Connect with us

Politics

Litman: Trump's hush money trial is about to go to the jury. What's the most likely verdict?

Published

on

Litman: Trump's hush money trial is about to go to the jury. What's the most likely verdict?

After 20 days, 22 witnesses and intermittent courtroom fireworks, the evidence in Donald Trump’s New York hush money trial is all in. The case will soon be in the hands of the jury.

Who holds the advantage at this critical juncture? My assessment, after attending much of the trial in person, is that it’s the prosecution’s case to lose.

With the standing caveat that it takes only one juror to block a unanimous guilty verdict — and that the law puts the greatest burden on prosecutors — the case as it has come in puts the district attorney’s office in the driver’s seat going into next week’s closing arguments.

The prosecution’s essential achievement was to provide a compelling, credible narrative that points toward only one plausible conclusion: that Trump is guilty as charged.

The defense, by contrast, took a scattershot approach focused on undermining the credibility of any and all of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney and fixer. But what Trump’s lawyers didn’t do is provide a counternarrative, a story compelling enough to leave jurors with a reasonable doubt as to which explanation of the facts is true.

Advertisement

Providing such a competing story isn’t the defense’s legal obligation, of course. The judge will instruct the jurors that if they have any reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case, they should vote to acquit.

But my experience as a trial lawyer suggests a difference between freestanding doubt about one or more witnesses and a broader doubt about the rationale behind the charges — an alternative plotline that jurors might find believable. That’s the kind of defense being presented on behalf of Sen. Robert Menendez, for example, who is arguing that his wife is the guilty party.

From the first day of testimony, the prosecution has presented a tight, persuasive tale. It begins with an August 2015 meeting involving Trump, Cohen and tabloid executive David Pecker — who explained it to the jury from the stand — in which the parties agreed on a scheme to smother negative stories about Trump.

And sure enough, before the next year’s election, a series of scandal-mongers required neutralizing to insulate Trump from political damage. These episodes are akin to Acts II and III of the script, falling into place along the tracks that the Pecker testimony laid.

Hope Hicks’ testimony was brief but powerful given her longtime loyal service to Trump and her obvious candor notwithstanding her reluctance to harm her former boss, which seemed to cause her to break into tears. She confirmed in dramatic terms that Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s then-chief financial officer, would not have cooked up the scheme to pay off the adult-film actor Stormy Daniels without Trump’s say-so.

Advertisement

The prosecution effectively corroborated in advance most of what would come from its last and most important witness, Cohen. At the same time, the prosecutors encouraged their own witnesses to disparage Cohen, lowering expectations before he took the stand.

When he did, Cohen was low-key, responsive and agreeable. With a few exceptions, he accepted the insults the defense served up, accounting for most of the discrepancies in his story by explaining that he had been telling the truth since he left the Trump fold.

A couple of low points in Cohen’s testimony got a lot of attention, and it’s natural for the media to zero in on dramatic moments. But the jury is more likely to evaluate the evidence in the context of the whole narrative and a witness’ general comportment.

Most important, jurors, like all of us, make overall judgments about credibility, which is the heart and soul of the jury system. Taking the measure of the people before them, they decide whether their accounts are basically trustworthy, notwithstanding the defects of the messengers. And all the stories in this case — not just Cohen’s but those of other flawed witnesses such as Pecker and Daniels — cohere and ring true.

It follows that the impertinence of Robert Costello, a defense witness who muttered in disagreement with Judge Juan M. Merchan’s rulings, probably caught the jury’s attention more than the flaws in Cohen’s largely even presentation — especially once Merchan forcefully rebuked Costello’s buffoonish grandstanding.

Advertisement

The prosecution’s cross-examination of Costello and redirect of both Cohen and Daniels were crisp, clear, textbook demolitions of the defense’s points. Trump’s team was more meandering and given to stray potshots, missing more than they hit.

I think the defense still has one largely overlooked escape hatch: the arcane legal instructions for deciding the felony charges. The charges require the prosecution to prove that Trump caused the alleged falsification of documents to further another crime. Prosecutors have offered up three different candidates for that other crime, each of which has flaws. I could see the jury, which includes two lawyers, considering the legal instructions very carefully and finding that the district attorney came up short. And in any event, the issue is sure to figure in an appeal.

But any appeal feels a millennium away. By the time that transpires, Trump will either be president, giving him extensive options for evading accountability, or a losing candidate facing three other criminal trials. This trial looks increasingly likely to be the only opportunity for a jury to decide for the first time whether a former president is a criminal. Going into the final act, I like the chances that he will be found guilty.

Harry Litman is the host of the “Talking Feds” podcast and the Talking San Diego speaker series. @harrylitman

Advertisement

Politics

Federal judge scorches Dems for pandering to Latinos with California map in fiery dissent

Published

on

Federal judge scorches Dems for pandering to Latinos with California map in fiery dissent

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge criticized the process by which California’s voter-approved congressional map to redraw districts to favor Democrats in a dissenting opinion, saying the state engaged in “racial gerrymandering.”

Judge Kenneth Lee noted his concerns about race being a factor in his dissent as a panel of judges voted 2-1 to uphold the map.

“California sullied its hands with this sordid business when it engaged in racial gerrymandering as part of its mid-decade congressional redistricting plan to add five more Democratic House seats,” Lee wrote. 

“We know race likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell, the mapmaker who drew the congressional redistricting map adopted by the California state legislature,” he added. 

Advertisement

DOJ ACCUSES DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN ARM OF OBSTRUCTION IN LAWSUIT OVER CALIFORNIA REDISTRICTING

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during an election night press conference at a California Democratic Party office Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo)

The court rejected a claim by Republicans that the map approved as part of Proposition 50 violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing maps to favor Hispanic and Latino voters.

READ THE COURT ORDER – APP USERS, CLICK HERE:

The decision allows California to use the map, which could give Democrats more House seats. The California Republican Party said it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency injunction. 

Advertisement

“The well-reasoned dissenting opinion better reflects our interpretation of the law and the facts, which we will reassert to the Supreme Court,” California GOP Chairwoman Corrin Rankin said in a statement. “The map drawer’s plain statements acknowledging that he racially gerrymandered the Proposition 50 maps, which he and the legislature refused to explain or deny, in addition to our experts’ testimony, established that the courts should stop the implementation of the Prop 50 map. We look forward to continuing this fight in the courts.” 

REPUBLICANS PUSH BACK OVER ‘FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM’ IN BLOCKBUSTER REDISTRICTING FIGHT

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a “Yes On Prop 50” volunteer event at the LA Convention Center in Los Angeles. (Getty Images)

Lee noted that mapmaker Paul Mitchell refused to appear before the panel, but had allegedly publicly boasted to his political allies that he drew the map to “ensure that the Latino districts.”

“In embarking on a mid-decade redistricting plan to create more Democratic-friendly districts, California relied on race to create at least one Latino-majority congressional district,” he wrote. “To be clear, as the majority explains, California began its mid-cycle redistricting attempt after Texas initiated its own redistricting in favor of Republicans. But that larger partisan goal does not negate that California’s Democratic state legislature sought to maintain and expand a racial spoils system.”

Advertisement

Prop 50 was the result of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders asking voters whether the state should redraw congressional lines by targeting five Republican strongholds. 

The move was a countermeasure to Texas’ efforts to send more Republicans to the House. 

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed,” Newsom said in a statement. “California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 – to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas – and that is exactly what this court concluded.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also launched a redistricting push in his state. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

House maps are typically redrawn every 10 years following the census, and the process rarely takes place mid-decade.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Sinkewicz contributed to this report. 

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act to quell protests in Minneapolis

Published

on

Trump threatens to use the Insurrection Act to quell protests in Minneapolis

President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act Thursday as part of his immigration crackdown, blaming politicians in Minnesota who have opposed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ presence in the city and decried their violence against protesters.

“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

The president made his threat a day after a federal immigration officer shot a Minneapolis man in the leg. The agency said the man attacked federal officers with a shovel and a broom as they tried to complete a targeted traffic stop.

If Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, he could deploy federal troops to the state.

Protests have intensified in the Minnesota city in the last week since an ICE agent shot Renee Good, a local woman who was part of a group observing ICE activity, in the head.

Advertisement

Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was killed as she took part in an “ICE watch” protest documenting federal immigration activity, after three ICE agents surrounded her SUV on a snowy street.

Bystander videos shows one immigration officer ordering Good out of the vehicle and grabbing the door handle as another agent, Jonathan Ross, positions himself in front of her vehicle. As she begins to move the SUV forward, Ross raises his weapon and fires at least three shots at close range.

Ross suffered internal bleeding to his torso from the encounter, according to a statement from Homeland Security officials provided to the Associated Press.

“I would say that our agent is beat up, he’s bruised, he’s injured, he’s getting treatment,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters Thursday, saying the agency was “thankful that he made it out alive.”

Video from the incident showed Ross curse at Good after shooting her then walking away from the incident.

Advertisement

After Good was fatally shot, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, told ICE to “get the f— out of Minneapolis” and dubbed federal claims that its officers killed Good in self defense “bulls—.” Still, he has urged residents to act peacefully, warning them Trump could call in the military.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has also spoken out against ICE and earlier this week, the state’s Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, asking the court to block the surge of Homeland Security agents into the state and declare it unconstitutional and unlawful.

“Over the last week, we’ve seen federal agents arresting, threatening, and using force against innocent bystanders,” Walz said Monday in a statement. “They have carried out enforcement actions in schools, at hospitals, and in one horrific instance shot and killed someone… This operation was never about safety, it’s a targeted political operation and Minnesota won’t stand for it.”

On Thursday, Noem singled out Walz for criticism, telling reporters outside the White House that the Minnesota governor is “still is not willing to work with our federal officers to bring peace to the streets of Minneapolis.”

The federal government had no plans to pull out of Minnesota, Noem said, noting she had discussed the Insurrection Act with Trump.

Advertisement

“He certainly has the constitutional authority to utilize that,” she said. “My hope is that this leadership team in Minnesota will start to work with us to get criminals off the streets.”

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche has also singled out Walz and Frey.

“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement,” he said on X. “It’s disgusting. Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”

The Insurrection Act, established in 1807, is a federal law that allows a president to deploy the military domestically to suppress in specific circumstances, such as civil disorder, an insurrection, or armed rebellion against the federal government.

If Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, he would be empowering the military to make arrests and perform searches on U.S. soil. In normal circumstances, the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law enacted after the Civil War, forbids active-duty federal forces to provide regular civilian law enforcement unless authorized by Congress or the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Advertisement

The president first threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act against protesters in the summer of 2020, but members of his Cabinet and military advisors blocked the move. In June 2025, he repeated the threat against protesters in Los Angeles as people took to the streets to protest ICE raids.

“The people who are causing the problems are bad people,” Trump told reporters then, “they are insurrectionists.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Hochul endorses legislation to allow New Yorkers to sue ICE agents: ‘Power does not justify abuse’

Published

on

Hochul endorses legislation to allow New Yorkers to sue ICE agents: ‘Power does not justify abuse’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is supporting legislation that would allow state residents to sue ICE agents for violating their constitutional rights.

The governor said on Tuesday during her State of the State address that she wants to allow New Yorkers to “hold ICE agents accountable in court when they act outside the scope of their duties.”

“This doesn’t interfere with lawful enforcement or public safety,” Hochul said. “It simply affirms a core truth: Power does not justify abuse. And if someone’s constitutional rights are violated here in the state of New York, I say they deserve their day in court.”

Last year, New York State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Assemblymember Micah Lasher proposed measures to allow private citizens to file lawsuits against federal officials who violate their constitutional rights.

Advertisement

REP RO KHANNA DEMANDS PROSECUTION OF ICE AGENT IN MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTING

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is backing legislation that would allow state residents to sue ICE agents for violating their constitutional rights. (Julia Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Lasher’s version cites Title 42, Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, which allows people to sue state and local officials for violating their rights. The proposal highlights that New York does not have a law in place allowing citizens to sue federal officials.

“Every day, ICE is terrorizing our communities & violating our civil rights. We must be able to hold them accountable,” Lasher, who is running for Congress, wrote on X, adding that he is glad Hochul is taking up his legislation.

Multiple states, including California, Massachusetts and New Jersey, have implemented similar laws allowing residents to sue federal officials.

Advertisement

Hochul also proposed other immigration guardrails, including a measure to require judicial warrants before ICE can conduct raids in sensitive locations like schools, churches and hospitals.

People march during a protest after the killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Getty Images)

Earlier this year, the Trump administration reversed a Biden administration policy barring immigration arrests in these sensitive locations.

The governor also announced that New York “will not allow the use of state resources to assist in federal immigration raids on people who have not committed serious crimes.”

Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin alleged in a statement to The Hill that Hochul “continues to smear law enforcement who are simply enforcing the rule of law and are putting their lives on the line to remove violent criminals from New York.”

Advertisement

ICE HEAD SAYS AGENTS FACING ‘CONSTANT IMPEDIMENTS’ AFTER MIGRANT SEEN RAMMING CARS WHILE TRYING TO FLEE

Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minnesota. (Getty Images)

McLaughlin also argued that there has been an increase in threats against federal law enforcement officers who she purports have shown “incredible restraint and professionalism in exhausting all options before any kind of non-lethal force is used.”

This debate has intensified after a recent incident in Minneapoliss, where Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by an ICE agent during an enforcement action. Protests followed in multiple cities, and Democrats and local residents have condemned the shooting and urged charges against the agent.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

The Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have defended the incident by arguing that it was a justified shooting.

Officials are also investigating a second ICE-involved shooting that happened in Minneapolis on Wednesday, as the mayor continues to demand that the agency leave the city and state.

Continue Reading

Trending