Apparently the defense is not allowed to talk about the law, while the prosecution can continue to tell the jury that legal NDAs and burying stories are illegal.
I guess if you have already provided about a dozen reversable decisions, why not add some more? The only time the Judge chastised anyone was when the Trump defense attorneys talked about Prison. Not sure that is much of an offense. While you are not supposed to talk about potential sentences, it is pretty clear that they want to put Trump in prison. Once again the Judge objects to the jury knowing the truth.
I heard early on that the defense put together a pretty good closing. I will have to see how this blows out when some other players put together their opinions. Perhaps the early buzz was from cheerleaders.
Mostly the talk has been about how Merchan demanded before the defense put on their closing that nobody was to talk about the "law". That was going to be his place, not the lawyers. The defense seemed to follow along. Then the prosecutors started to close and started telling the jury how things like NDAs and burying stories were "illegal" (when Bragg and others know that they are not). There was some question as to why the defense was not objecting more, but objecting and being overruled (which is likely what would happen) just adds further credibility to the statements that are being made. Not objecting at this point may be a strategic move and they will get to do a rebuttal close and may address these issues (now that the prosecution have opened these issues up for a rebuttal). The judge may be corrupt, but one would think that he has to allow a rebuttal to these issues after the prosecution brough it up.
I found it odd that the prosecution used an investigation into Arnold Schwarzenegger as proof that these can be criminal? But doesn't an investigation that ended with no charges prove the opposite? Oh and if it now admissible to provide previous examples of investigation, can the defense now let the jury know that Trump was investigated at the federal level and not charged by those who had the chance? Seems like a pretty good question I would be asking and something that the jury should probably know.
The prosecution closing promises to be about five times longer than the defense closing and may not be done till sometime tomorrow. Then you have rebuttal statements and who knows when this ends.
Turley suggested that the prosecution has stated dozens of times that these were campaign violations after the Judge stated that they were not allowed to talk about "the law" to the jury.
Now not sure if the defense has objected to this at any time or if they objected and were overruled or if they expected to be "overruled" if they objected or what. Obviously the prosecution is not following what the Judge suggested.
Still, their entire case relies on Michael Cohen saying that Allen Weisselberg was in contact with Trump. They have Michael Cohen providing hearsay evidence of what a potential witness that they never called stated.