Your Guide to The People v. Trump
Added 2024-04-26 07:52:23 +0000 UTCAs the first week of the first criminal trial of a former President in U.S. history wraps up, we prepare for our special coverage of People v. Trump by stepping back to remember how we got here. Why is Donald Trump being prosecuted for paying off Stormy Daniels, anyway? Who are all of these people? How good is the prosecution’s case, really? And what can we expect from the defense?
We also answer a few patron questions about the trial, after which subscribers will enjoy a dramatic rendition of the best bit of this week’s gag order violation hearing: Trump attorney Todd Blanche’s struggle to convince the court that his client’s retweets are not, as a matter of law, endorsements.
PATRON EXTRA! Beginning now, Patreon subscribers will enjoy longer episodes with special bonus content as part of our special coverage of People v. Trump: Thomas and Matt’s readings from our favorite parts of the daily trial transcripts. Subscribe at www.patreon.law/law for the good stuff!
Indictment and Statement of Facts, People v. Trump (4/4/2023)
New York jury instructions for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (NY Penal Law 175.10)
Justice Merchan’s ruling on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss (2/15/24)
Comments
Liev Schreiber plays Ray Donovan. Trust me, it's more than dads that get that reference! Mmmmm Dylan Howard is a scumbag who provided Harvey Weinstein with background info on Rose McGowan claiming the National Enquirer had no plans to publish the info. I watched a recent 60 Minutes Australia on that Saturday: https://youtu.be/CbksS-VRSFI?si=jBQjFecyMvZNeSZ3
Lala Del Bray
2024-05-06 22:55:22 +0000 UTCI did not think you were harsh, no worries! I just thought that some more context might be useful for people browsing here. I am also not sure what the deal reached was as I am a freelance not official reporter in NY, but I am curious. If I find something out that I can share, I will.
Steno Pun'd it
2024-05-01 19:17:44 +0000 UTCthank you for this perspective! I hope I didn't come off too harshly on this--I do see how hard stenographers work and as someone who does a lot of appeals I certainly appreciate the value of an accurate record and want to be sure that anyone putting in the kind of dedicated focus required for this important work is fairly compensated. But my frustration here is that if the court seems to have compromised with the reporters in a way that has made the transcripts technically available without actually making them accessible. I was assuming when this was announced that the court system would be fairly compensating reporters for this unusual concession and would like to know more about what the terms were there.
Matt Cameron
2024-05-01 14:25:16 +0000 UTCSome background on paying for transcript copies: court reporters were originally private citizens who sat in and created transcripts of trials, which up to that point simply did not have a verbatim record at all. The courts saw the value of this and began hiring "official reporters" to be the designated creator and guardian of the record, but the record itself remained property of the reporter. **Cue 100 year time skip** Today official reporters AFAIK still own and are responsible for their work product. Editing transcripts is often done on the reporter's own time as the full court dockets take up the reporter's day hours with writing. Page rates and salary for reporters have not increased much over the past few decades, so asking them to provide transcripts for free would be asking them to take a significant pay cut while basically working overtime. So while I am sympathetic to desires for public access, to allow commercial use without compensating the reporter would be a major blow to a profession that is already critically understaffed for the purpose of allowing other people to profit off of labor the reporter no longer gets paid directly for.
Steno Pun'd it
2024-05-01 13:35:49 +0000 UTCIs “willful violation beyond a reasonable doubt” really the standard for the gag order? Are these tweets on trial for murdering the gag order?
Warren McDonald
2024-04-30 15:34:55 +0000 UTCThe dramatic reading was pure gold. Hi, by the way - new fan here. Originally came for the Trump stuff, stayed because I now have a law-adjacent job and am actually starting to find it kind of fascinating.
Miss Behavior
2024-04-29 19:35:27 +0000 UTCHi. Thomas, you acknowledged some vagueness in your memory of what happened between Trump and Stormy Daniels; there are a couple of things about it that I think are well worth remembering. One is that it wasn't an affair; it was a single occasion that she hadn't anticipated, and according to her description of it, that she accepted in part because she felt stupid for finding herself in the situation with him at all. When you consider her intelligence and independence of mind, I find it telling and very sad that she nonetheless felt the pressure of shame to that degree. Yes, there was consent, but no indication of any desire on her part, and more a sense of giving in to the inevitable, while reproaching herself for being in his room in the first place. I think there are probably a lot of women, and even some non-women, who know all too well what that must have felt like. The other thing that I haven't heard mentioned at all in recent months is that afterward, after she had been offered "hush money" by Michael Cohen and turned it down, she was approached in a parking lot when she had her daughter in the car with her, by a man who told her to "Leave Trump alone. Forget the story." As she later wrote, "And he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, ‘That’s a beautiful little girl, it would be a shame if something happened to her mom.’” It was only then that she agreed to accept the "hush money". This Guardian column from 2018 by Jill Filipovic discusses these aspects and more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/26/stormy-daniels-trump-affair-claims-doesnt-look-good-president-america
David in Brooklyn
2024-04-29 17:14:41 +0000 UTCGaramond is Captain Holt's favourite font.
Graydon Armstrong
2024-04-29 10:23:05 +0000 UTCGlad I’m not the only one who enjoyed the transcript reading. Great idea and so well done.
Leon
2024-04-29 07:42:46 +0000 UTCPersonally, I'd love to hear more transcript readings. From all kinds of cases. If it's a case covered here, a transcript reading segment would be spectacular.
Quick update, Ovechkin is only 36 goals from The Record
2024-04-29 00:09:37 +0000 UTCIf I recall cohen’s book correctly, the IT firm was a guy who helped to rig a CNBC online poll trump was an option in, something about how god or influential a businessman he is.
127dot0dot0dot1
2024-04-27 22:57:06 +0000 UTCIt's pretty obvious that Weisselberg suggested the increase *specifically to increase liability for Cohen* to keep him quiet.
Drew Vogel
2024-04-27 15:37:18 +0000 UTCWas eagerly awaiting this episode and it was a great one. Dramatic reading was chef’s kiss
M. D. Nova
2024-04-26 23:48:56 +0000 UTCI had to listen again. “So your client manipulated what was said and put it in quotes, right?” “Uh…it was uh…I wouldn’t use the word manipulation your honor, but the rest of the quote is not part of the quote.” Also shout out to Thomas for the echo effect, including removing it when he couldn’t contain himself during the “two systems” bullshit. Just gold. Again, I can’t believe that the world doesn’t get to see this.
Colbin Erdahl
2024-04-26 23:42:45 +0000 UTCOk, I finally listened to the reenactment, and this is now the only way I want to consume Trump trial content. If America was all watching this live a la OJ, this Blanche guy would be on every channel, and the be the laughing stock of the country. America does not digest a transcript. YA BASIC!
Colbin Erdahl
2024-04-26 22:10:50 +0000 UTCI love the dramatic reading so much!
April Poff
2024-04-26 21:47:20 +0000 UTCAll-timers for intro quotes: screaming hate at SCrOTUS, Garamond love and Walter calmly sipping his tea. Just incredible that such good law quotes can still be had 8 years into this endeavor.
Colbin Erdahl
2024-04-26 19:40:25 +0000 UTCAAAAAmazing. How is there a quote about Garamond (from…sounds like Terry Crews?)
Colbin Erdahl
2024-04-26 19:36:43 +0000 UTCThe transcript reading was fantastic! I hope this becomes a recurring segment. It's one thing to listen to a breakdown of what kind of arguments are being made by Trump's team, but hearing just a small portion of it acted out verbatim makes it even more clear how bad these arguments are.
I have perspicaciously noted that JBP is a moron
2024-04-26 19:34:10 +0000 UTCAhhhh! I loved the acting!
Aminah
2024-04-26 19:23:48 +0000 UTCWhat a great idea to „act out“ the court transcripts! Made my day🤗
Udo אודו
2024-04-26 17:52:58 +0000 UTCThe episode description links to patreon.law/law instead of dot-com :)
William LaFrance
2024-04-26 17:33:28 +0000 UTCWe also hate the supreme court, screaming lady from the new intro quotes.
Zackakakyak
2024-04-26 17:00:23 +0000 UTCHi everyone! Stopping in with an important correction. In response to the patron question re: the civil verdict in the E. Jean Caroll case I confidently answered that these verdicts must be unanimous in NY. This was absolutely correct.... 87 years ago. I don't know why but my lawbrain defaulted to the federal rule (FRCP Rule 48), under which civil jury verdicts must in fact be unanimous. In NY (as in MA) only 5 out of 6 need to agree to reach a verdict in a civil case, and that has been the law since 1937. Totally on me there! I really do try to be sure that everything I say on the show is correct to the best of my knowledge and backed by reputable sources, so this is embarrassing but there was a lot to prepare for in this episode in particular and I guess it had to happen sometime.
Matt Cameron
2024-04-26 16:05:17 +0000 UTCoh my gosh your reenactment is absolutely fantastic. worth re-subscrbing to patron just for that
Jess C
2024-04-26 15:49:15 +0000 UTCI feel like the judge’s statement, “counselor, you have lost all credibility in this court,” has to be one of the biggest burns a judge has in his arsenal.
Austin Flake
2024-04-26 15:27:45 +0000 UTCOA reenactments with Thomas and Matt (and maybe Kasey at some point) is my fav!!! ❤️
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-04-26 15:04:43 +0000 UTCi love that thomas/blanche delineates between a news article and a new york post article.
lauren
2024-04-26 14:38:09 +0000 UTCRe whether it’s a “good” …I read it that it’s the equivalent of getting a mafia boss on violating postal laws.
Navi Girl
2024-04-26 13:49:55 +0000 UTCFont related intro quotes!!!!
Professional-Grade In-Car Audio Guy
2024-04-26 13:16:25 +0000 UTCTo answer Thomas’s question about whether it’s common to get stupid judges who don’t read cases or your filings or just simply ignore the law or your filings: YES! About half of our judges are like this at our county courthouse…
Lexi Patricia
2024-04-26 12:51:15 +0000 UTCDoes the jury have to agree on which crime they were trying to cover up with falsified documents? Or could 4 jurors think they were covering up crime A, 4 think they were covering up crime B and 4 crime C?
Salt Prairie Photography
2024-04-26 12:43:15 +0000 UTCI love the new clothes you know we have to have the screaming person at the very beginning ?? I mean, I'm awake now
NSaneAtheist
2024-04-26 10:19:14 +0000 UTC
