We’ve seen some big name, and compelling witnesses in Trump’s criminal trial so far. This week of course we’ve had Stormy Daniels, which I’ve written about already. Right out of the gate we had David Pecker of National Enquirer infamy, and also lawyer Keith Davidson who wasn’t as nationally known as the other two but someone who those who have watched this case over time remembers. Karen McDougal and Michael Cohen are yet to come. We expected to see these people testify, and probably a couple of others but well before the trial I was wondering why it was expected to take at least four, maybe even six weeks. I can answer that now. Two legal matters/niceties. Chain of Custody and Stipulation. I’ll explain in a minute.
Like I said, there aren’t all that many big name witnesses, and even allowing for the kind of “tear them to piece” cross examination one might expect from Trump (via his lawyers) it would seem only a couple of weeks would be needed for witness testimony once a jury was picked. THAT went much more quickly than anticipated and frankly I still though by now if the case wasn’t already in the jury’s hands we be into closing arguments if not by now then the first of next week.
At it’s heart the criminal case is a documents case. Records that show what Trump did and why it was illegal. Some witness testimony would be needed to establish intent, the element of the crime that legally speaking Trump knew he was in charge of and taking part in criminal activities but the documents themselves basically told the story. The witnesses we’ve heard from and those couple we’ve yet to hear from would provide the context and some narration. The documents/records themselves are crucial as they provide the proverbial “smoking gun(s)” but unlike most cases virtually none of them have been stipulated to. So let me walk you through this.
Chain of Custody is important in civil trials too, but in criminal cases chain of custody of evidence is paramount. Knowing who handled the evidence, be it a literal gun or a batch of records (like checks, invoices or other written records) means everything. When/how a piece of evidence was discovered/obtained. Who saw and more importantly handled it and why from the beginning until it is entered into evidence in court is huge. Defense lawyers who can argue chain of evidence was broken can have it excluded entirely. Even questions can be enough for an acquittal (reasonable doubt) or a reversal of a conviction upon appeal. Was the evidence tampered with somewhere along the way is the question.
So legally speaking what exactly is chain of evidence? This is where a helpful website like The Legal Dictionary comes in handy for those of you who’ve never filled out any of the freaking paperwork (it’s a pain in the ass I can personally assure you from experience in what seems like a past life) as they explain things in normal person language. From The Legal Dictionary Chain of Custody is defined as:
A chronological documentation of the handling of evidence throughout a criminal investigation.
They explain it all in practical terms:
The term chain of custody refers to the process of maintaining and documenting the handling of evidence. It involves keeping a detailed log showing who collected, handled, transferred, or analyzed evidence during an investigation. The procedure for establishing chain of custody starts with the crime scene.
Among the items covered are documents, photographs and digitally stored evidence. Most of the witnesses you’ve heard from so far have testified to such things. That the exhibits introduced are authentic, when/why certain evidence being introduced was created and as we are seeing who saw/handled it including Donald J. Trump. Unless I’m mistaken the only serious cross-examination was with a technician who had the unenviable job of cataloguing all of Trump’s tweets. Most of the remaining witnesses including the Trump employee currently on the stand (okay, the trial’s in recess but she’ll be back in the morning) will basically be giving Chain of Evidence testimony.
The mistake Team Trump is making is that it allows the prosecution to elicit testimony damaging to Trump, as in not only the fact the documents (i.e. those invoices and checks) are genuine but that Trump paid attention to money of that amount and so he knew what he was signing off on and why! That’s actually a bonus for prosecutors. And it’s only getting in front of the jury because Trump is… well TRUMP. Just like his mentor Roy Cohn taught him he’s refusing to give a single inch. Force the prosecutors to prove every damned detail. It’s boring, and even frustrating for the jury. If prosecutors play their cards right in closing arguments they can get the point across the reason the trial was so freaking long was Trump’s refusal to Stipulate to all those documents!
So let’s talk stipulation in a legal case. When facts and/or evidence aren’t in dispute both sides in a trial can stipulate to them and it’s entered into the record. A dry but relatively quick procedure that saves the court’s, and more importantly to them the juror’s time. So let’s again return to The Legal Dictionary and its Definition of Stipulation:
An agreement made between two opposing parties about a demand, condition, or fact in a legal action.
An agreement made between parties to a contract, as to its conditions, or a promise.
They again provide a practical common sense explanation for non-lawyers:
Stipulation is a legal term used to refer to an agreement made between opposing parties during the course of legal proceedings. Parties may stipulate to certain conditions or facts for a variety of reasons, including to avoid delays, and to eliminate the need to use valuable time proving facts that are not in dispute. Any legal stipulation made is filed with the court, becoming legally binding, and part of the official court record.
They go on to note “Stipulations are encouraged by the court, as they expedite trials by doing away with issues that are agreed upon by both sides.” You see what I’m driving at? Trump’s refusal to allow his lawyers to stipulate to the records (at least most of them) being used in the trial, all of which could have been entered into the record in less than half a day is why this trial is taking so long. But Trump is being Trumpy and by god he’s going to put prosecutors through as much time and effort as he can. I’m quite sure his lawyers tried to talk him out of doing things this way but Trump thinks he knows more than anyone else about anything. However, it’s not just the prosecutors and the court he’s inconveniencing, he’s also putting the jury through weeks of trial time! Time that normally wouldn’t be wasted this way.
Once more let me remind you that by forcing an exhaustive list of Chain of Custody witnesses he’s giving many of them who actually worked for him an opportunity to bury his fat ass. They all know Alan Weisselberg is sitting there doing a second sting at Riker’s and they aren’t about to lie. Or even try to fudge to protect Trump. They know too many people can and likely will be truthful, and that unlike Trump they’ll quickly find themselves where Weisselberg is on their very own perjury charge. And that even if their Mango Messiah gets back to the WH his pardon powers won’t do jack for them because this is a STATE case.
I find it deliciously ironic that Trump being himself (an asshole) is helping to convict him. His lawyers can and will argue that Daniels, McDougal, and even Pecker but especially Michael Cohen have an axe to grind with Trump about money. But not these regular folks at the Trump Org or the WH who worked for Trump, who in some cases still like him but not enough to lie for him. THEY are telling the same tale the big names, including and especially Cohen when his turn comes. That when it comes to paying out money Trump is a cheap-ass, tigh-fisted S.O.B who pays attention to every invoice and check he signs.
In other words, not just big names but regular folks who’ve never been heard from before and likely never will be heard from again that Trump knew exactly what he was doing. Now you can see just how stupid Trump is, and how what he’s in the process of doing in Manhattan is screwing himself. Up the backside with a large diameter pipe full of hot coals.
If Donnie Donuts had half a brain, he would have stipulated that yes, he had sex with Stormy and Karen, and yes, he said he hadn’t because he was embarrassed and didn’t want Malaria to be pissed off at him. He might have gotten some sympathy from the jury that way all.Clinton got re-elected despite getting blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky. It is the lying which is what’s gonna convict him.