Closing arguments wrap in NY v. Trump trial as jury awaits instructions

New York prosecutors presented the jury with their closing argument in the case against former President Trump Tuesday, saying the case is "about a conspiracy and a cover-up," and maintained that they have presented "powerful evidence" to convict. 

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He has pleaded not guilty. 

Prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. The former president has maintained his innocence.

New York prosecutor Joshua Steinglass presented the closing arguments for Bragg. Steinglass presented his closing argument for more than five hours. 

Steinglass said Trump’s intent to defraud "could not be any clearer," arguing that it would have been far easier for him to pay Stormy Daniels directly.

Instead, the prosecutor said, he concocted an elaborate scheme and everything he and his cohorts did was "cloaked in lies.""The name of the game was concealment and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited the most: the defendant, former President Donald Trump," Steinglass said.

Read the full story by Brooke Singman here.

Trump in court/Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS

I really like it when prosecutors end on a crescendo - on a high note that marries logic with passion. This one did not end that way. Actually ended as it should have begun - with the perfunctory stuff like presumption of innocence etc. Juries don't know the difference between great closings and not great ones. This is likely their only trial. He ends with a highly objectionable illustration. Prosecutor ends by asking for 34 guilty verdicts for interfering with an election.

--Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Prosecution has done a steady, albeit not spectacular job in summation, but is hardly ending on a high note. Being shut down by the court a couple of times and ending on esoteric matters. But we finally know the other law that was violated! A federal law.

— Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Basically, we have spent 5 hours here so the prosecutors could dizzy the jury into believing there are oceans of evidence. As it washes over the listener hour after hour, you easily miss that there is no evidence of Trump’s participation in a crime. Participation in burying damaging information, sure. But not of a crime that Trump and others aged to commit.

Bragg’s hope is that by bludgeoning the jury with waves and waves of evidence, no one will notice that it is not evidence of crimes — prosecutors figure they fill that void with Cohen’s guilty plea, which Merchan has allowed them to use as if it were admissible evidence against Trump, which it’s not.

-- Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Going late is still a better option for the defense. The worst case scenario was to allow the prosecution to give an hour closing just before they are instructed by the court and sent into deliberations in the morning. Right now, the jury is likely in overload and tired....The government likely went too long for that reason.

Steinglass did score some good points. However, it was the judge more than the evidence or the prosecutor that has made the difference today. Steinglass has been allowed to virtually testify while making repeated improper arguments. Merchan has done little and what he did was too late. As we have seen in prior weeks, he finally sustained objections only after the damage was done. Judge allowed Steinglass to make highly improper arguments and then would offer the judicial equivalent of a tsk, tsk.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor 

Presiding Judge Juan Merchan told the prosecution team they have to wrap up their closing arguments for the day by 8 p.m.

The prosecution team began their closing arguments around 2 p.m., meaning they made their case to the jury across a six-hour span. The defense team kicked off their closing arguments just after 9:30 a.m. and wrapped up just ahead of 1 p.m.

"I think their strategy is: throw a lot at the jury, make the closing seem so long, that the jury will start to say, 'well, that closing was so long, they must have had a lot to say they must have proved their case,'" New York attorney Rebecca Rose Woodland said on Fox News of the prosecution's lengthy arguments.

"They seem to be just coming up with nonsense after nonsense and trying to justify some of this extraneous information as evidence in an election interference case. It is not. So I think that you've had a great point, it's just the prosecution really grasping at straws. Again, trying to either confuse the jury or make it appear as if they're very important because they're going on for such a long time. They have so much to say. But what they're saying doesn't have merit," she continued.

Elise Stefanik/AP/Mariam Zuhaib

New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik sent a letter to New York officials arguing there may have been "misconduct" within the New York Supreme Court system to ensure Judge Juan Merchan presided over the unprecedented NY v. Trump trial. 

"One cannot help but suspect that the ‘random selection’ at work in the assignment of Acting Justice Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to these cases involving prominent Republicans, is in fact not random at all," Stefanik wrote in a letter Tuesday warning of "potential misconduct" sent to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Inspector General of the New York State Unified Court System. The Daily Mail first reported the letter Tuesday. 

Stefanik pointed to how Merchan has overseen a handful of cases involving Trump or his allies, including the NY v. Trump case, the criminal trial against the Trump Organization in 2022 - a case that found the organization guilty of tax fraud - and is set to oversee the upcoming trial of Trump ally Steve Bannon. 

"The simple answer to why Acting Justice Merchan has been assigned to these cases would seem to be that whoever made the assignment intentionally selected Acting Justice Merchan to handle them to increase the chance that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and Steven Bannon would ultimately be convicted," Stefanik continued in the letter. 

Read the entire article from Emma Colton here.

[It] is stunning some of the objections which are overruled by this judge. Prosecution just accused DJT of threatening witnesses and the objection was overruled. For a judge who labored over whether to allow impeachment witnesses to testify and excluded the FEC expert, he allows allegations of criminality in threatening witnesses?

-- Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Former President Donald Trump's campaign for the White House slammed President Biden's reelection team for campaigning outside of the NY v. Trump trial Tuesday.

"Their numbers are in the toilet. Kamala Harris is a terrible alternative. And it's all an attempt to try to turn around the Biden campaign," Trump adviser Jason Miller said Tuesday.

The Biden-Harris campaign held a press conference outside the Manhattan courthouse earlier Tuesday, which was headlined by actor Robert De Niro. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris were not present for the press conference.

"I hope this new ad campaign reaches outside the bubble to remind supporters of what a danger he is to our lives. This is not a threat. This is our reality. And that's why I've joined the Biden-Harris campaign, because the only way to preserve our freedoms and hold on to our humanity is to vote for Joe Biden for president," De Niro said.

Miller shot back following the presser that De Niro is a "washed up actor," while also pointing out Biden's lacking performances in battleground state polls.

"Joe Biden is losing nationally, he's losing in every single battleground state. And President Trump's numbers continue to rise, the best that Biden can do is roll out a washed up actor. And don't worry, my remarks will be shorter than 'The Irishman.’ I won't make you suffer for three hours, but the best they can do is roll out a washed up actor," Miller said, referring to De Niro's three and a half hour movie "The Irishman." 

Merchan is now allowing the prosecutors to quote from books on how Trump said that you should attack those who attack you. How is this related to the charge of falsified documents hiding an election violation? It does not seem to matter in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor 

Fox News Channel's Greg Gutfeld said Tuesday that Americans are still "no closer to knowing" what former President Donald Trump "did wrong" as the prosecution continues to make its case in the courtroom to the jury.

"Despite six weeks, 22 witnesses, and tawdry testimony about spankings, America's still no closer to knowing what Donald Trump did wrong, except pay a scummy lawyer who stole $60,000 from him," Gutfeld said during Tuesday's episode of "The Five."

"The ex-president's lawyer, Todd Blanche, arguing that there was no intent to defraud and no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election," Gutfeld continued. "And as for Bragg's star witness, Blanche saying, 'Michael Cohen is the G.L.O.A.T, he's the greatest liar of all time. You cannot send someone to prison based on the words of Michael Cohen.'"

"The judge not happy about that last line, telling jurors to ignore the suggestion that the former president could be sent to prison if convicted," Gutfeld added, further describing the scene in courtroom scene on Tuesday.

Gutfeld said the prosecution was "busy trying to clean up Cohen's theft and lying by saying, 'We didn't pick Michael Cohen, Trump did.'"

Gutfeld's remarks came as the prosecution continued its closing remarks late into the evening on Tuesday.

It seems the defense has all but given up on objecting.  Whether it's because so much has already come in, or their objections get shut down - who knows.  But it sure seems they have lost the resolve to fight with this judge. 

-- Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Steinglass just said that it is a fact that these were campaign violations. Nothing from the judge and nothing for the defense. This jury has now been told dozens of times that the payments were campaign violations and the Judge is letting that false claim stand uncontradicted.

He literally said that Trump lied in denying that these were campaign contributions because they were in fact such violations. Merchan is treating this all as argument. However, Steinglass is making a statement of law that is contradicted by a wide variety of experts.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor 

Now Steinglass is slamming defense with Trump’s public statements publicly and on financial disclosure form that he reimbursed Cohen. How on earth Blanche could open to the jury telling them that Trump did not reimburse Cohen is just baffling. And, naturally, Steinglass is arguing that the only rational reason the defense would mislead the jury on the reimbursement is that they’d otherwise have to admit that the business records are false.

Just a disastrous unforced error. Since it was not a crime to reimburse Cohen for a lawful NDA, there was no reason to deny that Trump had done this.

-- Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg said Tuesday amid closing arguments in NY v. Trump trial that the prosecution must prove former President Donald Trump "intended to violate a federal election law."

"The judge has made it certainly much easier for [the prosecution] with his rulings. Somebody had mentioned earlier, why doesn't the defense object more and, you know, you can alwasy solve that by saying, 'Your honor, I'd like to have a running objection to this argument or libe of testimony.' I'm not sure if that's been done or not, but the real test will come when we find out for sure tomorrow the final decision by the judge on the jury instructions," Wisenberg, a Fox News Contributor, said during an appearance on "Your World."

"What we've been able to glean so far from the transcripts we've seen is that he's going for the most part with the prosecution's theory," Wisenberg added of Judge Juan Merchan. "But keep this in mind, they still have to prove, the government still has to prove, that Donald Trump, forget about everything else ... they've got to prove that he intended to violate a federal election law, whether it be civil or criminal."

Wisenberg, who said he believes there "a million" problems with the trial overall, said he has not seen "any evidence, even from Cohen, that they discussed the federal election code."

Steinglass is now proving another potential “other crime” — tax fraud. He points out that even though the structuring of Cohen’s compensation meant more taxes than necessary would be paid, the judge will instruct you (the jury) that the preparation of false tax docs is a crime even if the state is not shorted out of any money. Theory is that by describing a reimbursement (a nontaxable event) as taxable income in a Form 1099, Trump caused the preparation of false tax documents. That is, alternative theory of “other crime” is that Trump falsified business records to conceal his commission of a tax fraud crime.

-- Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Prosecutor describes yet another "additional crime" without the elements, the code section, the witnesses etc.  It's just a potpourri of other crimes. A buffet of sorts where the jury can choose without even hearing what the elements of those crimes are.

-- Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

The problem is that, under New York law, the defense was forced to go first unlike most jurisdictions. That denied the defense the chance to respond to such sweeping claims. It is huge advantage to the prosecution.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor 

Most lawyers would trade children for last argument!

-- Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Laborious chronology continues with Allen Weisselberg as a central figure but just not a witness in the actual trial.Ordinarily the decision not to call a witness can lead to inferences being drawn against the prosecution but when a defense does put up a case - as it did here - is that presumption voided or is it burden shifting to ask why the defense didn't call him themselves?

-- Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Fox News host Howard Kurtz took aim at the "selective" measures the prosecution took as it sought to convince the jury of its case against former President Donald Trump on Tuesday, insisting that former porn actress Stormy Daniels "lied for a long time" as it relates to her alleged encounter with Trump.

"When it comes to the prosecution, also highly selective," said Kurtz, who hosts Fox News Channel's "MediaBuzz" on Sundays. "Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor [said] they tried to shame Stormy ... he said she never changed her story. That's preposterous. She lied for a long time after getting the $130,000 from Michael Cohen."

Describing the case against Trump as "very thin," Kurtz also took aim at the defense's "selective" measures in trying to make their case to jurors.

"I think the defense absolutely scored some points, but ... Todd Blanche started out by saying Trump and Stormy have repeatedly denied that this took place. That was to please the client, I believe, but obviously Stormy now testifies that the alleged encounter in 2006 very much did happen," Kurtz said.

Kurtz's comments come as the prosecution team continues its closing arguments, which they said could last hours longer.

Donald Trump/AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File

Former President Donald Trump summed up the prosecution team's lengthy closing arguments in one word.

"BORING!" Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday.

The prosecution team began its closing arguments around 2 p.m., and said ahead of 4 p.m. they were only about one-third of the way through the remarks.

Experts weighed in that prosecutors are dragging out the arguments in a bid to make it appear they "proved their case."

"I think their strategy is: throw a lot at the jury, make the closing seem so long, that the jury will start to say, 'well, that closing was so long, they must have had a lot to say they must have proved their case,'" New York lawyer Rebecca Rose Woodland said on Fox News Tuesday.

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Fox News Contributor Karl Rove added that the prosecutors' case "looks like a stretch" while Americans have rallied around Trump.

"This is supposedly a federal election law violation, the Federal Election Commission looked at it and passed, the Department of Justice took a pass on it," he said. "This is supposedly the federal election law is being violated in a way that somehow ties it into a New York law regarding business records. It looks like a stretch."

"It's been put into effect by a highly partisan DA and it's frankly caused people to rally to the former president's defense," Rove added. "He's raised a lot of money for his campaign off it to pay his legal bills and he's gone up in the polls since last August when all these indictments came down. Now some of them are more serious, the classified documents case, I think, is a serious issue. But none of those other issues are likely to be heard now until the end of the election."

Prosecutors in the NY v. Trump trial are taking the strategy of throwing "nonsense after nonsense" at the jury amid closing arguments in an effort to make it appear they "proved their case," New York litigator Rebecca Rose Woodland said.

"I think their strategy is: throw a lot at the jury, make the closing seem so long, that the jury will start to say, 'well, that closing was so long, they must have had a lot to say they must have proved their case,'" Woodland said on Fox News.

The prosecution team's closing arguments have continued since 2 p.m. Tuesday. The prosecution team said they were about a third of the way through their argument at about 4 p.m.

"They seem to be just coming up with nonsense after nonsense and trying to justify some of this extraneous information as evidence in an election interference case. It is not. So I think that you've had a great point, it's just the prosecution really grasping at straws. Again, trying to either confuse the jury or make it appear as if they're very important because they're going on for such a long time. They have so much to say. But what they're saying doesn't have merit," she continued.

Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Fox News Contributor Karl Rove said Tuesday during an appearance on Fox News Channel that the NY v. Trump case "looks like a stretch" and has continued to cause many Americans to 'rally' to former President Donald Trump's defense.

"This is supposedly a federal election law violation, the Federal Election Commission looked at it and passed, the Department of Justice took a pass on it," he said. "This is supposedly the federal election law is being violated in a way that somehow ties it into a New York law regarding business records. It looks like a stretch."

Rove also said it looks like Trump is being "persecuted by the Democrats" in the NY v. Trump trial.

"It's been put into effect by a highly partisan DA and it's frankly caused people to rally to the former president's defense," he added. "He's raised a lot of money for his campaign off it to pay his legal bills and he's gone up in the polls since last August when all these indictments came down. Now some of them are more serious, the classified documents case, I think, is a serious issue. But none of those other issues are likely to be heard now until the end of the election."

Additionally, Rove said that he would "advise against" President Biden making remarks about Trump's trial, saying he believed the Biden-Harris press conference featuring actor Robert De Niro outside the Manhattan court on Tuesday was an "unmitigated disaster."

We’re retracing the same ground, but Steinglass gets animated saying David Pecker’s testimony proves beyond any doubt that Trump was in on the Karen McDougal NDA deal. Yes — that would be a big deal if the NDA were a crime.

It is, however, only a crime in this courtroom, where an NDA = a FECA crime. And note, there is no evidence in the record that, if the NDAs were campaign expenditures, there would have been any obligation to report them publicly prior to the election. There is no doubt that the Stormy NDA, which was very late before Election Day, would not have had to be reported prior to the election.

-- Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Trump in court/Michael M. Santiago/PoolAFP via Getty Images

We’re up to 4 days before the election, when WSJ reported on the McDougal payment.

My question (and I’d be asking it if I got to address the jury last): Doesn’t the WSJ reporting blow up the prosecution’s theory of the case. Steinglass is arguing that Trump was desperate to suppress the Stormy story because, if it had come out, Hillary would have been elected. But in reality, the McDougal story did come out, only days after the Stormy NDA, right on the eve of the election, and it did not affect the election result in the slightest.

-- Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Fox News legal editor appeared on The Story from outside the Manhattan courtroom Monday, calling the N.Y. v Trump case "pretty disgraceful," as closing arguments were underway.

"We're finally finding out what the underlying crime is halfway through the closing argument. I mean, that's pretty disgraceful just as far as fundamental notions of due process," Urbahn said.

"In this country, the accused has the right to know what they're being accused of. These are fundamental concepts enshrined in the 5th and 6th amendment of our constitution. And yet here we are learning, basically on the fly, what exactly the prosecution has been doing for all of these weeks," she said.

"As far the election law violation is concerned, you know, keep in mind, it seems like they're really pointing to a federal election law crime. How they're doing that is unclear to all of us considering we're not in federal court," Urbahn added.

"This is not their jurisdiction," Urbahn said, noting that Justice Department declined to bring the case.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump/REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

The reason this closing is longer than "In Search of Lost Time" is because the prosecutor is the records custodian for ATT. This has to be tedious and boring for the jury. Do it as a narrative, not a line by line exercise.

Juries are fully capable of drawing the same inferences the rest of humanity draws. They do not need to be spoon fed minutiae. In fact, juries like making some steps and leaps themselves. Otherwise it risks being simultaneously boring and condescending.

--Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Trump attorney Will Scharf said Tuesday that the jury in the NY v. Trump case witnessed a "systematic dismantling" of the prosecutions case against former President Donald Trump.

"I think what the jury witnessed this morning was a systematic dismantling of the prosecution's case by Todd Blanche," said Scharf, who was in the Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday. "Todd gave them ten independent reasons why, after hearing all the evidence after this entire trial, why they couldn't vote to convict."

"What I saw from the jury was attentiveness, was serious attention to detail," he added. "I think they seemed interested by Todd's argument, and as a defense lawyer, that's really all you can ask for and hope for."

Scharf also commented on the media's coverage of the trial, saying he believes the media has "fundamentally misrepresented and perhaps misunderstood this case from the start."

"This is not a tabloid case. This is not a Stormy Daniels case. This is ultimately a fairly mondain case about business records," Scharf said.

Scharf's comments come as the prosecution team continues its closing arguments Tuesday, which they said could last hours longer.

Joshua Steinglass/Jane Rosenberg

Steinglass just basically testified that Trump had to have known the requirements for opening a bank account and that Cohen would have to give a purpose for opening the account. The purpose of this argument is to attribute to Trump the fact that Cohen had opened the account through an LLC to avoid having his name attached to the NDA. I do not believe there is any evidence in the record about what Trump knew about the mechanics of bank accounts. Steinglass is asking jury to assume a level of knowledge there is no evidence he has about how Cohen opened the account. Steinglass basically said: Trump is a savvy businessman so he must have known.

--Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

The prosecution is going through mind-numbing messages to show how the settlement was arranged. Again, it is proving, laboriously, something that is not much in debate. The NDA was cut. It was meant to kill a bad story. The problem is that Merchan has allowed the prosecutors to claim that all of this is unlawful under election laws, which it is not.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor

Stormy Daniels sketch/REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

Steinglass claims Stormy would have totally undermined Trump’s plan to spin the Access Hollywood tape as “locker room talk.” What does that mean? That Hillary would have won Manhattan by 90 points instead of 80?

Would anyone in America have been surprised to hear that, in 2006, celebrity billionaire Donald Trump had a tryst with a porn star almost a decade before he went into politics?

Also remember: Stormy’s story up until this trial was that she was not a “MeToo” case, that what happened between Trump and her was consensual. So who would possibly have cared about this — as opposed to, say, whether Trump or Hillary should be the one to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court?

-- Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

We’ve already had several minutes on the Access Hollywood tape. The only relevance of the tape is to show that the NDA payment to Stormy Daniels a little over 2 weeks later. But there is no doubt about that. No one doubts that the Access Hollywood tape gave Trump and Cohen additional incentive to pay Daniels. Steinglass is thus taking several minutes to establish something that is not in dispute. That is why this is taking so long.

-- Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Jonathan Turley/Fox News

Steinglass is now getting into the Access Hollywood tape. Steinglass is using the issue to bring in statements from Chris Cuomo and others that Trump was finished politically. He is justifying the introduction as an example of why they had to do a catch and kill move on McDougal and Daniels. The problem with this line is that Trump had long been criticized for his extramarital relationship. After the Access Hollywood tape, that view was reinforced and fixed in the minds of many. Indeed, many were not surprised by the existence of an alleged affair. In this way, the tape cuts both ways. It blew up in the middle of the campaign and Trump weathered it. He did so because voters did not appear to view it as determinative on their votes.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor

Civil rights attorney and Fox News contributor Leo Terrell argued the prosecution team is trying to portray its star witness Michael Cohen as a "criminal Robin Hood," while noting the two lawyers on the jury could lead to an acquittal or hung jury.

"He's portraying Michael Cohen as a criminal Robin Hood," Terrell said on Fox News to host Sandra Smith of prosecutor Joshua Steinglass.

"All our legal experts, we have to address one key issue: There's two lawyers on that jury, Sandra, and they're going to neutralizes this unfairness exhibited by the judge, and this far range discretion by the prosecution. Those two lawyers not only have a ethical obligation to evaluate the facts, but they have an ethical obligation to make sure fairness takes place. And I'm telling you, unlike any other trial, you have two lawyers in there, and those two lawyers if they do the right thing, they'll see through this judge. They'll see through the politics, and they'll do the right thing. Those two lawyers are the key to a acquittal or a hung jury."

Terrell's comments come as the prosecution team continues its closing arguments Tuesday, which they said will last hours longer.

The prosecutors just said that they are only a third the way through. Yikes. It that is true we are looking at four more hours. The final judgment could be accomplished in half that time.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor

The court took a 10-minute break late Monday afternoon.

Criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh said former pornography star Stormy Daniels is not a "major player" in the NY v. Trump case.

"I don't think stormy Daniels is a major player in this case, in that all right, he either had an affair with her or he didn't, that was her testimony," Eiglarsh said Tuesday on Fox News.

"Was he wearing boxers on a bed? Who cares. That all came up in a fraud trial? It shouldn't have. Now who's to blame for that? I don't think it's this judge. I know everyone wants to blame this judge. In an ideal world, those details shouldn't come in. But as the judge explained, the minute the defense challenged whether the affair occurred or not, that's when the door got opened to a lot of the detail because the defense is saying it didn't happen. So how do you prove it? With detail. So I don't necessarily blame the judge. But I can tell you that stuff should not have come into evidence in this case," Eiglarsh continued

Steinglass is now making offensive use of David Pecker’s non-prosecution agreement. He is highlighting it, showing it on the screen, harping on it. Under these circumstances, how could Merchan’s bland instruction that the non-pros agreement is not admissible against Trump have any impact on the jury? The jury has to think that if this evidence wasn’t important, the judge wouldn’t have let us hear it again and again and again.

-- Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Trey Gowdy on "Sunday Night in America"/Fox News

At what point does it become a due process violation to not know the crime, the elements, etc of that other crime, the jurisdiction to prosecute that crime? At least with other "additional crime" statutes many of those "additional" crimes are serially listed.

--Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Manhattan DA Bragg [is] proving and arguing “uncharged conduct.” But understand, Bragg claims it’s not uncharged because the business records felony statute calls for showing the defendant intended to conceal or commit “another crime.” So Bragg would say the Sajudin and McDougal NDAs are not uncharged conduct; they are part of the “conspiracy to influence the 2016 election by violating federal campaign law” which is the “other crime” referred to in the indictment.

-- Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Alvin Bragg speaking/Barry Williams/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Pecker and Cohen are "helping Mr. Trump get elected by squelching the Karen McDougal story.” Again, it’s not illegal to help Trump get elected by persuading KM, including by paying her money, not to go public with her story. Why is that not illegal? Because the obligation to pay McDougal does not arise out of the campaign (the way, say, polling costs or get-out-the-vote costs arise out of the campaign). Paying KM is a private expenditure to prevent embarrassment to Trump; it happens to have come up during the campaign because that gave McDougal leverage. But she could have threatened to go public for reasons having nothing to do with the campaign, and Trump would have had an incentive to pay her even if he wasn’t a political candidate. 

… But in this NY courtroom, the federal definition of what a campaign expenditure is makes no difference because Bragg is making up his own federal campaign law.

--Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Uncharged misconduct being argued to the jury with impunity.  But the conundrum is if you object and are overruled the jury pays more attention. You look like you are bothered or hurt by something.  Bad rulings prevent future objections.  But if the defense does object it should be a speaking objection so at least the jury knows what is going on. 

Eg. Objection Your Honor, nowhere is any of this charged against our client, nowhere.

-- Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

What is amazing about all this (among other things) is that Trump’s opponent in the 2016 election was Hillary Clinton. In the 1992, Hillary was a key participant in the Bill Clinton campaign’ catch-and-kill scheme — the Clinton campaign sought out women who claimed to have affairs with Bill Clinton so they could either buy them off or destroy their credibility … none of which was treated as campaign expenditures under federal law. 

-- Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

What if you don't pay to "kill" the information?  What if you just do what most politicians do which is swap out favors with reporters?  "You sit on this story and I'll be a source for you"?  Happens daily on Capitol Hill.  

-- Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor

Alvin Bragg/AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura

Steinglass is now going through the Dino Sajudin NDA for $30K. Says it was OVERT ELECTION FRAUD to promote Trump’s election by unlawful means. It was an illegal corporate campaign contribution.

The DA’s office is making up its own version of campaign law. And note: nothing in the indictment refers to anything about Sajudin. They are making up federal campaign law as they go along after giving the defense no notice in the indictment that this was part of the charges. 

The claim is that Trump caused Pecker/AMI to make an illegal corporate contribution under federal law … under circumstances where the Justice Department, which has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce FECA criminally, did not prosecute anyone over the Sajudin NDA. 

--Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

Prosector Joshua Steinglass says there is a "mountain of evidence" to convict former President Donald Trump in his closing arguments Monday.

Steinglass said that Trump's ex-lawer Michael Cohen had a day of reckoning, put his family first, came clean in describing facts of this case for 6 years. Steinglass said he testified before Congress in 2019, that he apologized to American people.

Steinglass added that the question for the jury is not whether they like Cohen, but if he has useful info for this case. “He was in the best position to know because he was the defendant’s right hand," Steinglass said.

He added that the defense wants to make the case about Cohen, but argued that it isn’t. That’s a deflection, Steinglass says, adding that the defense had Cohen on cross-examination for 3 days, but only asked 1 hour of question related to case.

This case is about Trump and if he made false business records to cover up election conspiracy, he continued.

Cohen is “like a tour guide through the physical evidence.” As insider, Cohen could connect dots, Steinglass argued.

Fox News' Maria Paronich contributed to this update.

Andy McCarthy/Fox News

Where we’re at so far:

1. The Manhattan district attorney has made up a property right supposedly vested in the “voting public” to politically damaging information about candidates. This is important on “intent to defraud” because there is no fraud unless there is a deceptive scheme to deprive someone of some property right.

2. Bragg has made up his own version of federal campaign finance law in which any expense which is intended to influence the outcome of the election — no matter whether the expense would have existed independent of the campaign — is a campaign expenditure that triggers FECA expenditure limits and reporting requirements. That is not the law, but Brad Smith was not permitted to testify and explain the law.

--Andy McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and FNC contributor

Jonathan Turley/Fox News

Steinglass just dismissed Cohen's admitted to grand larceny and is justifying Cohen selling merchandise and making money on Trump. "You can't blame him" because he has only this connection to sell. He is portraying Cohen like he is selling goods on the street to support his struggling family in their multimillion dollar Trump condo. His "struggles" amounts to earning millions in attacking Trump.

Now ...Steinglass is belittling his past perjury. He says Cohen has a little problem with taking responsibility. That is what the prosecutors are offering to excuse lying to the courts, Congress, his family, this client, and virtually every creature that has walked or crawled on the face of the Earth. So Steinglass, a prosecutor, is dismissing grand larceny, serial perjury, and other offenses.

-- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor

New York Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass just stressed that Michael Cohen pled guilty and the crime was committed at Trump’s direction.

Defense objection overruled.

Again: Cohen’s guilty plea is not admissible evidence against Trump. Judge Juan Merchan nevertheless allowing it to be used to establish that Trump has thus far escaped accountability for crimes that Cohen has been convicted of and committed at Trump’s direction.

-- Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and Fox News Channel contributor

REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

Defense attorneys for former President Donald Trump told the jury Tuesday he is innocent, did not commit any crimes, and declared that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg "did not meet the burden of proof. Period."

Defense attorney Todd Blanche delivered closing arguments Tuesday after a six-week-long historic and unprecedented criminal trial of a former President of the United States. 

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump pleaded not guilty. 

Prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. The former president has maintained his innocence.

"Each of you will decide at the end of this case whether President Trump is guilty or not guilty," Blanche said. 

"President Trump is innocent. He did not commit any crimes. The district attorney did not meet the burden of proof," Blanche said.

"Period." Blanche added that the case is "simple," and it is "not a guilty verdict." 

Read the entire article from Brooke Singman here.

Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney and Fox News contributor, appeared on America's Newsroom Monday saying that in the case N.Y. v. Trump "we still don't have difinity about what the crime is."

"We have situation where the statute doesn't perscribe clearly what the state says Trump did that makes him guilty, the indictment doesn't put him on notice of the [crime], we've had a five-week trial, five weeks of testimony after opening statements, we're right on the verge of summations and it's still not clear what they say he did," McCarthy said.

"It's like they're making up a crime as they go along." McCarthy added.

Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor, also joined the broadcasting, saying that the most likely outcome - in his view - is a hung jury.

"I still cannot believe that a jury can be unanimous on this evidence," Turley said.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump/REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

Presiding NY v. Trump trial Judge Juan Merchan reprimanded defense attorney Todd Blanche Tuesday for suggesting former President Donald Trump could face prison time if he is found guilty in the case.

"That was outrageous, Mr. Blanche. Someone who's been a prosecutor for as long as you have, someone who's been an attorney as long as you have knows that is highly inappropriate," Merchan told Blanche Tuesday, after the defense team wrapped up closing arguments, according to reports.

Jurors in criminal cases are typically instructed not to consider potential punishment for defendants when weighing a case.

Following Blanche's comments, Merchan granted the prosecution team's request for "curative instruction," which will "cure" Blanche's statement to the jury.

(Getty Images)

Defense counsel Todd Blanche concluded his closing arguments Tuesday afternoon. The jury was dismissed for a lunch break until 2:00 p.m. when the prosecution will being its closing arguments.

Blanche said Trump's ex-lawyer and key witness for the prosecution, Michael Cohen, is "the human embodiment of reasonable doubt."

"He lied to you repeatedly…he is biased and motivated…," Blanche told the jury.

Blanche said the kind of witness you want is one to tell truth. “Michael Cohen is the GLOAT he is the greatest liar of all time…his words cannot be trusted…all those lies put them to the side for just a moment, that is enough to walk away…."

He said Cohen lied to both Houses of Congress, federal judges, state judges, family. 

“You cannot send someone to prison based upon the words of Michael Cohen," he said.

Blanche added that this is not a referendum on election, but a verdict has to be reached based on evidence from witnesses and documents.  If you do that, Blanche said, this is a very quick and easy not-guilty verdict.

Fox News' Maria Paronich contributed to this update.

REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

Trump defense counsel Todd Blanche has repeatedly reminded the jury that government wants jury to believe Cohen. “What president Trump knew in 2016 - you know only from one source - that’s Michael Cohen.” 

Blanche is going through times Blanche says Cohen has lied to this jury. One example is the number of times he says he talked to Robert Costello. Cohen said it was about 10. But then then later, phone records were introduced that showed it was dozens and dozens of calls.  Now, he’s reminding jury about Cohen’s call to Trump's body guard, Keith Schiller.

During the trial, Blanche’s cross examination of Cohen about THE call to Schiller and whether it was about finalizing payment to Stormy Daniels for NDA. Blanche used texts to suggest it was about harassing phone calls from a 14-year-old. During that cross, Blanche’s voice grew louder, he was spoke more quickly.  

Now, again, he’s speaking in similar fashion. Faster, louder. To punctuate the issue.  Blanche also is acknowledging why the inconsistency about the call matters. “That is perjury,” says Blanche.  “Is that the biggest lie in the world? Maybe not.”

Blanche says. This goes to the heart of whether the alleged lie on the call matters. Blanche says it shows Cohen does not take the oath of the truth seriously.  

Blanche points out: He lied to his family. He lied to his wife. He lied to his banker.

-- Lydia Hu, Fox Business Network correspondent

(Getty Images)

Defense counsel for former President Trump, Todd Blanche, continued his closing arguments Tuesday saying the prosecutors have "no evidence" except for the testimony of "liar" Michael Cohen.

Blanche said that the question for the jury is if what happened with adult actress Stormy Daniels and the payment for her NDA was a conspiratorial arrangement.

Blanche says the Access Hollywood leaked tape is being set up by the prosecution as something it’s not. The prosecution made the argument that the leaked tape of Trump making lewd comments about women heightened the concern about the Stormy Daniels' story ending up in the news before the election. Blanche noted that Hope Hicks testified that Trump has concerned how the Daniels' story would affect his wife and family.

Blanche said the leaked tape was one of many stressful points in campaign, but Cohen had different view.  Cohen believed it to be catastrophic.

Blanche pointed out to the jury that Daniels did not testify at Grand Jury, but testified here at the trial to “inflame you emotions, to try and embarrass President Trump.”

Again, Blanche said the only person who told the jury that Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels payment was Cohen.

Blanche argues it made perfect sense for Cohen to make the payment in Oct. 2016 without telling Trump to get himself a new, fancy job.

Fox News' Maria Paronich contributed to this update.

A federal judge on Tuesday denied Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a gag order on former President Donald Trump in his classified documents case after defense attorneys called it "unconstitutional censorship.

"In an order, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found that Smith's prosecutors failed to properly confer with Trump's lawyers before filing the motion in violation of court rules. The judge said prosecutors did not give Trump's team "sufficient time" to review their motion, which was filed Friday evening on Memorial Day weekend.

"Because the filing of the Special Counsel's motion did not adhere to these basic requirements, it is due to be denied without prejudice," the judge said. 

Trump's attorneys on Monday accused the government of "unconstitutional censorship" in response to federal prosecutors asking the judge in his classified documents case for a gag order.

Read the full article from Chris Pandolfo here.

(Getty Images)

Before break, Blanche pointing out more witnesses we didn’t hear from Gina Rodriguez (Stormy Daniels ‘ agent) and Dylan Howard. What would they have testified about a conspiracy? Was this an effort to silence Stormy Daniels or was Daniels extorting Trump? We won’t know from Gina R and Howard.  Blanche is painting extortion theme here.

Blanche points to text message from Dylan Howard that says “nothing much pisses me off these days...” except Trump, texts say. Blanche says Howard hates Trump; Howard isn’t part of any conspiracy to help Trump. But when Gina Rodriguez and Stormy Daniels wanted to sell their story, Howard was willing to help Gina R and Stormy. 

They play the April 4, 2018 recording of the call between Keith Davidson and Cohen. On it, Keith Davidson can be heard telling Cohen that Stormy wanted the “case settled” meaning her story rights sold before the election; they believed that Trump was going to lose the election and her story would lose value. 

-- Lydia Hu, Fox Business Network correspondent

REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg

Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued before the jury Monday morning that adult actress Stormy Daniels' story that she had a sexual encounter with then-real estate mogul Donald Trump was already published in 2011 and that it did not cause panic ahead of the 2016 election.

The prosecution claimed that when Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for her payment to Daniels' to keep her story quiet that he did so to help his presidential campaign in 2016. Trump has denied the encounter ever happened.

Blanche said people wanted to take advantage and extort money from Trump – Stormy, her attorney, Keith Davidson and her agent, Gina Rodriguez.  He said even Cohen believed it was an attempt to extort money from Trump.

Blanche said that at the time, Cohen was very worried about his future – what he would be doing if Trump won or lost, and that the campaign was not happy.  He says Cohen made this decision. He said Cohen is the only one who said Trump knew about the payment, “and you cannot, cannot believe his words.” Blanche earlier in the morning reminded the jury that Cohen had "lied" to them.

Blanche says Stormy and Davidson wanted to make money on the story.  As it relates to the charges in the case, the story was already public, so it did not cause panic in 2016.

Fox News' Maria Paronich contributed to this update.

The Trump campaign on Monday slammed the Biden-Harris press conference in New York City where actor Robert De Niro criticized the former president and his supporters

"After months of saying the politics had nothing to do with this trial, they showed up and made a campaign event out of a lower Manhattan trial day for President Trump. In fact, Biden's cronies had a printed out campaign sign saying Biden, Harris. So why the change?" Jason Miller, senior advisor to the Trump campaign told reporters Tuesday in Manhattan.

"President Trump's numbers continue to rise. And the best that Biden can do is roll out a washed up actor," Miller said.

"Last week, President Trump spoke in the Bronx where at over 25,000 people show up to rally around him. And the best the Biden campaign could do was put out a Web video with Robert De Niro. There is nothing behind the Biden campaign. Their numbers are in the toilet. Kamala Harris is a terrible alternative and it's all an attempt to try to turn around the Biden campaign," Miller said.

"This is all politics. If you don't think there's politics, why did the Democrats wheel out a retread like Robert De Niro to try to change the subject? You can see the look on the Biden campaign staffers faces. They knew this was a bad idea," he said .

(Getty Images)

And as Blanche goes after Cohen, he has to walk a fine line.  Remember, President Trump’s detractors will say – if this guy who was one of his closest employees/confidants was also very shady and underhanded – why did Trump put so much trust in him?  Does that say something about the defendant and his judgment about who was surrounding him and handling his issues? Was this guy in Trump’s employ BECAUSE he was able to get shady things done? 

Blanche also weaving in the frustrations Cohen had (the lower bonus) and going back over the calculations that lead to the admission that Cohen took more money than he was owed.  Again, planting the seeds that Cohen:  1.  Felt vengeful (which his testimony has only bolstered) and 2. That he cheated his own boss. 

-- Shannon Bream, “Fox News Sunday” anchor and chief legal correspondent

Actor Robert De Niro spoke at a press conference for the Biden-Harris campaign in New York City nearby the Manhattan courtroom where closing arguments are underway in the case N.Y. v. Trump, accusing the former president of "sowing chaos."

"I love this city. I love this city. I don't want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country. And eventually he could destroy the world," De Niro said.

De Niro took swipes at Trump and his supporters. As he spoke, he was shouted down by protestors.

"Imean, this is really...even these people over here have you know...it's kind of crazy. It's really crazy. And this this thing, Donald Trump has created this. He should be telling them not to do this," De Niro said.

"He want he wants to sow total chaos, which he's succeeding in some areas and places to do, he said.

De Niro was flanked by two police officers Michael Fanone and Harry Dunn, who defended the Capitol against January 6 rioters in 2021.

(Getty Images)

Todd Blanche, attorney for former President Donald Trump at the outset of his closing arguments hammered his points when Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-lawyer and star witness for the prosecution, lied to jury.  “Cohen lied to you. He lied to you,” Blanche said.  

Blanche said this when summarizing Cohen’s testimony about whether Cohen was doing work in 2017. Blanche says Cohen lied to jury when Cohen he was not doing work in 2017, that he would work for free and make money as a consultant.

Blanche highlighted Cohen testimony on Cross, that Cohen admitted that he was doing work in 2017. Blanche showed highlighted excerpts of the transcript from this trial to drive his points home.

Blanche also hammered the point that Cohen was rendering services as personal attorney in 2017, and that to that there is no dispute. Blanche is using experts from trial transcript blown up on the screen and highlighted to underscore that Cohen was dealing with outstanding legal matters in 2017.

-- Lydia Hu, Fox Business Network correspondent

Trump attorney Todd Blanche is using a visual with the jury that appears aimed at making this case as simple as possible.  At the top of the screen it says “Invoices – sent by Cohen” with an arrow pointing to the next heading “Vouchers – Accounting Department” and then an arrow to the final heading “Checks – Accounting Department”.   The obvious aim is to create a path for these payments that never directly involves Pres Trump.  Of course, he signed them at some point, but the argument is that he never directed these payments along their path.

--Shannon Bream, “Fox News Sunday” anchor and chief legal correspondent

Blanche is boiling the case down to its essence. Telling the jury this case is about documents. “it is paper case.” It is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels. He is making this case simple – saying with respect to documents, you only need to make two determinations. First, whether documents contain false entries. Second, whether president acted with intent to defraud. Blanche says, he’s starting here because you don’t need to go further. Blanche is setting the table to drive home the point that documents were not falsified. If a juror agrees, there is no need to consider whether there was an intent to commit an underlying crime. 

-Lydia Hu, FBN correspondent

Judge Juan Merchan added that he asked the parties to get back to him with responses to his jury instructions if they found errors or had further arguments. Merchan says no one got back to him

.--Lydia Hu, FBN correspondent

This is why those jury instructions are so important. The judge reminds the jury – HE is the one who tells them what the law is. The lawyers are to stick to facts/evidence. Judge Merchan reiterated this with counsel this morning, admonishing the lawyers not to instruct the jury on points of law.

--Shannon Bream, “Fox News Sunday” anchor and chief legal correspondent

Former President Trump arrived to the Manhattan courthouse for his New York criminal trial on Tuesday, speaking briefly to reporters outside the courtroom.

The trial resumes Tuesday with both the prosecution and defense offering their closing arguments, which judge Juan Merchan says will last the entire day. Trump argued that the verdict in the case could be a "dangerous day for America."

Merchan also must hand down a ruling on a motion to dismiss from the defense. Trump's legal team had filed the motion last week, but Merchan did not address it.

Trump was joined at the courthouse by Eric Trump, Don Jr., Tiffany Trump and Laura Trump.

In order to convict the former president, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik filed an ethics complaint against Judge Juan Merchan, alleging the judge overseeing former President Trump's trial could have a conflict of interest when it comes to his daughter's role at a firm that represents Democratic politicians. 

Merchan’s daughter serves as the president of Authentic Campaigns, while Stefanik noted in the complaint that the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct "privately cautioned him in July over his illegal political donations to Biden and Democrats in 2020."

Stefanik further argued that Merchan should recuse himself from the trial, noting a "clear conflict of interest, based upon his adult daughter’s financial state in this unprecedented criminal trial, has badly damaged the court’s appearance of impartiality."

"I request that you investigate his conduct and impose whatever discipline is required," Stefanik said.

Trump defense attorneys have made a second attempt to dismiss the case and said no evidence had been presented by the prosecution to connect the former president to any falsification of business records.

Judge Juan Merchan still has not announced his decision on the matter. 

Defense attorneys motioned for dismissal after Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and the prosecution’s "star witness," finished his testimony. 

Cohen testified that he personally made the $130,000 payment to Daniels using a home equity line of credit in an effort to conceal the payment from his wife. Cohen said he did this because Trump told him to "handle it" and prevent a negative story from coming out ahead of the election.

But Trump’s defense attorneys maintained that the president never directed Cohen to do so.

Cohen testified that he was "reimbursed $420,000" for the $130,000 he paid to Daniels. Cohen said former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg suggested he "gross up" the payments and that Trump knew the details of the reimbursement.

The prosecution presented Cohen with 11 checks totaling $420,000. Cohen confirmed that they were all received and deposited. The checks had a description of a "retainer," which Cohen said was false.

But Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche asked for an immediate order of dismissal, saying there is "no evidence" that the filings or business records at the center of the case were false, that there are "absolutely no false business filings." 

Blanche said there is no dispute that Cohen acted as a personal attorney for Trump in 2017 and that there is no evidence or intent by Trump to mislead, hide or falsify business records.

Jury instructions are instructions that are given to jurors and written by the judge for jury deliberation in a case.

At trial, jury instructions are given to jurors after evidence has been presented and closing arguments have been made. Those instructions are given to the jury prior to their deliberation in deciding a case.

Jury instructions, according to Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), are “the only guidance the jury should receive when deliberating and are meant to keep the jury on track regarding the basic procedure of the deliberation and the substance of the law on which their decision is based.”

Additionally, the LII states that attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense will propose jury instructions to the judge at the end of the trial that often seek specific phrasing that is advantageous to their client. However, the judge has final say over the instructions as to what content and phrasing is used throughout.

Judges who notice a flaw in the instructions may correct them “sua sponte,” Latin for “of one’s own accord,” meaning the court took notice of the flaw without being made aware of it by either party.

If the instructions are corrected, jurors are told to dismiss any previous instructions they were given.

Should an attorney oppose jury instruction, they may issue an appeal. The appeal, however, is unlikely to be granted in most cases due to certain models and standards that are used in today’s time for crafting jury instructions.

Robert Costello is a former legal adviser to Michael Cohen who recently testified in former President Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan Criminal Court.

Costello, a former federal prosecutor, criticized Cohen as a “serial liar” to a grand jury last year.

The courtroom became tense during his testimony last Monday, with Judge Juan Merchan ordering the media and jurors out of the room after Costello audibly and visibly disapproved of the judge's rulings that sustained multiple objections from the prosecution team.

Merchan accused Costello of acting “contemptuous,” and warned him not to roll his eyes or react to his rulings. Before the jury returned to the courtroom, Merchan asked Costello, "Are you staring me down?"

Trump’s lawyers had been hoping that Costello’s testimony would undermine Cohen as a witness.

He testified that Cohen told him that Trump knew nothing of the $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. But Cohen told the jury he did not tell Costello about Trump’s knowledge of the scheme because he did not trust him.

The FBI said the direction for Department of Justice agents to use "deadly force" in the raid on former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate "followed standard protocol."

An operations order for the Mar-a-Lago raid included a policy for the "Use of Deadly Force," which stated, "Law Enforcement officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force when necessary."

Trump posted about the order on his TruthSocial account, claiming that the Biden administration "AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE."

"WOW! I just came out of the Biden Witch Hunt Trial in Manhattan, the “Icebox,” and was shown Reports that Crooked Joe Biden’s DOJ, in their Illegal and UnConstitutional Raid of Mar-a-Lago, AUTHORIZED THE FBI TO USE DEADLY (LETHAL) FORCE. NOW WE KNOW, FOR SURE, THAT JOE BIDEN IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO DEMOCRACY. HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO HOLD OFFICE — 25TH AMENDMENT!" Trump said last week.

The FBI quickly responded to the claim, saying that the operations order was “a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force.” 

A person familiar with the investigation into Biden's handling of classified documents after his departure as vice president confirmed that the statement regarding the use of deadly force was also included in the operations order for the searches at Biden’s Delaware residences.

Chuck Zito, an actor and an early leader within the outlaw motorcycle club the Hells Angels, was one of the latest allies of former President Trump to appear at Manhattan Criminal Court in a show of support last week.

Zito helped found the New York Nomads chapter of the Hells Angels, according to the New York Times.

In 2009, the Department of Justice described the Hells Angels as being involved in “murder; the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine; the distribution of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana; the purchase and sale of firearms; and other criminal activities.”

Zito also reportedly served six years in federal prison on a felony drug charge.

He told Fox News host Jesse Watters that he and Trump “go back a long time,” estimating they knew each other for roughly four decades.

“I will always support him. He is the greatest president of my lifetime,” Zito said.

Judge Juan Merchan is expected to bring jurors back into court Tuesday morning to hear closing arguments in New York v. Trump from Manhattan prosecutors and defense attorneys for former President Trump in his unprecedented criminal trial. 

The jury has been away from the courtroom for a week, after the evidentiary portion of the trial concluded last Tuesday. Due to scheduling conflicts and the Memorial Day holiday, the jury will return at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday to hear summations of the case from prosecutors and defense attorneys before deliberating on a verdict.

The Manhattan case, brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg against Trump turned testy last Monday when defense attorneys made a second attempt to dismiss the case, saying no evidence had been presented by the prosecution to connect the former president to any falsification of business records.

Merchan still has not announced his decision on the matter. 

Prosecutors needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, a pornographic performer, in the lead-up to the 2016 election to silence her about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

The former president has maintained his innocence.

Merchan said he expects closing arguments will take the entire day Tuesday, and has asked jurors if they are able to stay late. It is possible closing arguments continue into Wednesday.

This is an excerpt from an article by Fox News' Brooke Singman