President Donald Trump is back in court today on Tuesday for closing arguments in Alvin Bragg\u2019s show trial in New York City.<\/p>\n
The prosecution has yet to define the alleged criminal act that President Trump committed. But it doesn\u2019t matter. The court is ready to find Trump guilty and send him to prison.<\/p>\n
This is Joe Biden\u2019s America.<\/p>\n
The Gateway Pundit contributor Paul Ingrassia is attending the ongoing show trial today in New York City today.<\/p>\n
Paul wrote this earlier today:<\/p>\n
Alvin Bragg is attempting to charge President Trump with a Class E felony, which is a crime under New York state law.\u00a0 Felonies are typically crimes punishable by more than a year in prison.\u00a0 We know by now that Bragg\u2019s case is riven with errors \u2013 and it remains inexplicable why, to the extent President Trump has violated any criminal statute at all, he is still being charged with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.\u00a0 Of course, the reality is that President Trump committed no crime.\u00a0 But even the statute that Alvin Bragg has cited to base his alleged theory of liability, Penal Law \u00a7 175.10, expressly\u00a0states<\/a>\u00a0\u201ca person is guilty of falsifying business \u2026 in the\u00a0second degree<\/strong>, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.\u201d\u00a0 Bragg must not have the attention span (or intelligence) to read the rest of the statute,\u00a0which blatantly spells out<\/a>: \u201cFalsifying business records in the second degree is a class A\u00a0misdemeanor<\/strong>.\u201d\u00a0 A misdemeanor at most, not a felony.\u00a0 So, why the bloody hell are Bragg and Merchan treating this like a criminal felony?<\/p>\n This entire trial is an abuse of the US legal system. For over 240 years the United States had a justice system that was unmatched in history. Not any more. The Democrats have ripped it apart in order to take down Trump and his supporters.<\/p>\n Paul Ingrassia<\/a> will be live-posting from inside the courtroom today.<\/p>\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>8:42 AM: BREAKING: I am back at the courthouse covering the Trump Sham Trial today. Today is the first day of summations. It has been reported that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Tiffany Trump, Michael Boulos, Steve Witkoff, Will Scharf, and Deroy Murdock will join President Trump today in court. Stay tuned all day long for updates on X and <\/span>@gatewaypundit<\/a><\/span>!<\/span><\/p>\n BREAKING: I am back at the courthouse covering the Trump Sham Trial today.<\/p>\n Today is the first day of summations. It has been reported that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Tiffany Trump, Michael Boulos, Steve Witkoff, Will Scharf, and Deroy Murdock will join President\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>8:46 AM: @NatalieJHarp is one of President Trump\u2019s most loyal aides and has been a stalwart defender of the President and his agenda years before she ever officially joined his team.<\/p>\n She is the absolute best of the best \u2014 the gold standard for presidential personnel in both competence and loyalty.<\/p>\n . @NatalieJHarp<\/a> is one of President Trump\u2019s most loyal aides and has been a stalwart defender of the President and his agenda years before she ever officially joined his team.<\/p>\n She is the absolute best of the best \u2014 the gold standard for presidential personnel in both competence\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/1kZf0Uk9BE<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:27\u00a0AM:BREAKING: Spotted in the overhead section today is former Biden Press Secretary <\/span>@jrpsaki.<\/a> <\/span>We\u2019ll \u201ccircle back\u201d and see what\u2019s going on with her later. Also a number of Trump allies are here: <\/span>@AndrewHGiuliani<\/a><\/span>, <\/span>@JudgeJeanine<\/a><\/span>, <\/span>@AndrewCMcCarthy<\/a><\/span>, <\/span>@gopAshleyLamb<\/a><\/span>, and <\/span>@KasondraWatkins<\/a><\/span>(among others) are also covering the trial all day long. Be sure to follow each of their X accounts for the latest updates!<\/span><\/p>\n BREAKING: Spotted in the overhead section today is former Biden Press Secretary @jrpsaki<\/a>. We\u2019ll \u201ccircle back\u201d and see what\u2019s going on with her later.<\/p>\n Also a number of Trump allies are here: @AndrewHGiuliani<\/a>, @JudgeJeanine<\/a>, @AndrewCMcCarthy<\/a>, @gopAshleyLamb<\/a>, and @KasondraWatkins<\/a>\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:32 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: President Trump just now enters the courtroom, alongside attorneys Todd Blanche, Susan Necheles, and Emil Bove. The President is wearing a bright red \u201cvictory\u201d tie.<\/p>\n BREAKING: President Trump just now enters the courtroom, alongside attorneys Todd Blanche, Susan Necheles, and Emil Bove. The President is wearing a bright red \u201cvictory\u201d tie.<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:33 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Todd Blanche says he expects summation to last 2.5 hours. The People estimate \u201csomewhere in the vicinity of 4 and 4.5 hours.\u201d So it appears summations will go on for more than just 1 day. Merchan says it\u2019s up to the jurors to determine whether they want to finish summations today, or go an extra day. Jurors now being brought into the courtroom.<\/p>\n BREAKING: Todd Blanche says he expects summation to last 2.5 hours.<\/p>\n The People estimate \u201csomewhere in the vicinity of 4 and 4.5 hours.\u201d So it appears summations will go on for more than just 1 day.<\/p>\n Merchan says it\u2019s up to the jurors to determine whether they want to finish\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:37 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Merchan cautions those who go before him to not \u201cexplain the law\u201d or \u201cgo into the law.\u201d He gives this ultimatum before the jurors enter the courtroom. This is consistent with his remarks last week, admonishing particularly the Defense for explaining aspects of the law. Merchan lords over his court like a tinpot despot, and wants a complete monopoly over the law and its construction. This is also consistent with Merchan barring expert testimony from FEC Commissioner, Bradley Smith.<\/p>\n BREAKING: Merchan cautions those who go before him to not \u201cexplain the law\u201d or \u201cgo into the law.\u201d He gives this ultimatum before the jurors enter the courtroom.<\/p>\n This is consistent with his remarks last week, admonishing particularly the Defense for explaining aspects of the\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:37 AM: <\/span>CORRECTION: The President\u2019s tie is more a golden\/orange color than red!<\/p>\n CORRECTION: The President\u2019s tie is more a golden\/orange color than red! https:\/\/t.co\/pp4WmtE3nW<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:39 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Judge Merchan tells the jurors that \u201cnothing the lawyers said is evidence\u201d and \u201cnothing said during the summations is evidence.\u201d Merchan: You and you alone are the judges of the facts of this case. Merchan: I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPLAINING THE LAW, NOT THE LAWYERS. YOUR SWORN DUTY AS JURORS IS TO FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, AS YOU PROMISED ME THAT YOU WOULD.<\/p>\n BREAKING: Judge Merchan tells the jurors that \u201cnothing the lawyers said is evidence\u201d and \u201cnothing said during the summations is evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n Merchan: You and you alone are the judges of the facts of this case.<\/p>\n Merchan: I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR EXPLAINING THE LAW, NOT THE LAWYERS.\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:40 AM: BREAKING: : \u201cFalsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.\u201d A misdemeanor at most, not a felony. So, why the bloody hell are Bragg and Merchan treating this like a criminal felony?Alvin Bragg is attempting to charge President Trump with a Class E felony, which is a crime under New York state law. Felonies are typically crimes punishable by more than a year in prison. We know by now that Bragg\u2019s case is riven with errors \u2013 and it remains inexplicable why, to the extent President Trump has violated any criminal statute at all, he is still being charged with a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Of course, the reality is that President Trump committed no crime. But even the statute that Alvin Bragg has cited to base his alleged theory of liability, Penal Law \u00a7 175.10, expresslystates\u201ca person is guilty of falsifying business \u2026 in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.\u201d Bragg must not have the attention span (or intelligence) to read the rest of the statute,which blatantly spells out<\/span><\/p>\n BREAKING: : \u201cFalsifying business records in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.\u201d A misdemeanor at most, not a felony. So, why the bloody hell are Bragg and Merchan treating this like a criminal felony?Alvin Bragg is attempting to charge President Trump with a Class E\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:41 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Judge reiterates that it\u2019s up to jurors to decide whether to work beyond 4:30 today or wrap it up tomorrow morning. Unlike in previous weeks, court will be in session tomorrow, on a Wednesday, due to being off on the Memorial Day holiday. If jurors decide they want to finish up summations today, they don\u2019t expect court to go much beyond another hour past the 4:30 time.<\/p>\n BREAKING: Judge reiterates that it\u2019s up to jurors to decide whether to work beyond 4:30 today or wrap it up tomorrow morning. Unlike in previous weeks, court will be in session tomorrow, on a Wednesday, due to being off on the Memorial Day holiday.<\/p>\n If jurors decide they want to\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:44 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Blanche begins his summations by thanking the jurors for being attentive and showing up on time every single day for the last five weeks. Explains the uniqueness of the American criminal justice system, how it\u2019s up to a tribunal of twelve jurors to decide the guilt or innocence of President Trump. Blanche: President Trump is innocent. He did not commit any crimes. And the DA has not met his burden of proof, period. All the evidence has come in, and it should leave you wanting and expecting more! You should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen. You should want more than Deb Tarasoff telling you how she booked certain invoices. You should expect something more than Keith Davidson who sought to extort money from President Trump in the leadup to the 2016 election. The facts lead to a simple conclusion: a not guilty verdict, period.<\/p>\n BREAKING: Blanche begins his summations by thanking the jurors for being attentive and showing up on time every single day for the last five weeks. Explains the uniqueness of the American criminal justice system, how it\u2019s up to a tribunal of twelve jurors to decide the guilt or\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:44 AM: <\/span>Blanche: This is a paper case. It is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels eighteen years ago that President Trump unequivocally denied occurred. It\u2019s not even about an NDA that was signed nearly eight years ago. The reason you are all here is whether and to what extent President Trump, while living in the White House, had anything to do with the payments of Michael Cohen. \u2026 The bookings were accurate, and there was absolutely no intent to defraud. Beyond that, no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election by President Trump, Michael Cohen, the folks at AMI, all of which I will unpack this morning.<\/p>\n Blanche: This is a paper case. It is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels eighteen years ago that President Trump unequivocally denied occurred.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not even about an NDA that was signed nearly eight years ago.<\/p>\n The reason you are all here is whether and to what extent\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:48 AM: <\/span>Blanche: The bottom line is the charges in this case have to do with invoices, vouchers, and cheques. All of the invoices have been submitted by Michael Cohen. You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the words of Michael Cohen. There were clear conversations that he claimed he had with Keith Schiller, Dylan Howard, Allen Weisselberg. None of them were witnesses at this trial. Instead, Cohen was the witness, and his words matter. Cohen took an oath, swore to tell the truth, and told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies \u2013 pure and simple.<\/p>\n Blanche: The bottom line is the charges in this case have to do with invoices, vouchers, and cheques.<\/p>\n All of the invoices have been submitted by Michael Cohen. You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the words of Michael Cohen.<\/p>\n There were\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:49 AM: BREAKING: Blanche explaining to jurors that they have to explain 1) documents contained false entries, and 2) Trump acted with the intent to defraud. Blanche says records were not false, and there was no intent to defraud.<\/span><\/p>\n BREAKING: Blanche explaining to jurors that they have to explain 1) documents contained false entries, and 2) Trump acted with the intent to defraud.<\/p>\n Blanche says records were not false, and there was no intent to defraud.<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:55 AM: <\/span>Blanche: Miss Tarasoff didn\u2019t speak to President Trump about the invoices. Cohen was rendering services to President Trump as his personal attorney in 2017. No question about it. As a matter of fact, on direct examination, he said one of the reasons why he needed to serve as Trump\u2019s personal attorney was due to outstanding matters he was dealing with. Which was true. The government wants you to believe there was some conspiracy between Cohen, Weisselberg, and Trump. That Cohen was working for free, even though there are invoices from May of 2017 between Weisselberg and Cohen, visuals of which are now being presented in Blanche\u2019s summation.<\/p>\n Blanche: Miss Tarasoff didn\u2019t speak to President Trump about the invoices.<\/p>\n Cohen was rendering services to President Trump as his personal attorney in 2017. No question about it. As a matter of fact, on direct examination, he said one of the reasons why he needed to serve as\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>9:58 AM: BRIEF RECAP: Part of the reason we still do not know so much of anything about this case is because the presiding judge, Juan Manuel Merchan, has not allowed any discussion whatsoever of Bragg\u2019s criminal theory of liability through expert witnesses. We have so far heard ad nauseam from Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, who were the prosecution\u2019s one-two punch used to assassinate President Trump\u2019s character in the courtroom and deny him the presumption of innocence, about how bad a man Donald Trump supposedly is. But hardly anything from the Defense! Why? Because Merchan would not allow it! Instead, the Defense has only been allowed to bring in one witness, Robert Costello, a battle tested defense attorney of the SDNY and former legal adviser of Michael Cohen. For his part, Cohen\u2019s testimony arguably did more to discredit the People\u2019s theory of the case than Donald Trump\u2019s \u2013 after all, he admitted to lying on the stand under Congressional oath years ago, stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization, committing perjury, and profiting off the trial, among a litany of other damning revelations. Costello drove the nail in the coffin, corroborating Cohen\u2019s own testimony that his former client is a liar, fraudster, and perjurer \u2013 who acted totally independently and without President Trump\u2019s knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n BRIEF RECAP: Part of the reason we still do not know so much of anything about this case is because the presiding judge, Juan Manuel Merchan, has not allowed any discussion whatsoever of Bragg\u2019s criminal theory of liability through expert witnesses. We have so far heard ad\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:00\u00a0AM: <\/span>Blanche: As you know, the fact that there was a verbal retainer agreement between Michael Cohen and President Trump is consistent with another lawyer you heard from\u2026 Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION! Merchan: Overruled. Blanche: That lawyer was Mr. Keith Davidson.<\/p>\n Blanche: As you know, the fact that there was a verbal retainer agreement between Michael Cohen and President Trump is consistent with another lawyer you heard from\u2026<\/p>\n Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION!<\/p>\n Merchan: Overruled.<\/p>\n Blanche: That lawyer was Mr. Keith Davidson.<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:03 AM: <\/span>Blanche: Mr. Cohen was President Trump\u2019s personal lawyer, period. Nobody disputes that Mr. Cohen was Trump\u2019s personal lawyer in 2017. So what makes more sense: that Trump was paying his personal attorney $35k pursuant to an agreement he made with his attorney just before he took office OR the version Cohen told you. Which is that, \u201cno, I was not paid! I was gonna work for free! And I figured I would work for free. The $35k wasn\u2019t a retainer fee, but an overpayment for the $135k based on the NDA. For the first time in Trump\u2019s life, he decided to pay me triple. And I\u2019d just make money as as a consultant. That\u2019s what really happened!\u201d There is a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one, and that\u2019s certainly the case here. The story that Mr. Cohen told on the witness stand is simply not true.<\/p>\n Blanche: Mr. Cohen was President Trump\u2019s personal lawyer, period. Nobody disputes that Mr. Cohen was Trump\u2019s personal lawyer in 2017. So what makes more sense: that Trump was paying his personal attorney $35k pursuant to an agreement he made with his attorney just before he took\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:08 AM: <\/span>Blanche: There is no better way to categorize an invoice from a client to a lawyer as a legal expense. That is exactly what it is. The government is trying to call this a crime, which is absolutely ridiculous. The government claims this was some elaborate way to coverup a $135k payment. That is not what the evidence shows.<\/p>\n Blanche: There is no better way to categorize an invoice from a client to a lawyer as a legal expense. That is exactly what it is. The government is trying to call this a crime, which is absolutely ridiculous.<\/p>\n The government claims this was some elaborate way to coverup a\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:12 AM: <\/span> Blanche: If there was some sort of conspiratorial agreement between Trump, Cohen, and Weisselberg: this email does not exist. Why did they ask approval via email from Don and Eric, Trump\u2019s two sons, for the invoices? I don\u2019t have an answer why the People believe a conspiracy exists. But guess who else you did not hear from: Don & Eric. Is there some allegation that they were part of this scheme? They have not been called to testify. The government makes the decisions who to call: they did not call Don & Eric.<\/p>\n Blanche: If there was some sort of conspiratorial agreement between Trump, Cohen, and Weisselberg: this email does not exist.<\/p>\n Why did they ask approval via email from Don and Eric, Trump\u2019s two sons, for the invoices?<\/p>\n I don\u2019t have an answer why the People believe a conspiracy\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:17 AM: <\/span>BLANCHE: You cannot convict President Trump because sometimes President Trump looked at invoices. You cannot conclude that he had full knowledge of what was happening, especially while simultaneously being President. That is a stretch. That cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing sinister between the checks between Trump Tower and Keith Schiller, it\u2019s common sense based on the testimony you\u2019ve heard from the witnesses. It matters where Trump was at the time: constantly busy, multi-tasking, always on the move. He was President of the United States. So the leap the Government wants you to take: that he was somehow intimately part of the scheme to book a legal expense as a legal expense is absurd.<\/p>\n BLANCHE: You cannot convict President Trump because sometimes President Trump looked at invoices. You cannot conclude that he had full knowledge of what was happening, especially while simultaneously being President.<\/p>\n That is a stretch. That cannot be proven beyond a reasonable\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:18 AM: <\/span>BLANCHE: How is the Government going to ask you to convict Donald Trump based on the words of Michael Cohen?<\/p>\n BLANCHE: How is the Government going to ask you to convict Donald Trump based on the words of Michael Cohen?<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:20 AM: BLANCHE: What the Government did for the last five weeks is to ask you to believe Michael Cohen, the man who testified two weeks ago. Cohen asks you to ignore the documents, what the emails say about a retainer agreement with Weisselberg. You saw him on the stand for 3 days. Do you believe for a second that, after getting stiffed for his bonus, when he did not get paid back the $20k he believed he was owed, do you think for a second that he thought to himself, \u201cI\u2019m gonna work for free.\u201d Do you believe the man who testified, or was that a lie?<\/span><\/p>\n BLANCHE: What the Government did for the last five weeks is to ask you to believe Michael Cohen, the man who testified two weeks ago.<\/p>\n Cohen asks you to ignore the documents, what the emails say about a retainer agreement with Weisselberg.<\/p>\n You saw him on the stand for 3 days.\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:24 AM: <\/span>BLANCHE: All the knowledge President Trump had of this scheme is him telling Cohen that \u201cit\u2019s going to be one heck of a ride in DC.\u201d That\u2019s the extent of the Government\u2019s knowledge, according to the Prosecution.<\/p>\n BLANCHE: All the knowledge President Trump had of this scheme is him telling Cohen that \u201cit\u2019s going to be one heck of a ride in DC.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s the extent of the Government\u2019s knowledge, according to the Prosecution.<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:29 AM: <\/span>BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING: Merchan has so far run roughshod over the rule of law, making a casualty of the legitimacy of the New York State criminal system in the process. The controlling statute, Penal Law \u00a7 175.10, putatively serving as the basis for the People\u2019s case, requires two crimes to raise the falsification scheme to a first-degree felony. The fraud must have been done with \u201can intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.\u201d Bragg\u2019s prosecutors are now claiming that the second crime is some ill-defined FEC violation, which raises a slew of separate legal questions. But not being able to interrogate an expert on federal election law in court is the ultimate miscarriage of a justice system already loaded with abuses and unprecedented violations. Especially now with the FEC issue front and center (the prohibition by Judge Merchan of FEC Commissioner\u2019s expert testimony on federal election law), it raises the separate issue of why this case is being brought in state court altogether, and not federal court?\u00a0 If the case involves a federal issue, the jurisdiction here is all wrong: state courts have no authority over the subject matter.\u00a0 This is a case that would normally get preempted or barred by federal courts \u2013 the FEC, a federal agency, has its own intricate rules over election-related questions and thus exclusive jurisdiction over any such matters.<\/p>\n BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING: Merchan has so far run roughshod over the rule of law, making a casualty of the legitimacy of the New York State criminal system in the process. The controlling statute, Penal Law \u00a7 175.10, putatively serving as the basis for the People\u2019s case,\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:34 AM: <\/span>BLANCHE: I would expect you to hear from Merchan that President Trump filed these entries with an intent to defraud. There is no evidence of that ladies and gentlemen. First, the records aren\u2019t false. But even if they were, where is the evidence of the intent to defraud? None exists! If there was some deep-rooted intent to defraud why was it reported to the IRS as exactly what it was in the Cohen invoice? Everything done was the way it was supposed to be done. Mr. Cohen was a non-employee of the Trump organization, and the payments were compensation for him. Period. Nothing false.<\/p>\n BLANCHE: I would expect you to hear from Merchan that President Trump filed these entries with an intent to defraud. There is no evidence of that ladies and gentlemen.<\/p>\n First, the records aren\u2019t false. But even if they were, where is the evidence of the intent to defraud? None\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:36 AM: <\/span>Blanche: Trump sent out a tweet in 2018 saying exactly what he did. If there was an intent to defraud, why would he do that? There was a document submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, disclosing to the federal government, which concluded he was in compliance with the law, while in Office serving as President. So how can it be there was any intent to defraud by Trump when he discloses it to the IRS, tweets about it, and submits it in the ethics forms filings to the federal government?<\/p>\n Blanche: Trump sent out a tweet in 2018 saying exactly what he did. If there was an intent to defraud, why would he do that?<\/p>\n There was a document submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, disclosing to the federal government, which concluded he was in compliance with the\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:38 AM: Blanche: There was also no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election. The government\u2019s theory is that in 2017, after the election, the President falsified filings to promote an election that he had already won. The charges relate to documents filed in 2017. The government wants you to believe he did these things to promote his successful candidacy in 2016. Even if you find that\u2019s true, that\u2019s still not enough because it doesn\u2019t matter whether or not there was a conspiracy to try to win an election. Every campaign is a \u201cconspiracy\u201d to promote a candidate, to try to get someone to win an election. To find an election related crime, you\u2019d have to find this was done by unlawful means. The government is expected to talk about: 1) campaign finance violations; 2) tax violations; or 3) books and records violations. But none of them make any sense.<\/span><\/p>\n Blanche: There was also no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.<\/p>\n The government\u2019s theory is that in 2017, after the election, the President falsified filings to promote an election that he had already won.<\/p>\n The charges relate to documents filed in 2017. The government wants\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:47 AM: B<\/span>lanche: You have decades of AMI working with celebrities to promote campaigns and stories. There was zero criminal intent in the 2016 campaign. Indeed, Mr. Pecker testified that it was really good business to run stories about Trump. As far back as 1988, Mr. Pecker suppressed a story for President Trump. Pecker and Cohen were friends, sure, but it was also good business. They made a lot of money based on relationships, not surprising. One of the reasons Pecker agreed to it was because it was good for business. Pecker said Trump was the top celebrity to sell magazines. He had shareholders and it was his fiduciary duty to them to promote President Trump. There is nothing criminal or wrong with a politician trying to get positive press and avoid negative ones. But the idea, even if there was something wrong with it, that Pecker and Trump, two sophisticated business persons, believed that a negative story in the National Enquirer could affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election is absolutely preposterous. It makes no sense.<\/p>\n Blanche: You have decades of AMI working with celebrities to promote campaigns and stories. There was zero criminal intent in the 2016 campaign. Indeed, Mr. Pecker testified that it was really good business to run stories about Trump. As far back as 1988, Mr. Pecker suppressed a\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:50 AM: LMAO the Biden \u201ccampaign\u201d is such a clown show dragging out washed up octogenarian celebrity lunatics who haven\u2019t acted in a halfway decent movie in well over a quarter of a century to promote their sinking ship of a political movement. But it checks out perfectly for these out of touch elites destroying this once great country!<\/span><\/p>\n LMAO the Biden \u201ccampaign\u201d is such a clown show dragging out washed up octogenarian celebrity lunatics who haven\u2019t acted in a halfway decent movie in well over a quarter of a century to promote their sinking ship of a political movement.<\/p>\n But it checks out perfectly for these out\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/PtOfp5mCUl<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>10:53 AM: <\/span>BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING (continued): \u2026At a bare minimum, an expert witness should be allowed to opine on the issue in state court \u2013 and not be prohibited because it hurts the judge\u2019s ego.\u00a0 This is a clear reversible error because the President\u2019s fundamental rights have been so callously violated.\u00a0 This abuse alone should have prompted a mistrial \u2013 it is the reason, as well, why so many legal commentators and scholars have said this case will be easily tossed out on appeal, because of the widespread, undeniable prejudice that was allowed to take place under these unprecedented conditions.<\/p>\n BRIEF RECAP OF PROCEEDING (continued): \u2026At a bare minimum, an expert witness should be allowed to opine on the issue in state court \u2013 and not be prohibited because it hurts the judge\u2019s ego. This is a clear reversible error because the President\u2019s fundamental rights have been so\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>11:06 AM: <\/span>Blanche: Pecker said he submitted a legal objection under penalty of perjury saying the NDA was lawful. Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION! Merchan: Overruled (but sustained Prosecutor\u2019s prior objection just before Blanche rephrased). Blanche: You see it\u2019s in evidence that if Pecker provided false statements, the agreement is breached and he can be subject to prosecution. But he\u2019s not being prosecuted for anything, so nothing that what he told you about AMI decisions, McDougall, etc., was criminal. He told you that because it was true.<\/p>\n Blanche: Pecker said he submitted a legal objection under penalty of perjury saying the NDA was lawful.<\/p>\n Bragg Prosecutor: OBJECTION!<\/p>\n Merchan: Overruled (but sustained Prosecutor\u2019s prior objection just before Blanche rephrased).<\/p>\n Blanche: You see it\u2019s in evidence that if Pecker\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>11:13 AM: <\/span>No, and I\u2019ve been watching this trial pretty much for the entirety of the past five weeks. I do not recall a single instance in which Merchan reminded the jurors of President Trump\u2019s fundamental rights as a criminal defendant, as well as his presumption of innocence. We\u2019ll see if that changes throughout the day, but so far Merchan has been utterly silent on all things related to Trump\u2019s constitutional rights. To the extent he has advised the jury at all, it has been to repeatedly remind them that only he, not Trump\u2019s lawyers, has final say over what the law means.<\/p>\n No, and I\u2019ve been watching this trial pretty much for the entirety of the past five weeks.<\/p>\n I do not recall a single instance in which Merchan reminded the jurors of President Trump\u2019s fundamental rights as a criminal defendant, as well as his presumption of innocence.<\/p>\n We\u2019ll see\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/qid8yUrmK0<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>11:28 AM: <\/span>Blanche: Trump and Stormy Daniels have repeatedly denied that an affair took place. But the story was published in 2011, long before the 2016 election. So how could this be an issue for 2016? Ultimately, this was about a group of people \u2014 Daniels, Davidson, and others\u2014 looking to extort President Trump of money. It also posed an opportunity for Cohen to take advantage: he paid that $135k for taking credit for doing something at a later point in time. At the time, Cohen was worried about his future: whether Trump won, or whether Trump lost. The only person who will tell you that Trump knew about the payment being made is Michael Cohen. That\u2019s it. And you cannot, cannot believe his words.<\/p>\n Blanche: Trump and Stormy Daniels have repeatedly denied that an affair took place. But the story was published in 2011, long before the 2016 election.<\/p>\n So how could this be an issue for 2016?<\/p>\n Ultimately, this was about a group of people \u2014 Daniels, Davidson, and others\u2014 looking\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>11:36 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Blanche explaining to the jurors Stormy Daniels\u2019 extortion scheme: she wanted to weaponize the premise of the 2016 election to extort President Trump of money. Blanche: Daniels wanted to use the 2016 election to make sure she got paid! Bragg Prosecutor: Objection! Merchan: Sustained!<\/p>\n BREAKING: Blanche explaining to the jurors Stormy Daniels\u2019 extortion scheme: she wanted to weaponize the premise of the 2016 election to extort President Trump of money.<\/p>\n Blanche: Daniels wanted to use the 2016 election to make sure she got paid!<\/p>\n Bragg Prosecutor: Objection!\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>11:41 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Every single American should be enraged by the corruption of justice being done in real time, and no matter the verdict of this trial, it will go down in infamy as a permanent blotch on the justice system, one that will take at least a generation to restore back to the glory it once had prior to Juan Merchan, Alvin Bragg, and Joe Biden taking a battering ram to it with disregard for the rights of every single American.<\/p>\n BREAKING: Every single American should be enraged by the corruption of justice being done in real time, and no matter the verdict of this trial, it will go down in infamy as a permanent blotch on the justice system, one that will take at least a generation to restore back to the\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>11:58 AM: <\/span>BREAKING: Robert DeNiro this morning completely underestimated the size and strength of the MAGA movement. Even in a deep blue city like New York, hundreds of Trump supporters still were on the ground bright and early. They valiantly showed up to expose this washed up actor\u2019s lies, call him out, and tell the truth before the television cameras about the weaponized system of justice, which is on overdrive in \u201cJudge\u201d Merchan\u2019s courtroom. This ain\u2019t the NY of the Obama years, Bobby D! Millions of Americans are finally seeing the light and coming around to MAGA. Most mainstream polls show Biden\u2019s once formidable lead has shrunken to a mere 7-8 points in New York, down from his (allegedly) 23 point margin of victory in 2020; and by a measly 5 points, also per the latest polls, in neighboring bright blue New Jersey. YUGE!<\/p>\n BREAKING: Robert DeNiro this morning completely underestimated the size and strength of the MAGA movement.<\/p>\n Even in a deep blue city like New York, hundreds of Trump supporters still were on the ground bright and early. They valiantly showed up to expose this washed up actor\u2019s\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>12:08 PM: <\/span>Blanche: The Access Hollywood tape was one of many stressful stories that came up during the 2016 campaign. It was not a doomsday event. Trump addressed it in a video response and during the debate: he never thought it would lose him the campaign, and indeed it didn\u2019t. Cohen had a much different view, however. He believed it was catastrophic. Which is why he did what he did with Ms. Daniels.<\/p>\n Blanche: The Access Hollywood tape was one of many stressful stories that came up during the 2016 campaign. It was not a doomsday event. Trump addressed it in a video response and during the debate: he never thought it would lose him the campaign, and indeed it didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n Cohen had\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>12:27 PM: <\/span>The Biden regime has resorted to theatrics this morning outside the show trial underway in lower Manhattan. First, Bobby DeNiro made a fool of himself outside the courthouse this morning, where he was met with a massive parade of Trump supporters who sent him scurrying back to his car. This was followed by a publicity stunt put on by two goons, Mike Fanone and Harry Dunn. They tried and failed to gin up media attention and relate what\u2019s going on right now in Bragg\u2019s kangaroo courtroom with the events of January 6th. It\u2019s obvious that Biden is pulling out all the stops to attempt to derail Trump\u2019s political momentum, which has only skyrocketed ever since the start of this trial. So many Americans see clearly what Biden and his lackeys cannot: the regime is destroying due process in real time with these show trials against the presidential front runner. Biden must rely on election interference since his record \u2014 from the economy to crime to the border to international politics \u2014 is a COMPLETE and TOTAL disaster across the board!<\/p>\n The Biden regime has resorted to theatrics this morning outside the show trial underway in lower Manhattan.<\/p>\n First, Bobby DeNiro made a fool of himself outside the courthouse this morning, where he was met with a massive parade of Trump supporters who sent him scurrying back to\u2026 https:\/\/t.co\/WAF1G2pfRJ<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>12:29 PM: <\/span>Blanche: Cohen lied to his family, his kids, his banker, the FEC, every single reporter he talked to for a year about a year. He is literally like the MVP of LIARS. He lied to prosecutors, to Congress, reporters, federal judges. He\u2019s also a thief, who literally stole tens of thousands of dollars, admitted on the stand, on his way out the door. Never prosecuted.<\/p>\n Blanche: Cohen lied to his family, his kids, his banker, the FEC, every single reporter he talked to for a year about a year.<\/p>\n He is literally like the MVP of LIARS.<\/p>\n He lied to prosecutors, to Congress, reporters, federal judges. He\u2019s also a thief, who literally stole tens of\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>12:32 PM: Michael Cohen (voice audio recording on podcast): I want to thank the Manhattan\u2019s DA\u2019s office and their fearless leader Alvin Bragg with whom I\u2019ve worked countless hours to help prosecute. Blanche: Cohen has never met or worked with Alvin Bragg: that was another lie.<\/span><\/p>\n Michael Cohen (voice audio recording on podcast): I want to thank the Manhattan\u2019s DA\u2019s office and their fearless leader Alvin Bragg with whom I\u2019ve worked countless hours to help prosecute.<\/p>\n Blanche: Cohen has never met or worked with Alvin Bragg: that was another lie.<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n Paul Ingrassia: <\/strong>12:49 PM: <\/span>BREAKING: BLANCHE RAPS UP REMARKS \u2014 Todd Blanche has so far been extremely thorough in his summation. He has touched upon every aspect of this case, including the alleged catch and kill schemes implicating Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and explained why they weren\u2019t catch or kill \u2014 having been made years before Trump ever even thought about running for president of the United States, and long within the public domain. He discussed the longstanding, decades long partnership between Trump, AMI, and David Spencer going back decades, explaining how suppressing stories was a routine part of the business \u2014 and how Pecker, a long time friend, found covering Trump financially lucrative. He articulated clearly how this was standard practice, nothing was abnormal about NDAs and hush money payments, certainly not unlawful. And certainly the Daniels story, being publicized in 2011, had no bearing on 2016. He explained how this case lives and dies on Michael Cohen\u2019s testimony. He restated time and again, reinforcing his argument with countless examples, of why Cohen is a liar, seeking every opportunity to benefit himself financially and professionally. \u201cHe is the human embodiment of reasonable doubt.\u201d Blanche said \u201cCohen is the GLOAT: the Greatest Liar of All Time.\u201d Stellar job driving that point home: He also explained how these allegedly erroneous filings were made while Trump was President, not before the 2016 race. And so it was impossible that these filings had any fraudulent intent, let alone had anything to do with affecting the results of the 2016 election. He explained cogently that any campaign is a \u201cconspiracy\u201d to win an election. However, Trump had no knowledge about these filings. In any event, there\u2019s absolutely nothing fraudulent or criminal about marking legal expenses for what they are, namely, legal expenses. He also explained how the other alleged crimes linked to the alleged record keeping error \u2014 tax fraud, FEC violation, and a books and records crime have absolutely no basis. Trump accurately reported this filing to the IRS, to a government ethics office, and on social media platforms like Twitter. \u201cThis is a very easy non guilty verdict,\u201d Blanche ends his scorching closing statement. President Trump should be proud of Todd Blanch\u2019s terrific work this morning.<\/p>\n BREAKING: BLANCHE RAPS UP REMARKS \u2014 Todd Blanche has so far been extremely thorough in his summation. He has touched upon every aspect of this case, including the alleged catch and kill schemes implicating Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougall, and explained why they weren\u2019t catch\u2026<\/p>\n \u2014 Paul Ingrassia (@PaulIngrassia) May 28, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n\n