(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Donald Trump had a bad day in court yesterday with Justice Juan Merchan laying waste to his defenses in the false business records case.
Trump is accused of hiding the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016 in a series of invoices and checks to Michael Cohen for legal work that never happened. Naturally, he’d like to exclude testimony from Cohen and Daniels, as well as from Karen McDougal, another woman who was paid during the campaign to keep quiet about her affair with Trump.
How MyCase’s Smart Spend Can Help Increase Your Profits
This tweak to your financial management seems like a no-brainer.
Other items on Trump’s exclusion wish list include:
- Anything related to the National Inquirer’s “catch and kill” policy for stories damaging to Trump;
- The Access Hollywood tape;
- Michael Cohen’s guilty plea for violating campaign finance law by making an excess in-kind contribution with the Daniels payoff;
- The existence of campaign finance law generally;
- The fact that Trump controls his eponymous business and his revocable trust;
- Allen Weisselberg’s handwritten notes about the payoff;
- Trump’s tweets and public statements.
Hold on to your hats, kids, but … DENIED.
The court also dropkicked Trump’s motion to advance his defense of advice-of-counsel-but-also-not. Essentially, Trump hoped to avoid the unpleasantness of a privilege waiver by claiming that there were lawyers involved in this deal, and so he just assumed it was kosher.
Take Control Of Your Firm’s Finances With Tools Built For Success
Position your firm for long-term growth with better financial visibility and control. Learn how to track performance, manage spending, and plan strategically—download the full e-book now.
Survey says … WOMP WOMP:
Turning to the amorphous defense of “presence of counsel,” Defendant has in the past hinted, implied, and now declared that he will rely on said defense. However, Defendant has never asked this Court whether he would be permitted to do so. This Court now rules that Defendant may not offer, or even suggest, the defense of “presence-of-counsel.” To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it. The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This Court can not endorse such a tactic.
And while we’re on the subject of NOPE:
Further, Defendant is precluded from (1) arguing that the Indictment is novel, unusual, or unprecedented, (2) making argument about pre-indictment delay, (3) making arguments and introducing evidence regarding the purported motivations or personal and professional backgrounds of the District Attorney or counsel for the People in this case, (4) making arguments and introducing evidence regarding any potential punishment or other consequences to the Defendant as a result of these proceedings, (5) making argument or introducing evidence regarding the alleged bias of the court and court staff, and (6) arguing or introducing evidence regarding Pomerant’s purported views on the instant prosecution as expressed in his book. ‘These issues are not relevant and will only serve to confuse or mislead the jury. Indeed, many of these issues were already decided in this Court’s February 15, 2024, Omnibus Decision.
The court still hasn’t ruled on Trump’s motion to dismiss the case on immunity grounds, since he was doing very serious president stuff when he reimbursed Cohen. And next week, Justice Merchan will hear arguments on Trump’s motion to dismiss because the feds turned over discovery late and blew up the trial date, which he argues is somehow the fault of the Manhattan DA.
But from yesterday’s rulings, it certainly doesn’t sound like Justice Merchan thinks this case is off the calendar permanently.
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.