Thread by @AnnaBower

Good morning from The Line at the Manhattan criminal courthouse, where closing arguments are set to begin in Donald Trump’s trial on 34 felony counts for falsification of business records.

I’m here alongside @TylerMcBrien @katherinepomps for @lawfare.

Follow along 👇 ⬇️ 👇

During opening statements, we got a preview of how the prosecution and defense will approach their respective theories of the case.

But closing arguments marks the first time that both sides are able to argue the facts and the law before the jury.

lawfaremedia.org/article/catch-…

We’ll hear a lot more about how the facts introduced into evidence over the past four weeks apply to the discrete elements of the crimes charged against Trump.

So it’s worth reviewing those elements ⬇️

lawfaremedia.org/article/what-m…

TL;DR: To secure a conviction, prospectors need to prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

1) Trump made or caused a false entry in the business records of the Trump Org
(2)  Trump did so with an intent to defraud that included an intent to commit or conceal another crime

Prosecutors allege that the “other crime” Trump intended to commit, aid, or conceal through the falsified business records is NY Election Law § 17-152.

The statute criminalizes any conspiracy “to promote or prevent” the election of a person to public office “by unlawful means.”

In other words: Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified business records in order to commit or cover-up a conspiracy to promote his election to the Presidency by “unlawful means.”

But what were the “unlawful means” used to carry out the election conspiracy that Trump allegedly intended to commit or cover up?

Prosecutors intend to set out 3 options for the jurors.

In considering whether Trump intended to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote his candidacy by “unlawful means,” prosecutors will ask jurors to consider the following:
(1) Federal campaign finance violations related to AMI’s payment to Karen McDougal or Cohen’s payment to Stormy Daniels
(2) The falsification of other business records
(3) Violation of tax laws

But the jury does not need to unanimously agree on which of the § 17-152 “unlawful means” are at issue. Some could think that Trump intended to cover up an election conspiracy that was carried out through campaign finance violations. Other could choose tax violations. And so on.

And remember: Prosecutors don't actually have to show the completion of the underlying § 17-152 conspiracy. It's looped in as a part of the intent analysis: Did Trump cause the falsification of business records with *intent* to commit or conceal a § 17-152 election conspiracy?

If all of that sounds confusing...well, that's because it kinda is!

But prosecutors will no doubt use closing arguments as a means to help the jurors make sense of its legal theory --and to highlight the key pieces of evidence that could support a conviction.

ADA Josh Steinglass is expected to deliver the closing argument on behalf of the prosecution.

Todd Blanche is expected to argue on behalf of Trump.

We'll hear from Blanche first: In New York State court, the defense goes first, followed by the prosecution.

And just like that, the man of the hour -- ADA Josh Steinglass -- enters courtroom 1530 alongside his colleagues from the Manhattan DA's office. He's wearing a charcoal suit paired with a blue tie. He's carrying a cardboard file box.

Personally I would like to know if Todd Blanche and Josh Steinglass listened to Semisonic's Closing Time as their hype song on the way to the courthouse this morning.

Spotted behind a makeshift desk next to the jury box: It's America's Favorite Paralegals, Georgia Longstreet and Jaden Jarmel-Schneider!

They have their paralegal game faces on today. No one prepares a closing argument slide deck like these paralegals.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg arrives, followed moments later by the defendant, former President Donald Trump.

Among the those in the entourage today: Eric Trump, Don Jr., Lara Trump, and for the first time...Tiffany Trump.

For those on Trump tie watch: Trump is wearing a red tie today.

"All rise" promptly at 9:30 a.m.

Justice Merchan, the silver-haired presiding judge, asks the parties for a scheduling update.

How long do you expect your summation to be? he asks Blanche.

Blanche estimates around 2-2.5 hours.

The People estimate around 4-4.5 hours.

Before we get started, Merchan warns the parties to not delve into the legal explanations during their summations. (Explanation/instruction in the law is technically a no-no because it's the job of the judge to instruct the jurors on the law...but in practice the parties' closing arguments will involve argument about how the facts in evidence best prove or disprove the prosecution's legal theory of the case.)

After the jurors file in, Justice Merchan reads some preliminary instructions. He tells them that we may not get done with summations today -- we'll play it by ear, it seems.

Blanche pops up to deliver his closing on behalf of Trump.

"Good morning ladies and gentlemen," he begins.

He thanks the jurors for their time during the trial.

Our criminal justice system is unique, Blanche tells the jurors. And each of you will decide at the end of this case whether President Trump is guilty or not guilty.

"President Trump is innocent..the district attorney did not meet their burden of proof. Period."

You should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen, Blanche continues.

You should want something beyond the word of a woman who claims that something happened in 2006.

You should want more than Keith Davidson, an attorney who was really trying to extort money from Trump in the lead up to the election.

This morning I'll talk to you about what you say and hear in the courtroom -- but also what you didn't hear.

This case is about documents. It's a paper case. It's not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago, which Trump has denied.

It's not even about a confidential settlement, Balnche says.

It's about whether when Trump was living in the White House as leader of the free world had anything to do with payments to his personal attorney at the time.

Were those payments false? Were they done with intent to defraud? The answer is "absolutely not." They were accurate and done with no intent to defraud.

Moreover, there was no conspiracy to influence the election, Blanche claims.

BLANCHE: You cannot convict Trump on the words of Michael Cohen.

There were key conversations he claimed he had -- with Howard, Schiller, Weisselberg -- none of whom were witnesses in this trial.

Michael Cohen is the witness they called.

The words Cohen said to you matter. And he said a number of things to you on the stand that were lies, "pure and simple."

Blanche addresses the business records that form the basis of the charges.

He focuses on the checks: He signed them while he was in the White House.

You have to find that these documents were false, and that he made them with intent to defraud.

The records were not false and were not made with intent to defraud.

He turns to the vouchers in the Trump Org ledger system. Deb Tarasoff, Blanche says, told you the the vouchers put in the system were a result of what the invoice submitted by Cohen. And that was consistent with what she understood was happening at the time: Cohen was acting as Trump's personal attorney.

And the checks, Blanche says, were also driven by the invoices and voucher.

(He seems to be trying to tie everything back to invoices submitted by Cohen for "legal services" rendered "pursuant to the retainer agreement.")

Tarasoff told you that she never did ANYTHING at the direction of Trump, Blanche reminds the jurors.

Back to the invoices.

There's no dispute that Cohen was rendering legal services to Trump in 2017, that he was serving as Trump's personal attorney.

As a matter of fact, Blanche says, Cohen testified as much.

The government wants you to believe that Cohen, Weisselberg, and Trump had some kind of agreement to falsify the records....that Cohen wasn't working for the 35K.

Blanche shows a May 2017 email in which Cohen tells the recipient to call him about the "Foundation matter" he was working on at the time.

The government wants you to believe that Cohen was doing this work for free, Blanche says.

Even if Cohen was working for a small fee, there was a retainer agreement, Blanche says.

He mentions Cohen's testimony regarding his consulting retainer agreement with Novartis. That's how a retainer agreement works, Blanche says -- you're on call.

Michael Cohen was Trump's personal attorney. PERIOD.

I talked a little bit about the retainer agreements, Blanche continues.

Remember what Cohen said to you about whether it was ever expected that there would be a retainer agreement? Blanche asks the jurors.

He testified it was never expected that there would be a retainer agreement, Blanche says.

THAT. WAS. A. LIE.

You didn't see a retainer agreement, but as you know from multiple witnesses, that doesn't matter.

OBJECTION. Sustained.

Blanche tries again: A verbal retainer agreement is consistent with the practices of another attorney you heard from -- Keith Davidson.

Objection, overruled.

There is no dispute that in 2017 there was an attorney client relationship between Trump and Cohen, Blanche says.

No one disputes that Cohen was Trump's personal lawyer. So what makes more sense? That Trump was paying the personal attorney he just hired? Or the version Cohen told you: I'll work for free and get money from consulting, and the payments were really reimbursement for an NDA?

Let's talk about the vouchers, Blanche says. He pulls up the vouchers in the Trump Org ledger system.

There is no evidence that President Trump knew ANY-THING about this ledger system, Blanche argues.

You heard also from Ms. Tarasoff how she decided to put information in the voucher system. McConney told her to post to "legal expenses." And you can see that what Tarasoff did is exactly what McConney told her...she didn't follow Trump or Weisselberg's instructions. She followed McConney's instructions.

By the way, Blanche says, you heard that everything that came from a law firm was labeled the same way: As a legal expense.

But the government has criminalized what Ms. Tarasoff did. That's absurd.

This was a confusing time for the Trump Org, Blanche says, citing Trump's transition to the White House.

Trump was for the first time in decades not the person running the Trump Org, he continues.

Blanche shows an email in which Don Jr. and Eric Trump's approval was sought to pay the funds out to Cohen (recall: some payments were initially paid out from the Trust account over which Don, Eric, and others had approval power.)

If there was some conspiracy to cover up a reimbursement to Cohen, then this email wouldn't exist, Blanche says. Why send this email getting Eric and Don's approval?

And you know who else you didn't hear from at this trial? Blanche asks. Eric and Don Jr.

Onto the checks, which were labeled as being paid out for a "retainer." These checks don't have any of the language you'll see in the invoices submitted by Cohen, Balnche says. It's just one word, generated by the Trump Org MDS accounting system, as filled out by Deb Tarasoff.

You heard that sometimes Trump looked at checks, and sometimes he did not, Blanche reminds the jurors.

Sometimes the checks were half an inch thick. You can't convict President Trump bc you cannot find that he had full knowledge...that it reasonable doubt.

It matters where President Trump was during this time. He was frequently multitasking, constantly being interrupted...he was President of the United States.

The idea that he was a part of a scheme to book a legal expense -- and remember the scheme involved booking a legal expense as a legal expense -- is absurd.

Back to Cohen. How is the government going to ask you to convict Trump on Cohen's word?

The invoices talk about services rendered, and you know he was rendered services at that time. And you know he had an attorney client relationship with Trump at that time. But there's more.

The People ask you to believe Cohen. And Cohen asks you to ignore the documents, ignore the emails. Ask you to believe he was just going to work for free.

Do you believe that for a second? That after getting stiffed on his bonus in 2016, that Cohen was going to work for free?

When we get to Cohen's testimony, just remember it's not corroborated by anything.

He told you he talked to Weisselberg privately, then walked down the hall to the President-elects office. And Cohen wants you to believe he sat back, didn't really participate in the conversation.

And he wants you to think that at some point Weisselberg turns to him and says we're going to pay you over the course of several months. And then Trump said "it's going to be one heck of a ride."

That's what Cohen testified, and that's all the government gave you. They want you to think that's what gave the President full knowledge.

It's "absurd," Blanche says, repeating the term he's used again and again during this closing.

By the way, Cohen's version of events re: the campaign is belied by the evidence.

What did Hope Hicks tell you? That Cohen went rogue, did things that were unauthorized by the campaign.

If you accept Cohen's version of events, you have to believe that Cohen, Weisselberg, and Trump were all in this together.

But the documents they've put forth contain lies. He mentions the "gross up" of the reimbursement for the Daniels deal and the Redfinch services.

Cohen told you that he didn't know why Weisselberg was grossing up the sum, Blanche says.

McConney said something similar, saying that nobody would know.

The government will try to argue that there was some type of tax scheme here...but there's no evidence to support that.

We turn to McConney's notes following his conversation with Weisselberg. It doesn't say anything about a gross up, or what the $180,000 was for, Blanche says. And it says the funds would be paid from Trump's personal account, which as you know in the beginning it wasn't..

He notes that McConney kept these notes in his office.

Blanche: If this was evidence of some crime or scheme, why would it be kept in the files of the Trump Organization?

You don't have to go further than we've gone here...but where's the intent to defraud? You saw in evidence that the Trump Org reported on a 1099 the payments from Trump to Cohen. There's nothing false or misleading about the 1099s. If there's something false or misleading here, why was it reported to the IRS?

So that's one reason why no intent to defraud.

But also, the forms are exactly accurate. Cohen was an attorney and the payments are compensation to him.

How else do you know there's no intent to defraud? Well, Blanche says, you saw a tweet about the payments to Cohen that Trump sent out in 2018. If there was intent to defraud, why would he tweet about it?

How can there be any intent to defraud when Trump (1) discloses it to the IRS, (2) tweets about it, and (3) discloses it on a government ethics form?

Now Blanche turns to the predicate crime -- a conspiracy to influence the election by unlawful means.

The government's theory is that Trump caused false documents to promote the candidacy of an election that he already won, Blanche claims.

It doesn't matter if there was a conspiracy to win an election. "Every campaign in this country" is a conspiracy among people to help somebody win.

You have to find that this conspiracy was done by unlawful means, Blanche explains.

He tells the jurors that the government will ask them to consider 3 unlawful means, none of which "make any sense."

David Pecker told you that AMI purchased stories "all the time," Blanche says. It wasn't unique to Trump. Many politicians work with media to promote their candidacy...it was "standard operating procedure."

Hope Hicks told you the same thing.

This isn't surprising, Blanche says. It's a campaign, it's an election, it's not a crime.

And Pecker told you he had worked with Trump for decades. Nothing about it is a crime.

Remember Pecker telling you about Schwarzenegger? He told you he helped him suppress stories, and yes he said there was an investigation. But for the purposes of this case...what's important is that there were no charges.

Again, not a conspiracy, no criminal intent. It's AMI doing what they've done for decades.

So there's nothing wrong or criminal about a politician wanting positive stories and getting rid of negative ones.

But the idea that sophisticated people like Trump and Pecker in the National Enquirer could influence an election is preposterous.

Blanche notes the relatively low circulation numbers of the National Enquirer.

He turns to the Trump Tower meeting in 2015.

There was no in-depth discussion at that meeting about how they would publish positive stories or kill negative ones...it was just a general discussion about Trump's candidacy.

Remember the word "catch and kill"? They told you that was the heart of the agreement. But Pecker, Cohen, and Trump didn't even discuss catch and kill at that 2015 Trump Tower meeting. And they didn't discuss financial arrangements at that meeting.

And Pecker told you that there is nothing unusual about catching and killing.

What did Pecker tell you? He told you that they only published about half the stories they bought. And he's been in the industry for decades. So that's meaningful. That matters.

Blanche addresses the Sajudin story about Pecker's testimony that if verified it would've been the biggest story the National Enquirer ever had. Blanche suggests that Pecker didn't refrain from publishing the story because of Trump -- he didn't publish it because he found out it wasn't true.

So AMI was doing what it always does, Blanche asserts.

"That is not a catch and kill. It's just not."

Blanche claims that the Karen McDougal story also wasn't a catch and kill. Why? Because McDougal "wasn't interested in selling her story."

She wanted to write articles. And the agreement with AMI did just that.

So, again, that's not a catch and kill, Blanche says.

He argues that because McDougal didn't want to sell her story in the first place so it could be caught and killed. And so it couldn't have been done to influence the election, he seems to be suggesting.

The government wants you to think there was something improper. But Pecker told you that he consulted with an attorney -- objection, sustained.

I want to talk about AMI's non-prosecution agreement, Blanche says.

Remember that AMI at the time was in the process of being bought.

And Pecker told you that as a part of that purchase, the FECA investigation into AMI had to be cleaned up.

Importantly, Blanche says, this non-pros agreement is not to be considered in evaluating Trump's guilt.

That's important.

He repeats: That's important.

Back to Cohen.

Cohen lied to you about a conversation he said he overheard between Pecker and Trump.

Pecker told you that Trump said "I don't buy stories, Cohen will call you."

But what did Cohen tell you? He told you Trump said "No problem, I will take care of it."

That's a big discrepancy, Blanche argues.

Blanche turns to the recording Cohen made of Trump in 2016 about the McDougal matter.

You have a lawyer recording his client, Blanche emphasizes. But the government has not shown you that that evidence is reliable.

Cohen explained to you that he walked in, turned his voice notes on.

Now, the recording cuts off, as you know. And Rhona Graff was there, but she's not asked a single question about that call when she testified here in this case.

We hear a snippet of the recorded conversation between Trump and Cohen. There's no discussion about Karen McDougal, Blanche says. They're talking about buying the files in the boxes Trump wanted from the National Enquirer.

BLANCHE: The government and Cohen say that you hear the term "one-fifty"...but listen to the recording, Blanche instructs the jurors. Is that really what you hear? He plays a clip of the audio.

The next thing that happens is significant, Blanche says. Cohen testified that Trump on the recording was talking about "cash," meaning "green." That makes it sound more criminal. But that was Cohen lying to you...there's no scenario that Trump was going to walk around with a duffel bag full of cash. That was Cohen trying to paint a narrative that there was something sinister here.

Let's go to the end of the recording, Blanche says. It's not what Cohen told you: He said he got a phone call, and that he knew who the call was from. He said it was someone named Kathy from a bank, and that he interrupted this recorded conversation with his client to answer.

That alone is ridiculous, but it gets worse, Blanche says. You have "no idea" of the integrity of this file recording.

And Cohen didn't actually take that call...that's not disputed, Blanche asserts. So he lied to you. He could've just said he didn't recall, but he lied to you

Blanche turns to Stormy Daniels. "President Trump" and Ms. Daniels have repeatedly denied that this encounter took place, Blanche says.

But what happened here was there was a group of people who wanted to take advantage of the situation and extort Trump.

Remember, when we asked Cohen if he believed it was an extortion attempt, he said yes.

It was also another opportunity for Cohen to take advantage. He paid it, didn't tell Trump about it, bc he knew he could get credit later for doing something that he thought helped Trump.

There's no way that you can find that Trump knew about this payment at the time it was made without believing Michael Cohen, Blanche argues.

And you cannot believe his words.

Blanche notes that the Daniels story first resurfaced in April 2016.

If there was really a conspiratorial catch and kill scheme, why did no one do anything about it then? Blanche wonders aloud.

You didn't hear from Gina Rodriguez and you didn't hear from Dylan Howard at this trial. So a lot of this is speculation...but we do know that Davidson was willing to help. And you know that Davidson made "a career" out of extorting people.

You heard about a Hulk Hogan sex tape. You also heard Davidson say he worked with a "sex tape broker." You heard he did this with multiple people: Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, others.

[Those hoping for another Tila Tequila name check will be disappointed!]

Counsel, is this a good time to take a break? Justice Merchan asks.

Yes, Blanche agrees. The jurors file out for morning break.

We're back.

I heard from the jurors, Justice Merchan says, and they're willing to work late. They might need a snack run at some point, he says. They seem to like that.

Relatable, jurors!

Blanche back at the lectern, talking about Stormy Daniels.

When Daniels got paid, Blanche says, she didn't get to keep a lot of that money. Davidson and Rodriguez got a cut.

Fast forward to 2018. What happened? Something that for Daniels was worth more than 130K.

Davidson told you that in 2018 someone named Larry Flynn wanted Daniels to come forward and offered her more money and to pay her legal fees. She got a podcast, book, and documentary.

Blanche repeats a common refrain: There's nothing wrong with a non-disclosure agreement.

There's also nothing other than Cohen's words that Trump knew about that agreement.

Blanche highlights the fact that Pecker didn't want to have anything to do with the Stormy Daniels payment.

That's the conspiracy? Blanche asks, incredulous. That's it? There's supposedly this big conspiracy to catch and kill, but as soon as it comes to it, Pecker wants nothing to do with it?

Blanche talks about the Access Hollywood tape and its impact of the campaign. You heard that politicians reacted negatively -- but they didn't testify.

You heard that Trump got ready for a debate, responded to the allegations, and continued campaigning.

So yes, there were a few days of frustration, Blanche says. But that happens in every campaign.

Michael Cohen told you he had a different view. He thought the tape was "catastrophic" and that he wanted to do something about it. And so he did by paying Daniels.

By the way, Blanche says, Daniels didn't testify before the grand jury. So why did she testify in this case? I'll tell you why. They did it to inflame your emotions.

Objection, overruled.

Remember the call Davidson told you about, Blanche says, referring to Cohen's call to Davidson in which he complained about not getting a job in the White House.

Now, Cohen told you he didn't want a job in the administration. That was a lie.

BLANCHE: "Mr. Cohen had an axe to grind because he didn't appreciate what President Trump did or did not do for him after he became President of the United States."

Blanche plays the Oct. 2017 recorded call between Davidson and Cohen, in which Cohen says that Trump told him "I hate the fact that we did it."

By that point, Trump knew about the payment, Blanche says. But that doesn't change what Trump knew when they were made in 2016.

Blanche discusses Cohen's testimony about his relationship with Robert Costello, claiming that Cohen again told lies when he said that he never had an attorney-client relationship with Costello in 2018.

Blanche focuses on the Oct. 24, 2016 call that Cohen says he had with Keith Schiller, in which Schiller allegedly handed the phone to Trump and the two discussed the Daniels payment.

This was Cohen's sworn testimony, Blanche says, his voice rising dramatically: THIS. WAS. A. LIE.

Blanche says the defense put in evidence what that the call with Schiller was really about: The harassing phone calls Cohen had received from a 14 year old.

THAT IS PER-JURY, Blanche practically yells.

Cohen has repeatedly lied under oath, Blanche says. He lied to his family. He lied to his banker. He lied to the FEC. He lied to every single reporter he talked to for about a year.

"He's literally like an MVP of liars," Blanche says.

He's also a thief. He admitted to stealing from the Trump Org, admitting to committing a felony on the stand.

But what should matter to *you,* Blanche says, gesturing to the jurors, are the lies he told in this courtroom.

Cohen has been obsessed with Trump for over two decades, Blanche claims.

He went from loving and defending him to outright hatred.

Blanche plays a snippet from Cohen's podcast, in which he says picturing Trump w/ his mugshot taken fills him with delight.

Now, Cohen has said he lied to protect Trump. But you know he's lying to benefit Michael Cohen, period.

Before I sit down, Blanche says, I want to talk about ten reasons why there's reasonable doubt.

First, the invoices: Cohen created those invoices. They're accurate and Trump didn't have intent to defraud.

There's no evidence he knew they were sent. They weren't addressed to him. He was in DC at the time.

Second, there's no proof that Trump ever saw what McConney or Tarasoff did with the invoices or the vouchers. He was in DC, running the country.

Third, there's no evidence of intent to defraud. He tweeted about the payments to Cohen and disclosed it to a government ethics body.

What's more, there has to be some "unlawful means" to make the intended conspiracy a crime.

The first is FECA -- you have to wilfully violate FECA. No evidence of a wilful violation of FECA.

The second is violations of tax laws. The evidence for this is from Cohen. He said Weisselberg wanted to gross it up. But there's no evidence of anything improper wrt taxes as to how these payments were handled by the Trump Org and others.

The third "unlawful means" related to other falsified records in, for example, Cohen's bank forms. But there's no evidence that Trump had anything to do with those records.

Further, Blanche says, there's not evidence of an illegal effort to influence the 2016 election. You have to think at the 2015 meeting that a criminal conspiracy was born....

Objection, sustained.

Another reason there's reasonable doubt: AMI would have run Sajudin's story no matter what. That's not catch-and-kill.

And McDougal did not want her story published. That's not catch and kill.

With Daniels? Story was already public. That's not catch and kill.

Next, Blanche says that the evidence in this case is not reliable. The People "have made mistakes" in this trial with how they've presented the evidence.

Consider the 14-year-old calls and text messages between Schiller and Cohen about it. Those calls weren't shown to you.

He also focuses on chain-of-custody and potential spoliation issues with Cohen's laptops/phones.

So with the wiping and syncing of Cohen's phones and everything else you know about him, how can you trust the 2016 recording is reliable? You can't

The last thing that gives you reasonable doubt: Michael Cohen.

"He's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt. He lied to you repeatedly...He is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true."

You know how people say Tom Brady is the GOAT? Blanche asks the jurors.

Well, Michael Cohen is the GLOAT: Greatest Liar of All Time.

Thank you all for listening, Blanche says.

This isn't a referendum on your views on Trump or who you voted for. That's not what this is about.

The verdict you're going to reach has to do with the evidence you heard here and nothing else.

If you do that -- focus on the evidence heard in this courtroom -- this is a very quick and easy not guilty verdict.

Thank you.

Blanche takes a seat.

The jurors are excused for lunch.

Steinglass hops up once they're gone and requests a curative instruction regarding a comment Blanche made about "sending Trump to prison."

JUSTICE MERCHAN: I think that comment was outrageous, Mr. Blanche. You know as someone who has been a prosecutor that it's simply not allowed, period. It's hard to see how that was an accident.

I'm going to give the curative instruction.

We’re on lunch break until 2:00 pm.

While the @lawfare team feasts on chicken caesar wraps, we hope you’ll consider donating to support our non-profit, non-partisan coverage of Trump’s trial.

givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

@lawfare Trump is back, the defense attorneys are back, the prosecutors are back, Tiffany Trump is back, Alina Habba is back, Boris Epshteyn is back, Justice Merchan is back.

We are so back from lunch.

@lawfare I'm seated in the 3rd row of the courtroom on the defense side, directly behind Alina Habba.

Boris Epshteyn, seated to her right, is wearing a navy three-piece suit, a snazzy-looking watch, and a pink tie.

Tiffany's next to Lara Trump on the front row, wearing all black.

@lawfare The jurors file back in. Justice Merchan begins by giving a curative instruction regarding Blanche's comment about "sending Trump to prison."

He tells them a prison sentence isn't required if there's a guilty verdict in this case, and that they aren't to consider sentencing.

@lawfare Josh Steinglass hops up to the lectern.

He begins his summation by echoing what the prosecution said during opening statements: This case is about a conspiracy and a cover-up.

@lawfare We asked you in opening to focus on the facts, and the hard evidence that supports those facts. The emails, the bank statements, the documents, etc.

We asked you to tune out the noise -- the sideshows.

The defense seems to question our integrity and the integrity of our evidence. They point to the call summaries, but those are exactly what they seem to be -- summaries of calls. You have the complete phone records.

Not every call is reflected in the phone record exhibits. We don't have Cohen's landline, we don't have his office line, etc. We also don't have outgoing calls...so the absence of a particular phone call doesn't prove that the call didn't happen.

But there are plenty of calls that ARE in evidence, Steinglass says.

He shifts to another defense narrative: That Stormy Daniels was seeking to extort Trump for money.

Daniels first goal, Steinglass says, was to get her story on record. Yes, she'd rather tell the story and get paid. But that's a different thing than the extortion narrative.

In the end, Steinglass continues, it doesn't matter. Because you don't get to falsify business records just because you feel like you've been victimized.

In other words: Extortion is not a defense to falsifying business records.

Keep in mind that David Pecker has no reason to lie here. Yet his testimony is utterly damning.

Same for others. Hope Hicks, Deb Tarasoff, Jeff McConney...If anything, they have reason to skew their testimony to help the defendant. Yet they each provide a piece of the puzzle.

They have tried to shame Stormy Daniels, to say that her testimony changed over the years. They demonised her as someone who makes a living off the defendant.

To be sure, parts of her testimony was cringeworthy.. Some of the details about the 2006 encounter, the details of the suite and the conversation...But those are the kind of details that ring true.

Blanche told you Daniels' testimony didn't matter. But if her testimony was so irrelevant, why did they work so hard to discredit her?

That brings me to Cohen, Steinglass says.

And you've known from the beginning that Cohen has baggage. He's a convicted felon. He has podcasts...He's understandably angry that he's the only one who has paid the price for his role in this conspiracy.

Cohen did the defendant's bidding for years. His right-hand man, his consigliere. Until the defendant cut him loose.

The defense has argued that Cohen was preciously motivated to get his sentence reduced...but guess what? It never got reduced. Yet he's still here to testify in this case.

Steinglass turns to the Oct. 2017 in which Cohen said that Trump told him "I hate the fact that we did it."

Interestingly, Steinglass observes, Mr. Blanche during his summation seemed to admit that his client knew in Oct. 2017 about the payment. Of course, the defendant knew much earlier than that...but that's when the checks were still rolling in.

Steinglass addresses Cohen's past convictions and his admission that he stole some of the Redfinch money from the Trump Org.

In the end, that doesn't matter either, Steinglass says. Because someone stealing from you isn't a defense to falsification of business records.

Cohen has been convicted of multiple felonies, he's been disbarred, plus he has huge fines and legal bills to pay...I'm not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen, he made his bed. But you can hardly blame him for making money off the inner workings of the Trump phenomenon.

The defense tells you you should reject Cohen's testimony because of his lies in federal court related to his plea deal. And it's true Cohen has had some difficulty accepting responsibility for SOME of those crimes he pleaded to...but not the campaign finance crimes.

And that brings us to the phone call on Oct. 24, 2016. Cohen said he called Schiller to talk to Trump, but later called that it was also to speak with Shiller about harassing calls.

They say that's perjury. That's the defense's "Big Lie."

But the prosecution admitted photographic evidence showing that Schiller was with Trump at time of that Oct. 24 call, Steinglass reminds the jurors.

Steinglass reads texts aloud between Schiller and Cohen to simulate the timing of a phone call. It takes him 46 seconds to read the texts. He's trying to make the point that the Oct. 24 call (around 90 seconds) didn't need to be long to accomplish the task of speaking to Trump and Schiller.

Steinglass points out that if Cohen wanted to lie about this case, he could've come up with more damning lies. He could've said that Trump said "Let's cook the books" during 2017 meeting w/ Weisselberg.

He didn't say that. Why? Because he's limited to what actually happened.

The defense goes on and on about Cohen being a liar and immoral and a thief. Well, Stienglass says, we didn't choose Michael Cohen. We didn't pick him up at "the Witness Store."

The defendant chose him, as his FIXER, Steinglass booms.

Cohen was drawn to Trump like a moth to a flame, Steinglass observes.

And like Cohen, so was David Pecker. And like Cohen, Pecker also issued a denial about the Karen McDougal story. And he told you he did it to protect the campaign.

In 2018, Steinglass says, Cohen came to the realization that he was being set up to be the fall guy. He met Robert Costello, who was trying to prevent him from cooperating and was feeding information back to the Trump camp.

And Cohen chose his family. He's been telling a consistent story about the facts of this case ever since.

It's obvious that the defense wants to make this case about Michael Cohen. It isn't, Steinglass says. That's a deflection.

"This case is not about Michael Cohen, this case is about Donald Trump, and whether he should be held accountable."

Cohen's significant, Steinglass claims, is to provide "context and color" to the physical documents.

Those documents tell you everything you need to know. You don't need Cohen to connect these dots, but as the ultimate insider, he can do just that.

The case begins with three rich and powerful men high up in Trump Tower, Steinglass says.

He's talking about the 2015 meeting between Pecker, Cohen, and Trump regarding the plan to help the campaign.

Steinglass reminds the jurors of the three components involved in the Trump Tower agreement: They would run positive stories about Trump in publications owned by Pecker’s company, American Media Inc. (AMI). They would run negative stories about Trump’s opponents. And Pecker would use his network of publications and sources as eyes and ears for the Trump campaign. Then, Pecker would alert Cohen to bad stories percolating about Trump so that Cohen could then act to head off their publication.

Steinglass says that the scheme with AMI did not have a "legitimate press function" -- an important term that the jurors will later receive an instruction on regarding campaign finance violations.

The entire purpose of the meeting at Trump Tower was to deny voters to access to information about a Presidential candidate, Steinglass argues. AMI stopped pursuing legitimate press activities once they became a "covert arm" of the defendant's campaign.

The defendant says that NDAs or "hush money" contracts aren't illegal, Steinglass notes.

And it's true that contracts aren't illegal -- but a contract to kill your wife, for example, is.

You might think "who cares if Mr. Trump slept with a porn star"? And many people feel that way. But even if parts of the Trump Tower deal were a seedier version of politics as usual...the catch and kill element was not. It amounted to an illegal campaign contribution. This scheme could very well be what got President Trump elected.

Steinglass turns to the first "catch and kill" deal agreed to after the Trump Tower meeting: The Dino Sajudin deal.

Steinglass reminds the jurors of the basic facts of the Sajudin deal.

Recall: Sajudin was the former Trump Tower doorman who was trying to sell information about an alleged out-of-wedlock child that Trump had fathered with one of his former housekeepers.

AMI eventually reached a 30,000 agreement to buy the story. And while Steinglass acknowledges that Pecker said he would have published the story, he emphasizes that Pecker testified he would have held it until after the election to help the campaign.

That's in service of the defendant's campaign, Steinglass says of AMI's dealings related to the Sajudin story. He contends, again, that it had no legitimate press function.

"This was overt election fraud...an act in furtherance of the conspiracy" to promote Trump's election. It was an illegal campaign contribution and it was done in collusion with the candidate, Steinglass says.

That brings us to Catch and Kill Vol. 2, Steinglass announces: "The Karen McDougal saga."

Stienglass again reminds the jurors of the basic facts of the McDougal agreement, displaying corroborating text message exhibits as he goes.

Months before the 2016 election, Keith Davidson told Dylan Howard he had a “blockbuster Trump story” about a client of his: Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who said that she had had a romantic relationship with Trump.

Howard got in touch with Cohen, who told Trump about the matter. A set of negotiations involving Howard, Pecker, Cohen, And Davidson followed. As these negotiations ensued, Cohen updated "the boss."

Steinglass continues to support this narrative by showing phone records and text message exhibits that corroborate witness testimony from Pecker, Cohen, and Davidson. Many of the jurors stare intently at the exhibits displayed on the screens in front of them.

Steinglass focuses particularly Pecker's testimony about a phone call he received in 2016 from Trump, in which Trump said “I spoke to Michael [Cohen]. Karen is a nice girl.”

Shortly after that, Cohen told Pecker he should buy the story, saying "The Boss will take care of it."

Pecker's testimony about this call underscores that Trump knew who Karen McDougal was, and that Cohen wasn't acting alone, Steinglass argues to the jurors.

Stienglass works through more communications regarding the McDougal deal between Pecker, Cohen, and Howard. More texts displayed, more calls displayed.

Everyone believes that Pecker is going to be reimbursed by Trump at this point, Steinglass contends.

Steinglass turns to the terms of the eventual $150,000 McDougal contract, which included provisions for her life rights but also for her to create content for AMI magazines. Pecker testified that those content creator provisions were just "window dressing" to cover up the true purpose of the contract, Steinglass reminds the jurors.

Stenglass has been very effective thus far, and the jurors still look alert, engaged. But as he walks through a volume of corroborating texts, emails, and calls to support his detailed recounting of the facts of the case, I wonder if that rapt attention might soon fade.

Steinglass addresses Cohen's recording of the conrvsation with Trump about the McDougal matter, in which he tells Trump he talked to Weisselberg about "how to set the whole thing up" and Trump asks how much they have to pay.

This recording shows that the defendant knew how much AMI paid for the McDougal agreement, according to Steinglass. It shows the defendant suggested paying in cash. And it "unequivocally" shows a Presidential candidate planning to reimburse AMI for its McDougal story, he says.

As you know, Steinglass says, the reimbursement from Trump to AMI never goes through. After speaking to his general counsel, Pecker changed his mind about selling McDougal's life rights to Cohen/Trump. So he called Cohen and told him to rip up the agreement.

Justice Merchan interjects, announcing that it's a good time for a break. The jurors file out.

When they're gone, Steinglass says he's about 1/3 of the way through his closing argument.

We’re back, and Justice Merchan announces that we’ll take our next break around 5:30 pm.

“Oh god, we’ll be here till 9 pm,” I hear a reporter grouse behind me.

The parties convene in a sidebar, and when they’re done Justice Merchan announces that we’re actually not going to take a break around 5:30…we’ll take one from around 5 to 5:30 pm. Then we’ll see where we are then.

Steinglass returns to the lectern once the jury re-enters.

He turns to the Access Hollywood tape and its impact on the campaign.

The defense wants you to think that Cohen's testimony is the only evidence of its impact on the campaign, he says, but that's not true.

Steinglass walks through the evidence of the campaign's reaction to the Access Hollywood tape "crisis." Statements by politicians, Hope Hicks' testimony, contemporaneous campaign emails...

Steinglass says that after the AH tape was published, Trump called Cohen and directed him to "spin" the tape as "locker room talk."

And Trump grew increasingly concerned about the impact on women voters, as evidenced by his public statements at rallies and social media.

The defense wants you to think that the Access Hollywood tape wasn't a big deal. And they got Madeline Westerhout to say that everyone was freaking out except the defendant...but on re-direct, you heard that she wasn't even working for Trump at the time. Hope Hicks was in the room, meanwhile, and she said it was a "crisis."

Now Steinglass moves on to the Stormy Daniels deal, which ultimately came together in the weeks after the Access Hollywood tape was published.

Pecker, still feeling ornery as a result of getting stuck with the McDougal check, refused to pay for the Daniels deal, Steinglass reminds the jurors. So Cohen agreed to pay it, and Davidson sent over the draft settlement agreement for the Daniels deal on Oct. 11, 2016.

The same day, Cohen tried to reach his banker, Gary Farro, to set up a bank account for the LLC that he intended to use to pay Daniels via her lawyer, Davidson.

As he recounts all of this, Steinglass continues to show numerous exhibits of phone calls and text messages that have previously been received into evidence during the course of the trial.

Steinglass shows banks forms Cohen filed out to open his LLC account for the Daniels payment, noting that the forms included false information, such as stating that the purpose of the account was not related to a political action committee or political candidate.

Yep.

As one reporter said a few weeks ago while we sat through hours of testimony about each and every monthly invoice, check, and voucher… “Thank god they didn’t make those payments over two or three years as opposed to one.”

https://twitter.com/tylermcbrien/status/1795553973270671467

Steinglass is still on the Stormy Daniels payment, reminding the jurors of a flurry of calls, emails, texts, etc. But he seems to be getting bogged down in the minutiae.

We're up to the crucial date of Oct. 26 -- the day Cohen opened the Essentials Consultants LLC that he would eventually use to pay Daniels. That morning, Cohen had a call with Trump. Not long after, he took steps to open the account.

The day Cohen signs the paperwork...that's the day he calls Donald Trump and tells him the deal is done.

And it's no coincidence that the payment happened in 2016, not in 2006 when the encounter occurred. That's because Trump's concern wasn't his family. It was the election.

We're taking a break.

The jurors file out.

Justice Merchan says the jurors look alert. They have made it clear that they want to finish out tonight, he says.

Steinglass asks what time he wants to wrap up, and Merchan days we'll need to reevaluate once it gets to 7 pm.

We're back, and Steinglass is talking about the reimbursement scheme allegedly concocted by Weisselberg and approved by Trump during a 2017 meeting at Trump Tower.

Steinglass seems to focus in on Trump causing the entry of the allegedly false records.

The defendant gave the orders to Weisselberg, and Weisselberg gave the orders to McConney, and McConney gave the orders to Tarasoff...and the false records were created, Steinglass says.

Meanwhile, the defendant’s review of this closing argument is in:

Here's a question for you: Is there anything about Donald Trump that makes you think he'd pay twice what he owes someone?

But it was worth it, he continues, to hide the reimbursement.

Steinglass focuses on McConney's handwritten notes detailing the payment scheme at the direction of Weisselberg.

"These documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh," Steinglass says.

We're onto the 1099 form, in which the Trump Org reported the payments to Cohen as employee compensation rather than reimbursement. These were phone tax document, Steinglass contends.

He acknowledges that the Trump Org would have owed more taxes than it otherwise would have, but says that doesn't matter. It's still a crime to file false tax documents regardless of whether you end up paying more or less as a result.

Steinglass moves onto the February 2017 meeting between Cohen and Trump at the Oval Office. During the meeting, Trump allegedly confirmed the repayment scheme, and told Cohen to work with Weisselberg.

Following that meeting, Cohen emailed with Jeff McConney, who told him to send invoices. Cohen replied: Remind me how much the monthly amount?

Steinglass laughs somewhat maniacally after reading this email, saying that it's his favorite email in the whole case.

These payments had nothing to do with services rendered in 2017, Steinglass argues.

Cohen did more legal work in the first three months of 2018 than he did in all of 2017, but he wasn't paid a nickel in 2018. So if he was still doing legal work in 2018, why wasn't he still being paid? Because he wasn't being paid for legal work! It was a reimbursement!

The fact is, Cohen did pretty well here. He got a cool title -- personal attorney to the president -- and he used that title to get consulting clients.

He made more than anyone in government "and don't I know that," Steinglass says.

It's a good line. Laughs from the press.

Steinglass displays the Office of Government Ethics Form, in which Trump disclosed that Cohen incurred expenses in 2016 and sought reimbursement for those expenses. Trump subsequently reimbursed him in 2017, according to the disclosure on the form.

Then he shows the 2018 Trump tweet in which Trump says he repaid Cohen for the Daniels payment "through reimbursement."

And yet, Steinglass tells the jurors, the defense still insists that the payments were for legal services.

To find the defendant not guilty, you'd have to disregard the defendant's REPEATED admissions that this was a reimbursement, Steinglass stresses.

Because the defendant admitted it was a reimbursement, that means he knew that the records were false.

These are his books, and the uncontested testimony is that Trump approved the payment details before he ever left for DC, Steinglass asserts.

Back to causation: Deb Tarasoff might be doing the typing, but the defendant is one who caused the false records to be entered, Steinglass says.

And no one could sign the Donald Trump checks other than Trump, Steinglass adds.

But let's play this out, Steinglass says. Let's say that it was just Cohen and Weisselberg who came up with this scheme. And every month Trump receives checks at the White House for, say, his $80 Verizon bill and other personal expenses. Then he comes to a 35K check to Cohen...

Yet, despite all you've heard about how frugal the defendant is, he never once picked up the phone to figure out what was going on with the 35K monthly checks to Cohen?

Steinglass is playing with the absurdity of the idea that Trump might have overlooked 35K monthly payments to Cohen over the course of nearly a year -- it's a counter to the defense narrative that Trump was too busy running the country and sometimes didn't review checks.

Steinglass underscores this portrayal of Trump as extremely detail-oriented and a micromangaer when it comes to finances. Trump is the kind of guy who wanted to retain control over his $80 cable bill. That's who he is, Steinglass says.

To illustrate this point, Steinglass shows an excerpt from one of Trump books, in which he implores the reader to pay attention to small sums in your finances.

More book excerpts illustrating Trump's micro-management habits follow.

From Trump's book, "Think Like a Billionaire":

"I always try to sign my checks...I also always try to read my bills to make sure I'm not being overcharged."

David Pecker described a meeting in which he saw Rhona Graff bring Trump a stack of checks and invoices, and he watched Trump review them before signing, Steinglass reminds the jurors.

Steinglass displays an exhibit showing the false business records that form the basis of the charges, instructing the jurors that they can review it later if needed.

Steinglass next highlights part of Hope Hicks testimony, in which Hicks described Trump as saying that it was better for the Daniels story to come out after the election and that it would have been "bad" had it come out before the election.

"That. Is. Devastating," Steinglass says.

Hicks burst into tears a few seconds after that, he continues...because she realized how much this put the nail in Trump's conviction.

Objection, overruled.

More on the business records.

The defendant insisted that the invoices be attached to the checks so that he knew what he was signing, Steinglass argues. And that continued after the inauguration.

New York is the business capital of the world, Steinglass says. Whether you are a public or private enterprise, you have an obligation to keep accurate records. This is an obligation to the state. It's important for government and election regulators.

Bottom line, Steinglass continues, you cannot lie on your business records.

The parties head to the bench for a sidebar.

When Steinglass returns, he looks to the jurors: You guys ready to keep going for a little while? Alright!

Groans from members of the press in overflow, some of whom have been here since 3:30 a.m. (including @kyledcheney!)

Steinglass moves on to the circumstances of Cohen's 2018 guilty plea and the alleged "pressure campaign" waged by Costello, Trump, and others to convince him not to cooperate.

Cohen was concerned that anything he said to Costello would get back to the defendant, so he didn't tell him what he knew.

Steinglass displays Costello's "sleep well tonight, you have friends in high places" email.

More Costello emails. It's the one in which Costello wrote: "Our issue is to get Cohen on the right page without giving the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the President."

https://x.com/AnnaBower/status/1792915076313198886

Cohen wasn't playing Costello, Costello was playing Cohen, Steinglass tells the jurors.

And when Costello testified here, he showed nothing but disdain for this court. And you can take that into account in assessing his credibility, he says.

It's odd for the defense to blame Cohen for lying previously about the payments, Steinglass said., He was lying at the defendant's behest and to benefit the defendant.

But eventually, he flipped.

In Aug. 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to making an excessive campaign contribution related to the Daniels matter.

Steinglass begins to read Cohen's testimony about his guilty plea, but Blanche objects. The parties approach the bench for sidebar.

When they return, Steinglass resumes.

"We're going to spend the nigh here," the reporter next to me says.

Steinglass reads portions of Cohen's testimony in which he says that he worked with AMI to pay off Karen McDougal to ensure that the story wouldn't hinder the campaign.

These guilty pleas in Aug. 2018 are the moment Cohen finally came clean about what he did for Trump and why. And Trump was furious.

The next morning after Cohen pleaded guilty, Steinglass says, the defendant took to Twitter again:

"If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I strongly suggest that you don't retain the services of Michael Cohen!"

There's a run of objections, and Justice Merchan announces that it might be a good time to take our "last recess of the day."

Once the jurors file out, Blanche says he objects to argument on the security Daniels had to hire after she came forward with her story.

It's extremely prejudicial, Blanche says, and we don't think it should be argued.

Justice Merchan says that he think Steinglass has gone far enough on the subject. You don't need to do anymore, he tells him.

We're back. According to Merchan, the jurors have agreed to work until 8 pm.

Steinglass is walking trough a timeline of the McDougal/Daniels payments showing the timing of Trump's calls/communications with Cohen around the time the deals were made. It's all to corroborate Cohen's testimony that Trump approved Cohen's conduct wrt the deals.

I understand what Steinglass is doing here: Emphasizing, over and over again, that Cohen's testimony is corroborated by what he calls "hard evidence" -- phone records, texts, emails, docs, etc. But more than four hours into this closing, much of it feels repetitive.

I'm back in courtroom 1530, having relieved @TylerMcBrien from his shift in court.

Most of the jurors, for their part, still appear engaged.

@TylerMcBrien In approving the repayment arrangement, Steinglass says, make no mistake: The defendant caused the falsification of these business records.

@TylerMcBrien And there's the fact that the defendant personally signed nine of the checks himself. Busy or not, Trump was not paying these sums for virtually no work, Steinglass argues.

Steinglass's slide presentation is titled "The Defendant's Direct Involvement." Steinglass lists the various ways that Trump was personally involved: He signed the checks, he tweeted the admission that Cohen's payments were a reimbursement, and he disclosed the reimbursement on the government ethics form.

The defendant wants you to believe Cohen went rogue, but there are three reasons why you shouldn't believe that argument, Steinglass says.

(1) Trump is a micromanager. And you've seen how involved he was in this conspiracy. It's inconceivable that he would be so involved in buying these women's silence and then stick his head in the sand when it came to the reimbursement.

(2) Cohen is a self-promoter. Hope Hicks told you that it's not in Cohen's nature to do things out of the kindness of his own heart...he would have told Trump because he wanted credit.

(3) The false business records benefitted one person and one person only: The defendant.

Steinglass moves to the burden of proof. You should be guided by common sense, and look at the evidence as a whole. When you do, you'll see that the prosecution has proved this case beyond reasonable doubt.

You heard about accessorial liability, which the judge will explain. It's the idea that one can be liable for the acts of another if two people act in concert, provided there is the requisite intent. Steinglass tries to illustrate with an example about hiring a hitman, but Blanche objects. Merchan sustains.

We've also discussed the meaning of enterprise and how the Trump Org satisfies that definition.

The judge will explain to you intent to defraud -- that it was Trump's conscious objective or purpose. The judge will explain that does not -- OBJECTION, sustained.

You should listen to the judge's instructions on this, Steinglass continues, but there's ample evidence of the defendant's general intent to defraud.

I'm not going to bore you by going through all that evidence again...

Phew. 🙏

As to the conspiracy, Steinglass says, we're basically beating a dead horse here.

Accurate!

Steinglass explains the "unlawful means" the jury can consider when evaluating the evidence of the intent to commit or conceal an election conspiracy.

Discussing one unlawful means theory -- FECA violations -- Steinglass tells the jurors not to "fall for" the defense arguments that there was no campaign finance violation bc of the "legitimate press exemption."

And in any event, he says, that exemption would not apply to Cohen's payment to Daniels because Cohen, unlike AMI, is not the media.

Other "unlawful means" by which the conspiracy was carried out includes other falsified records, including Cohen's bank forms, the Trump Org 1099, etc.

And the 1099 violated tax laws, he says.

The jurors still look engaged, but some seem to be a little zoned out. One just took his glasses off, rubbed his eyes.

I want to thank you, Steinglass says to the jurors now. I know this has been a long summation, so I apologise for trading brevity for thoroughness...but we only get one shot at this.

The defendant has a right to a trial. But here there are calls, texts, emails....the evidence is overwhelming. So the defendant got that trial, and the law applies to everyone equally. Donald Trump can't shoot someone on Fifth Ave and get away with it--OBJECTION, sustained.

Like anyone else, he must be judged by his peers, based on the evidence and nothing else. You are the ones who saw all the evidence. You have to focus on the evidence and the logical inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.

Soon it will be time to deliberate and to come back here and say: "Guilty." Guilty on 34 counts.

In the name of the People of the state of New York, I ask you to find the defendant Guilty.

And with that, Steinglass is done.

Justice Merchan instructs the jurors on what's next. They will return tomorrow to receive instructions on the law, and to then begin deliberations.

He gives them the usual instructions: Don't read about the case, do research facts or law, etc. He tells them abiding by these rules are more important now than ever.

Tomorrow we'll start at 10 am, Merchan says. Have a good night, we'll see you tomorrow.

Jurors file out.

Trump exits, followed by Tiffany Trump and the rest of his entourage.

I’ll be back in court for summations and deliberations tomorrow.

In the meantime: How did the defense and prosecution fare in their closing arguments? And what’s next as the jurors head into deliberations?

We’ll discuss live at 9 pm ET ⬇️

m.youtube.com/live/KmaRmu_7B…

Thanks to all who followed along today.

@lawfare is a non-profit, non-partisan newsroom, which means we rely on the generosity of material supporters to do our work.

If you found our coverage of Trump’s trial useful, we hope you’ll consider donating:

givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…