Defense Rests on Trump Hush Money Trial

The former President Donald Trump did not testify at his criminal trial stemming from a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels after all, as the defense rested its case Tuesday without calling him as a witness after legal experts cautioned taking the stand would have likely hurt his case. While I'm not a legal expert I do agree that it was best for him not to take the stand I mean it's not like there is anything new he can bring up and it would just open himself up to let the prosecutors tie him to other things, and further lie, and cheat to try and make him sound bad. So I agree with the defense resting the case on after attorney Robert Costello finished testifying.

The Trump ally sought to discredit testimony from ex-attorney Michael Cohen that tied Trump to the hush money scheme and I personally think he pretty much sank the entire case against TRUMP but this is New York and this is a rigged trial and so I don't think the chances are good no matter what that we will see a win here but an appeal if he shall lose this case I'm sure will be done swiftly in order to avoid any further actions by the state on this scam of a trial.

Trump’s lawyers said last week they still weren’t sure if he would testify, with Trump attorney Todd Blanche telling the judge no determination had yet been made on the issue. Trump boasted he was going to testify when the trial first got underway, telling reporters, “All I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there’s no case” and answering “yes,” but became more noncommittal in an April 26 interview with Newsmax, where he said only that he would testify “if it’s necessary.” 

While Trump had not publicly commented since then, his lawyer Alina Habba not representing him in this case told Fox News Monday the ex-president “wants to testify” but has to “listen to his attorneys,” and Blanche told the court the defense could rest its case as soon as Monday afternoon, which would be far too quick for Trump to testify.

Legal experts have strongly advised against Trump testifying, with attorney Norm Eisen saying on CNN the move would be “suicide” and Trump’s former attorney Tim Parlatore saying on CNN that it would “significantly increase” the likelihood that the ex-president would be convicted. 

Most criminal defendants do not testify on their own behalf during criminal trials, given the significant risk involved, and jurors cannot hold Trump’s decision not to testify against him.

Supreme Court denied Jack Smith’s motion vs Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday denied Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the review of the question of whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal case involving interference with the 2020 presidential election. The federal 2020 election trial may go beyond its currently planned start date of March 4 as a result of the high court’s decision. Earlier this month, Smith requested that the Supreme Court decided swiftly whether Donald Trump who is the Republican presidential frontrunner is totally immune from prosecution for so called crimes committed during his presidency.

This assertion has been pivotal to the defense strategy of Trump’s legal team. Following U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rejection of arguments claiming immunity from the indictment, it sought a stay on proceedings. The appeal is currently pending, so the case’s proceedings have come to a halt. Wednesday, attorneys for former Attorney General Ed Meese and two of the top constitutional scholars in the country filed a brief arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court must reject Smith’s petition against Trump because his appointment as special counsel is unconstitutional.

Their amicus brief contends that Smith’s representation of the United States in his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court is invalid due to his lack of authority. This is because Congress has not established the position he holds, and his appointment is in violation of the Constitution’s “Appointments Clause.” The filing alleges that U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland made an improper appointment of Smith to a non-existent office, for which Garland lacks the necessary authority, Breitbart noted. Meese, Steven Calabresi, the co-chairman of the Federalist Society, and Gary Lawson, a renowned constitutional law professor, contend that Congress alone has the authority to create federal positions like the one Smith is currently holding, and Congress has not used this power.



Although the Constitution establishes the positions of President and Vice President, Congress possesses exclusive authority to establish additional positions, as the Constitution stipulates that such positions must be “established by law.” The Congress had previously enacted legislation to grant authorization for a comparable role known as “independent counsel.” However, this statute lapsed in 1999. The lawyers claim that Garland is unable to assign a subordinate to perform tasks that Congress has not approved. Only an individual with the title of “officer” possesses the requisite level of authority.

While establishing the Department of Justice, Congress granted it specific powers through legislation. However, it did not authorize any office with the same level of authority as a U.S. Attorney, which Garland has bestowed upon Smith. The amicus brief further argues, “Even if one somehow thinks that existing statutes authorize the appointment of stand-alone special counsels with the full power of a U.S. Attorney, Smith was not properly appointed to such an ‘office.’” They contend that even if Congress authorized special counsels, anyone holding such authority would require presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

Additionally, the brief contended that Smith’s authority is comparable to that of a U.S. attorney, as he is a “principal officer” according to the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. This means that confirmation by a majority of the U.S. Senate is mandatory following his nomination by the president. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this Court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift, or Jeff Bezos,” they write. While the primary focus of these briefs is to argue against the Supreme Court granting Smith’s petition to transfer the case to the high court, their reasoning would require lower federal courts to dismiss Smith’s entire portfolio of prosecutions, including all pending charges against Trump.

During the presidency of Ronald Reagan, Meese served as Attorney General. Congress’s approval of independent counsel played a significant role during this time. Alina Habba, an attorney representing former President Donald Trump’s Save America PAC, is slamming Special Counsel Jack Smith for moving quickly to have the U.S. Supreme Court consider the federal criminal case involving the 2020 election and Trump’s immunity defense. The indictment accuses Trump of participating in criminal conspiracies to alter the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has sought to dismiss the charges by claiming that he has presidential immunity.

Smith has raised the matter with the nation’s top court, stating that it should be addressed before the D.C. Circuit’s decision and referencing the upcoming March 4 trial date for Trump. With the Supreme Court’s approval, Trump is now required to reply by December 20. After that, they will determine whether or not to accept the case. “There is some sort of real sense of urgency,” Habba said in an interview. “The only urgency that I can see is that there is an election in November 2024, and they can’t beat him.”

Habba said “everyone can see” what Smith is doing and said it “is election interference at its finest.” “They can’t beat him in the ballots, so they’re going to have to either, you know, lie, cheat, steal, or the newest, law fare, put him in jail, and tie him up,” she told Fox Business Network’s Larry Kudlow. Kudlow suggested that since Trump would have to sit in trial every day for the case, they don’t want him on the campaign trail.

Habba agreed and said, “It’s playing against them.” “He’s getting a lot of voters that he normally wouldn’t get because they’re seeing this and he is the victim of, all of a sudden, they’ve made him a victim of complete and utter election interference and law fare,” she said. Habba said she has faith in the Supreme Court because they “really take their office seriously, and we’ve seen that time and time again with that, especially recently.”