Joshua Steinglass, the Donald Trump felony trial, and the timing of Cohen’s meeting with Trump and the public during a fundraiser for the La Casa Blanca campaign

Joshua Steinglass of the prosecution team knew he was taking a risk by “trading brevity for thoroughness” in his closing argument in the Donald Trump felony trial in Manhattan; besides being exhausted after an 11-hour day, jurors might conclude “the people” (the formal name for the prosecution) were not sure enough about their case to avoid piling on.

Blanche attempted to cast doubt on various conversations Cohen recalled having with Trump, including at the White House, allegedly about the deal to silence Daniels. But the defense also argued that Cohen lied on the stand, answering questions one way to the prosecution but a different way with the defense.

Then Steinglass apologized to Trump before showing that he was only one of about 20 times that Cohen told Trump about his attempts to silence Daniels, helping to keep the campaign afloat.

The long faces in the Trump guest section reflected the sense in the courtroom that Trump’s story that the $420,000 he paid to Cohen was really a legal retainer will not fly. Steinglass showed that Trump himself admitted in court documents and other records that it was a reimbursement.

Steinglass proved that Michael Cohen is not a rogue actor and that Trump, Giuliani, and the lawyer Robert Costello treated Cohen as part of the cover-up. This was a meeting between La Casa Blanca and La Cosa Nostra.

Steinglass told the jury that in order to acquit Trump they would have to disregard several witnesses’ testimony, which included the testimony of a former Trump Organization controller and handwritten bank statements.

The judge allowed most of it until the prosecutor overreached by urging jurors not to let Trump get away with shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, evoking his famous line about what he could get away with.

Steinglass stood down after the objection was sustained by the judge, we all went to bed. On Wednesday, the case goes to the jury.

Tying this to the Daniels’ payment, Steinglass reminded jurors of the timing — how the deal to have Daniels sign a nondisclosure agreement came after the Access Hollywood tape became public.

“This is buying a story that you do not intend to print, so that no one else can print it,” Steinglass said, referencing Blanche’s argument that tabloids often purchase stories and then choose not to run them.

Defending Election Interference Against Trump in The 2016 Affair With An Adult Film Star: A Multi-Family Discussion at the Trump Tower on Tuesday

The deal with the tabloid showed that the main motivation for the settlement was Trump’s election and not his family.

The prosecutor said that it all started at that August 2015 meeting in Trump Tower with the National Enquirer publisher, Pecker. Steinglass said it was a federal election law violation when money began to change hands.

Steinglass focused on the concerns he said Trump had about how the story of the alleged affair with an adult film star could hurt his 2016 presidential run. He said that Trump told both Cohen and Pecker to remove negative media about him.

“They completely blow out of the water the defense claim that these were for legal work,” he said, adding, “I am almost speechless that they are still trying to make this argument that this was for legal retainer.”

There were two documents that showed handwritten notes from Trump’s chief financial officer and his comptroller, which clearly states that the reimbursement plan was to cover taxes, plus another expense, plus a bonus, for a total of $420,000. Steinglass said that they were the smoking guns.

Steinglass reminded the jury of their testimony, in which Trump was described as frugal, when he read paragraphs from the books.

Steinglass once again scrutinized the specific checks and invoices that were packaged together by the accounts payable supervisor at the Trump Organization to be sent to Trump.

Steinglass referenced various witnesses who came to testify, including current and former employees of Trump’s business and administration. He also referred to the witnesses who work for companies that published Trump’s books about his business philosophy.

Lawyers made their final arguments to a jury on Tuesday in the trial of former President Donald Trump on felony charges of lying about business dealings.

A 12-person jury, which has listened to 22 witnesses and over six hours of arguments, is set to begin deliberating Wednesday. It could be hours or days before they make a decision. A unanimous jury is needed to either convict or acquit Trump.

Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, frequently called the trial “election interference” for preventing him from campaigning for president, falsely claiming a partisan conspiracy against him.

On Tuesday, Trump was joined in court by more family members than usual. The kids, along with Michael Boulos and a co-chair of the RNC, were in the courtroom.

The Biden-Harris campaign held an event in New York featuring actor Robert DeNiro and some police officers as Trump lawyerTodd Blanche began his closing arguments.

Prosecutors spent 6 hours walking the jury through every part of their case and refuting claims made by the defense. Prosecutor Josh Steinglass walked the jury through all their evidence: of the 2006 sexual encounter described by Daniels, saying that Cohen knew what happened in that hotel room “and that goes to motive.” Steinglass stated that the display the defendants did not want the public to see was Stormy Daniels testimony.

Some of the felony counts were caused by the two checks signed by Trump’s sons. 11 of the felony counts on Trump were created by Cohen, he told the jury.

He maintained that the allegedly false retainer was a legitimate retainer of services — especially because Cohen billed himself as Trump’s personal lawyer.

He doubts if the secret recording Cohen made of a conversation with Trump that allegedly confirms knowledge of the payment to Karen McDougal is real.

Source: The last words: What each side said in closing arguments for Trump’s New York trial

When is there a conspiracy to try to influence the election? Commentary on the conversation with David Pecker, Michael Steinglass, and Michael Cohen

Blanche reiterated one of the points he made in openings: It doesn’t matter if there was a conspiracy to try to affect the election. “Every campaign is a conspiracy to promote a candidacy,” Blanche said.

It’s common for celebrities and candidates to work with media organizations to promote themselves and their campaigns.

Blanche argued that it “makes no sense” that Trump, Cohen and former publisher David Pecker genuinely believed they could influence the 2016 election through the use of the National Enquirer tabloid.

It started with “Hey, how’s it going?” Steinglass went through a simulated phone call where he discussed the issue of a teenage prankster who had been harassing Cohen, and then said, “Can I talk to the boss?” Then Steinglass simulated a brief conversation about taking care of “that thing,” and a little small talk.