Opening statements are crucial in some senses for many jurors. They'll say that's what made up their mind. Right. They hear at the beginning. And then that becomes confirmation on what they heard when when the witnesses go. So this matters a lot. So let's start with the prosecution. They go first. Prosecution lawyer goes for 46 minutes. So I'm just going to pick one line. But it was 46 minutes. One operative line from the transcript. Donald Trump orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again. Did they do a good job? I thought so for a number of reasons. Let's talk about that. To your point, Erin, I think opening statements are simply a preview of what the evidence will show. But you have to maintain credibility and giving that indication to the jury. Most good lawyers will do what the prosecution did do. And the defense in some measure, which is under-promise and overdeliver. And I think what the prosecution's point of view was and they said it in terms of your theory of the case, conspiracy and a cover up. Now, conspiracy is not charged. That has legal significance, conspiracy to want more people engaging in illegal acts. But it kind of is. And here's why. What happens is, is that from the prosecution's perspective, this was part of an enterprise orchestrated by Trump to interfere with the election. And how did they do that? They did that by virtue of this payment that was indeed reimbursement, says the prosecution, and they had nothing to do with a retainer agreement. And then they talked about the cover up. Right. And so I think to the extent that they put that narrative out there, they being the prosecution, they did their job in wrapping up what they're going to show over and over 34 times again as to these fraudulent business records and the intent and purpose, which was to interfere with the election. And 34, because obviously there was a payment to Stormy Daniels and that which Michael Cohen says he he made or he did make. And then Trump this is how that reimbursement was broken up. So we've got every single one of those checks there. As a former prosecutor in the Southern District of New York. You really understand the players and what's at stake here. So that this conspiracy that they're trying to talk about here with with Trump, they say it all begins with a meeting with Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and David Pecker, the three individuals that we're talking about today before Trump even announced the campaign. And they say in this opening statement that they, quote, formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to get him elected. And then they continue. And this was interesting. We will never know. And it doesn't matter if this conspiracy was the difference maker in a close election. Obviously, this all came to fruition two weeks before the election. After that, grab them by the tape and you had this this Stormy Daniels revelation, which we didn't know about at the time because of all of this. Did they do a good job? Listen, I think they have a their purpose here is to present this roadmap and to present a few themes that the jurors are going to take with them throughout this trial. Frankly, I think the research shows that jurors really don't retain much more than those few central themes. So they need to hit those particular themes over and over again. I think the prosecution had to explain the why. I mean, the what is really not in question. Both sides sort of agree to some of the basic facts of what happened here. But they had to explain the why and they did that effectively. I think 46 minutes was probably too long. I doubt they had the jurors attention for that long. They probably could have done it in half that time. Well, 46 minutes does sound like a long time. You know, when you tell people giving a best man speech or whatever, you know, you say shorter is better. In this case, though, Aaron, I mean, 46 minutes, I wish I could keep my openings to 46, which is a lot to get out there. I think it was short in the context of, you know, what they had to explain. All right. So, Jeremy, you were there. So what was Trump's reaction during the prosecution's opening statement and to this point about being 46 minutes, how engaged was he throughout? What was most interesting with the former president was just how much he was not reacting to what was going on. You know, we had the prosecutor, we had Matthew Colangelo. He was bringing up a lot of illicit things that Trump is alleged to have done. He brought up the affair with a Playboy playmate, the affair with a porn star. He brought up the Access Hollywood tape. And throughout all of that, Trump was not reacting. He was sitting back in his chair, his eyes with close to time to time. And I think it's felt like he was making a point not to react to it. Passed notes to his attorneys. He was there was sort of a note passing thing, and particularly when the Access Hollywood tape we know to him and Todd Blanche were sending notes between the two of them. But it's obviously different than what we've seen Trump in other courtrooms. And even earlier in this case that morning in the morning, we had we talked about what the prosecutors would be able to bring into evidence if Trump testifies. And when the judge said that he would allow them to ask about the civil fraud verdict that came earlier this year, Trump shook his head at that. This was before the jury came in with the jury in there today as these things were being brought up, Trump was very stoic and interesting. So it's almost as if he really does know that is the audience now that matters, it seems. It certainly seems that it is passing. So, Stacy, you're criminal defense attorney and of course, you were a former contestant on The Apprentice. So you I mean, you've got both a personal and a professional perspective on this. What did you see on the prosecution? Yes. So I saw it was a smooth and solid opening statement, but I think they missed a really big opportunity. Michael Cohen is the elephant in the room in this case. And he's got a prior conviction. He pled guilty in 2018 in federal court, among other charges to illegal campaign contributions. And he said out loud in court, I did this at the direction of Donald Trump. And that admission is the key of this case. And I think the prosecution should have honed down on that here and brought out to the jury. They said to them, here are all the bad things Michael Cohen did. We're letting you know now. But you're going to see at the end of the case that you should credit his testimony in this courtroom. And what they missed out doing is saying to the jury, people don't plead guilty to things they didn't do. So Michael Cohen is going to be believable. He took a three year jail sentence for this alleged scheme. Trump is saying it's an alleged scheme. Michael Cohen was saying it happened so they could have tackled the beast because Trump is going to come out and say immediately, Michael, Mike, Trump's lawyers and when Michael Cohen gets on the stand and cross-examination, you're a liar, you're a convicted liar. You've lied over and over again. And the D.A. needs to have Michael Cohen say, which he will. It's part of his testimony. I may have lied at other times, but I'm not lying here because I pled guilty to doing this. I didn't even go to trial. Yeah, why would I lie about that? That's the one point I would make to that is I think they strategically, in my view, avoided that. I think there were two reasons that they did that. Excellent point you make, and I get it. But I think they were in that room fighting. Should we should we? I think the first reason is you don't want to put overreliance upon his testimony. Yes. He's the elephant in the room, but we're going to prove this case not because of Michael Cohen. And the second thing is, I think they'll be able to prove it up with other witnesses, with text messages, with mails, with audios that are not reliant upon him. So he doesn't become the central rex. I think they strategically want it to pivot such that it's not all about Michael Cohen when he is ravaged, which he will be in his perjurer. You lied to Congress, you lied here. They're going to be like, So what about the emails? What about the text? That's right. What about the audio? What about everything else? That's why we're not relying upon which is going to be fascinating. Watch what else they do bring to your point. And Michael Cohen, when I've talked to him, he says they do have all that other information. But he views himself in a sense as additive. Not not the only way that you would get to this conclusion. They say, oh, they do, but I'm sorry. I was just going to say that the the linchpin in this case are the payments to Michael Cohen as an attorney. And those clips, we just had a Trump's press conference today when he came out of court. He's previewing to to the world. This is what my attorneys are going to be saying. This is all worked out behind the scenes before we go to court. He's saying Michael Cohen was is an attorney. It was very odd that he said that today. Michael Cohen, it was an attorney. He submitted an invoice and they put the payment to him on the books. And when he said they I think he was referring to the Trump organization so he could distance himself like he knew nothing about this. The problem with Donald Trump doing that is and this is in the indictment and the DEA said this in their opening statement, Donald Trump signed the checks to Michael Cohen and allegedly they came out of the Donald J. Trump account. So the whole press conference was a bit of a I think a PR disaster because it's going to hurt him in court eventually in front of the jury. And he came out. He does that 8 minutes. Jeremy talking, of course, in the courtroom. You know, what else did you do? I know you mentioned that he was passing notes to his attorneys at time that he was engaged. You know, what were what words, interactions like with his team and with the jury. Yeah, It's interesting because when his attorney, Todd Blanch, went to speak, Trump's demeanor, it shifted. He turned his chair. He faced he faced him, which made him face the jury. And he watched as he went through his opening statement. I think the most interesting thing with Trump today, though, was when David Pecker took the stand, because Trump, he was sitting very motionless, expressionless, really watching David Pecker closely. And there was a light moment in his testimony when he was asked to recount the last four digits of his cell phone number for record keeping purposes. But he fumbled with the answer and it caused a laugh. David Pecker, He let out this very big laugh that caused laughter in the courtroom and Trump, His attorneys were laughing, but he was sitting there expressionless, just stone faced, forward looking at the witness. So I'll give you a final word on that. What do you make of that? I mean, he is well aware now that everything you know, I'm sure he's well aware of every comment people make on Twitter about what he did, whether he fell asleep or anything like that. This seems to be that he is when he turns to the jury what he looks like. Very calculated. Yeah. I mean, if his lawyers are doing their job correctly, they are coaching him on that part of it and they are doing everything they can to try to control his demeanor, his facial expressions, his utterances, has no passing all of that stuff in the courtroom there. They will not be able to do that outside of the courtroom, but they're doing the best job they can to control that within the courtroom. Right. And clearly, he's decided it's in his interest for now. Right. Figures to be, quote unquote, controlled. All right. Thanks, all of you very much.
