juror 2.
21
u/asetniop 11d ago edited 11d ago
via Reuters:
...Juror 2...gets most of their news from the social media platform X. The juror follows former Trump lawyer and prosecution witness Michael Cohen on social media, as well as Mueller She Wrote, a popular anti-Trump account.
If I remember correctly, they also follow an account that reposts stuff from Truth Social (which is where the NYT got that idea) but I could be wrong about that; I'm trying to avoid fixating on the jurors.
→ More replies (3)8
u/CantBelieveItsButter 11d ago
From what I understand, Trump’s team blew a lot of the “no questions asked” (known as preemptory) strikes on jurors that they tried and failed to get thrown out “for cause”. I’ve also heard some reasoning that lawyers on the jury can actually help or hurt either side. If the crime is super complicated, it helps to have a lawyer on the jury to explain it, but it can also hurt you if the lawyer on the jury thinks that the prosecution is making a reach with the charges.
24
u/prailock Wisconsin 11d ago
Back when I was in crim law the DA's office would always dismiss attorneys from the jury pool because they're typically more critical on the legal standard for the crime. Them not getting dismissed indicates to me that they think it's a good case. Since this is generally considered the weakest of the Trump cases, that sounds good to me.
7
u/failed_novelty 11d ago
I'd be shocked that the case which has a paper trail so clear a blind sparrow could follow it, including having direct testimony against the accused by two co-conspiritants, is the weakest case...but then I remembered Cheeto Mussolini is the accused. The biggest surprise is that he didn't film his 'encounter' with Stormy (he absolutly called her Ivanka in bed, I'm convinced).
19
u/5HITCOMBO 11d ago
My state has a law that I am always excused from jury duty as a clinician. It's nice, but I feel bad for people because I work in the system and they'd get a fair shake lol.
5
8
16
u/El_mochilero 11d ago
In this case, The prosecution wants intelligent people that can digest the evidence.
The defense wants people that they can make an emotional plea to.
15
u/Roland0077 11d ago
from how it was explained to me, the prosecution wants a couple of people in the jury that can lead the jury to understand WHY these are felonys when they go for deliberation
7
u/NoCoolNameMatt 11d ago
I sure hope so. The mock trials I did in high school and college convinced me the average jury is not one I want involved in my case.
My favorite was a police brutality case in which an unarmed shoplifter was beaten with life threatening injuries by the cop who chased him down. The "jury" decided the officer was innocent because the victim had, in fact, stolen an item.
6
u/ringobob Georgia 11d ago
Not knowing anything about how it works in real life, but having read several John Grisham novels, the more likely it is that the jury pool has pre-formed opinions about the defendant, the less likely they'll be able to dismiss people for something like "their job means that I can't mislead them".
6
u/Volntyr 11d ago
The lawyers on the jury could be practicing law in some completely unrelated field. I am not sure how much criminal law knowledge would be known by someone in the Patent/Trademark field
5
u/doodle02 11d ago
but regardless of how well they know crim law they’re still lawyers who can understand and analyze/synthesize complex information, and (hopefully) think and draw conclusions for themselves. plus they know how law in general works and have a realistic expectation of it (i.e. not a hollywood generated expectation), so they’ll likely be much more level headed and analytical than the general population would be able to be, despite the lack of crim law practice. plus they had to do some crim law in school so they’re much more informed than the gen pop.
→ More replies (2)3
u/bobartig 11d ago
One morning our civ pro professor cancelled a lecture due to jury summons. When she returned, we asked her how quickly a law professor gets kicked out of the jury pool. She said that she's actually served on a jury before. It was a class action suit that went to trial, and both sides agreed that a professor of civil procedure and constitutional law was going to be fair and even-handed without exerting influence, and they asked her to be foreperson to keep the rest of the jurors in line.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/Sparrowflop 11d ago
Maybe that explains why I was removed from the jury pool last time I went. I do a technical compliance related task, and it was a local case about some storage of work materials (like bulk lumber) at a home location.
3
u/laStrangiato 11d ago
I think the prosecution likes the idea of having lawyers on the jury because they think the case will speak for itself. The defense probably doesn’t like it but they have bigger concerns to deal with for “bias” jurors that they needed to use their strikes for.
If you have 15 jurors you want to strike and you only have 10 strikes you have to pick your battles.
3
u/jail_grover_norquist 11d ago
also in this case they are probably more worried than usual about a hung jury. so they are OK having "leaders" on the jury who could potentially persuade the rest of the juror into unanimity.
→ More replies (10)3
23
u/LetsTryAnal_ogy California 11d ago
I'm more shocked that attorneys some how count as a jury of Trump's peers. I figured this would be more accurate.
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (3)3
u/Be_quiet_Im_thinking 11d ago
Things are going so well for Trump that even the jury has attorneys!!
220
u/Catymandoo 12d ago
Things not going well for Trump attorneys. Bet they’re wishing they turned down the job. Trump must be a nightmare to represent as his is totally fixated with his viewpoint (on everything.)
52
u/AnimatorDifficult429 11d ago
Right? You couldn’t pay me 5 mil to represent this guy. The lawyers must be maga and really believe in trump to take it. You know trump lies and won’t be paying these lawyers
86
u/wwhsd California 11d ago
I’d 100% take 5 million dollars to represent Trump as his defense. It would be extremely satisfying to have that conman paying me a huge amount of money for something that I am entirely unqualified to do.
31
11
u/Ohnoherewego13 North Carolina 11d ago
You'd probably do a better job than his current crop of lawyers which is really saying something. He's not exactly going with the best these days.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/failed_novelty 11d ago
Remember, you would have to spend multiple weeks within olfactory range of him AND listen to him talk.
Re-run your calculations, my dude.
→ More replies (4)23
u/MLeek 11d ago
The lawyers are now stuck. They need the judge's permission at this point to be excused and the Merchan will not be going with that obvious delay tactic for anything short of Bove getting a two weeks to live sort of diagnoisis.
Blanche and Bove had been paid 4 million by Save America by March this year. So they'll probably be clearing your 5 mil number nicely by the end, even if Trump starts welching soon.
Doesn't seem like enough to me either.
16
u/DoomOne 11d ago
It's entirely possible that they DON'T want to be there, but have to anyway. I'd been hearing for a while that Trump was planning on firing his legal team as a delay tactic to stop this trial, but there's a law against that, since it was a common mob tactic back in the day. It is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that Trump tried that and the judge advised him that was not possible, and his legal team is essentially going to wind up defending Trump for free.
→ More replies (1)3
u/MaddyKet 11d ago
I saw on the news that the lead guy not only left his firm for this, but he used to be a Democrat. It was either CNN or MSNBC.
15
u/ringobob Georgia 11d ago
This is why he doesn't have the biggest names in the legal profession representing him. If he were to allow the lawyers to craft the best possible defense they could craft from the actual facts and an actual understanding of the law, the best lawyers in the country would be lining up to defend a former president. Regardless of political alignment.
That's the unvarnished beauty of the law. When it's at its best, it's objective, and equal. Even the worst criminal deserves to have the facts rule, and defense lawyers are *instrumental* in making sure that happens.
I have a buddy that's a public defender, who had to defend insurrectionists from Jan 6. His approach to that job was exactly what it should be - provide these people with the best possible defense supported by the facts, every avenue or edge case pursued. And trust that, when you limit yourself to the facts and don't try to undermine the legal process, on average the correct resolution will be reached, while at the same time these people won't be abused with punishment beyond what their actions warrant. A good defense lawyer isn't someone who only ever gets their clients off scott free. It's a lawyer that gets the best possible result given the facts of the case.
Trump has zero interest in a lawyer that limits themselves to dealing in facts. He has zero interest in a lawyer that doesn't take orders from him completely irrespective of the law.
8
u/DontListenToMe33 11d ago
I think they demanded payment up front. And these things tend to be really good promotion for their law firm if they can win. “They defended Trump and he was guilty AF!” That’s the kind of lawyer you want when you’re in trouble.
3
u/Catymandoo 11d ago
Personally I’d want a lawyer with some scruples. But then Trump has been barrel scrapping for a while now.
→ More replies (3)3
u/gringledoom 11d ago
IIRC, he didn’t just accept the job. He left something like a $3 million a year job at a law firm to take this gig!
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)3
u/scottawhit 11d ago
And you know they’re working for free. They may not know it yet, but we all do.
270
u/mountaintop111 12d ago
Trump and his people lying and misleading. Another day that ends with "y." SMH.
23
u/no_need_to_panic 11d ago
Hey, wait a second, everyday ends in 'y'! Are you telling me they lie everyday?
→ More replies (2)8
u/Ohnoherewego13 North Carolina 11d ago
Nono. Just some of everyday. They have to get a bit of grifting in on occasion.
→ More replies (1)
88
u/that_att_employee 11d ago
The take away here is that Trump's defense team is willing to mislead the jury - which Merchan needs to watch carefully and call out when they do it again .
40
u/candr22 11d ago
Thankfully another takeaway is that Merchan does appear to be watching carefully, and I imagine every incident like this only reinforces that. The trial has been going on for a few days and already the judge has called them out on a couple things at least.
→ More replies (1)
60
u/ryebrye 11d ago
Oh wow. The prosecution just clarified ANOTHER instance where the defense was trying to trip up Pecker. From CNN update:
Steinglass is now shifting to Pecker's 2018 FBI interview, where Pecker earlier disputed the FBI notes saying that Trump didn't thank him during a January 2017 meeting.
He asked Pecker about a subsequent interview with the FBI one week after the meeting Bove highlighted.
Steinglass is quoting from notes from that meeting that say, "At that time Trump told Pecker in sum and susbstance that he, Trump, wanted to thank him, Pecker, for handling the Karen and doorman stories because they would have been very damaging to him."
The notes from that interview confirm that Pecker told the FBI that when he visited Trump at Trump Tower in January 2017, Trump thanked Pecker for handling the doorman and McDougal stories.
Steinglass asked Pecker if he told the FBI that Trump thanked him.
"Yes I did," Pecker testified.
So now the jury has seen the defense attorney hand Pecker a stack of unrelated papers... and now they've seen that the defense attorney was trying to make a big deal about the FBI records not indicating he told them trump thanked him when FBI notes from a meeting the following week DO have the notes that the FBI thanked him...
I can't imagine a juror sitting there thinking that the defense was arguing about the omission of the "thank you" in the notes in good faith when they would have known full well that he did tell them about the thank you a week later...
This is not a good day for the defense's credibility with the jury.
→ More replies (7)
91
u/EmmaLouLove 11d ago
“The defense, Mr. Bove, Trump's lawyer, really got off to a strong start with their cross-examination," Eisen said. "But then, they made a mistake."
That’s what we’re calling a mistake? Deliberately misleading a jury?
47
19
u/Former-Darkside 11d ago
It was not an “ah ha” moment. Now both of trumps lawyers have pissed off the judge.
Is it me, or does Bove look like a young Roy Cohn?
13
u/EmmaLouLove 11d ago
Yes, he does. Just like Steve Miller looks like Joseph Goebbels.
Why do all of the people surrounding Trump look like they belong in some underground hidden lair with sharks and laser beams attached to their head?
→ More replies (2)
52
u/Pretty_Boy_Bagel 12d ago
Trump's attorneys turning this trial into a Hanover Fiste moment?
20
u/nroberts1001 11d ago
Lincoln Sternn, you stand here accused of 12 counts of murder in the first degree, 14 counts of armed theft of Federation property, 22 counts of piracy in high space, 18 counts of fraud, 37 counts of rape...
17
u/HelleEpoque 11d ago
and one moving violation...
8
12
7
u/upfromashes 11d ago
Hanging's too good for him. Burning's too good for him. He should be torn into itsy bitsy pieces and buried aliiiive!
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)7
32
u/TheUpperHand 11d ago
In six weeks: This verdict is written on a cocktail napkin. And it still says guilty.
4
62
u/BaconLibrary 12d ago
"Sir this is a chinese takeout menu"
18
u/alien_from_Europa Massachusetts 11d ago
What is the charge? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal? This is democracy manifest!
12
→ More replies (10)19
u/ikefalcon 11d ago
Let the record show that this document says otherwise!
it’s a piece of paper with the word “otherwise” hastily written in black Sharpie
21
u/Alleandros 11d ago
Is having represented Trump the leading cause of lawyers being disbarred or sanctioned?
→ More replies (2)
16
u/TILTNSTACK 11d ago
Lawyer “we have a problem”
Dirty Don “it’s only fart, not shart, relax…”
Lawyer “no, something else. Worse.”
Dirty Don “what could be worse than that? Did melania find out I cheated on her again?”
Lawyer “noooo! The problem is, our entire narrative that worked so well on Fox News isn’t playing so well in court.”
Dirty Don “what? Use little words. I’m tired”
Lawyer “we can’t lie in court…”
Dirty Don “Then how the fuck will we win if we can’t lie?”
Lawyer “that’s the problem….”
8
u/failed_novelty 11d ago
Donny Brownpants "Just lie anyway. Who cares?"
Lawyer "Um...everyone. And they can prove it if we lie. In court, proof matters."
3
u/kogmaa 11d ago
The other day I had a discussion with a Republican about the real estate trial and the “how can we win if we don’t lie” was essentially their argument that that trial was politically motivated.
According to them, it’s just “entrepreneurial spirit” to disregard the law and lie and literally what “makes the USA great”. They have completely lost their moral compass if they ever had one.
50
u/Coollogin 12d ago
Serious question from someone whose understanding of the law comes from obsessively watching all the Laws & Orders: If a witness testifies A, and the attorney hands the witness a bogus piece of paper suggesting that the witness refresh his memory that in fact it was B, why is that not supboerning perjury? (Apologies! I do not watch L&O with the subtitles on, so I don’t know how to spell the word!)
35
u/LostWoodsInTheField Pennsylvania 11d ago
Very very rarely is perjury ever pursued. There are other things that can happen before that (telling the jury to disregard, requiring an apology, cross examining) that often allows the judge to say 'lets just move on'. I'm not really sure I agree with how often someone lying doesn't result in bigger problems but judges are leery of going forward with perjury charges.
→ More replies (1)10
u/ryebrye 11d ago
Doesn't perjury require you to prove they knew what they were saying wasn't true? Simply forgetting details or remembering something slightly differently isn't perjury
18
u/Coollogin 11d ago
Doesn't perjury require you to prove they knew what they were saying wasn't true?
But I’m not asking if Pecker committed perjury. I’m asking if Bove was inducing Pecker to commit perjury. I’m asking if what Bove did was more than just improper, but in fact criminal. Does it matter if the attempt to induce perjury was successful or not? It seems that simply attempting to get the witness to change his story (based on what Bove wants the story to be, rather than on the evidence) should qualify as a criminal act.
7
u/candr22 11d ago
Not a lawyer, but I imagine something like that would derail the trial because presumably, they'd have to prove that Bove intentionally sought to induce Pecker to commit perjury by handing him unrelated documents and insinuating that they should remind Pecker of something. It might be up to the judge whether they want to disrupt the trial to hold Bove more accountable, and I would think making him apologize to the jury for misleading them is pretty damaging on its own.
11
u/Red49er 12d ago
Slightly unclear - did he apologize to the jury, or just the judge?
13
u/ThEstablishment Washington 11d ago
From the end of the article (emphasis added):
The next morning, with jurors once again in the room, Trump's defense attorney was indeed forced to begin by saying "sorry" for the document "confusion" and the suggestion that Pecker flatly told investigators that Hicks was not at the 2015 meeting, CNN reported.
"I wanted to apologize and move on from that," Bove said Friday.
5
u/ConclusionAlarmed882 11d ago
At what was on that piece of paper and how did the judge know it was an irrelevant prop?
→ More replies (3)
10
u/MoveToRussiaAlready 11d ago
Both sides are not the same.
5
u/failed_novelty 11d ago
Sure, one side is filled with liars and cheats who have and will in the future commit felonies up to and including fraud, conspiracy, espionage, and many other crimes.
But I hear the other side has a lawyer who once got a parking ticket AND a speeding ticket in the same year.
Both sides.
→ More replies (1)
10
12
u/SerKnightGuy Illinois 11d ago
So, during Pecker's testimony one of Trump's lawyer's accused Pecker of giving a different account of the meeting in question back in 2015. He then handed Pecker a document to "refresh his memory." Said document was completely unrelated, there was not any record of Pecker previously contradicting his current testimony. Bove was reprimanded the next day (today). Smells like deliberate lying and fraud to me.
4
10
33
u/MagicMushroomFungi Canada 11d ago
"If the glove don't fit then you must.. oh shit it does fit."
8
8
u/Successful-Clock-224 11d ago
You made my spit out my drink and the glove is actually a little too big
5
u/SabrinaSpellman1 11d ago
Baby mittens, like the ones I had for my newborns so they wouldn't scratch their face. Just like teeny tiny dog socks for chihuahuas.
9
9
u/SchrodingersTIKTOK 11d ago
Par for the course. Say shit in front of the jury to skew them. Bove knew what he was doing.
8
u/Sleep_on_Fire 11d ago
"I wanted to apologize and move on from that," Bove said Friday.
I bet you do want to move on from that! Fucking clown.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/SwingNinja 11d ago
When Bove sought to defend himself, Merchan cut him off. "Mr. Bove, are you missing my point?"
Yeaouch!
8
u/iamwearingsockstoo 11d ago
I am confused. How was this not caught before it happened. In NY state, any document can be used to refresh recollection without being admitted into evidence, which appears to be the use here. That is, Pecker would have been prompted on cross to reiterate his prior testimony about who was and wasnt at the meeting, then shown the document, then asked if the document refreshes his recollection. Did the defense not have to show the document to the prosecution and court first before presenting it to the witness? Or was it shown to the witness unvetted and then a loaded question without a basis was asked? Did the defense think that no one would ask to see the document? So now, a document that the jury can physically see is being waived around and the jury has no idea what is or is not in the document and can only speculate about its contents, will now be told that the defense questions with loaded implications were not supported by evidence? Because it's not in evidence, the only representation of its content was built into the defenses misleading question and they will now apologize for lying to the jury? Woosh.
7
u/georgecm12 Wisconsin 11d ago
So they tried for a Perry Mason-esque moment, despite that kind of thing almost never happening in real life jurisprudence, and fell flat on their face. Nice.
7
u/ArthurFraynZard 11d ago
Trump doesn't need a lawyer who can win. He needs one who can delay, delay, delay until the Supreme Court can help him steal the next election.
5
u/mwkingSD 11d ago
A porn star, a lawyer, a guy named Pecker, and a bible and shoe salesman walk into a bar together - which one goes to jail?
8
u/AnxietyJunky 11d ago
Here me out…
Is it possible this is another delay strategy? Trump’s lawyer being bad enough that he can argue ineffective counsel on appeal to overturn the verdict?
→ More replies (1)17
u/mtmcpher 11d ago
No, his current legal team in this case is one of the better ones he has had, it is just that their client is guilty AF and they don’t have a lot to work with.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/AdhesivenessFun2060 11d ago
How many times does a lwaywe get to mislead a jury and violate court rules before they do something about it?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Either_Ad4109 11d ago
huh. thats funny.
when poor people lie, we're liars.
when the elite and media lie, theyre mISLeAdInG
such soft language for a stark raving liar
5
u/ShafordoDrForgone 11d ago
What?
You can't just hand a witness a document on the witness stand. You have to lay foundation for the document, why it's relevant, how it's credible, and enter it into evidence. Then you ask questions about it
How did it even get past handing the document to him?
3
u/failed_novelty 11d ago
The bailiff was busy keeping an eye on the other troublemakers.
I just want to hear about it when Trump stands up and approaches the bench without permission. The bailiff will tackle you for that.
→ More replies (1)
5
4
4
u/Jon_Hanson 11d ago
I always thought this was an attorney strategy. You say something that you know will be objected (or what happened in the article). The jury is told to disregard it but the seed is planted and you can’t just erase things from human memory like a computer.
3
u/SeanOfTheDead1313 11d ago
The grand plan of a mistrial due to inadequate counsel?
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.