Connect with us

Politics

From confusing instructions to misleading summations, the Trump trial now in jury’s hands

Published

on

From confusing instructions to misleading summations, the Trump trial now in jury’s hands

The sound of laughter was revealing.

Inside the media room at the hush money trial, say those who were there, many of the reporters openly chuckled when the prosecutor took jabs at Donald Trump. They found that quite amusing.

For all the craziness surrounding the first criminal trial of a former president, the closing arguments – and the judge’s confusing instructions – packed some surprises. Now the media’s biggest challenge is filling air time and column inches – let’s bring in ex-jurors from other cases! – while waiting for the seven men and five women to deliver a verdict.

TRUMP STRATEGY: HITTING BLUE AREAS, COURTING MINORITIES AND UNFRIENDLY AUDIENCES

The consensus of those who were there is that Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, who has little experience in such cases, spoke in a monotone EXCEPT FOR OCCASIONALLY RAISING HIS VOICE. At least his summation lasted only three hours.

Advertisement

Josh Steinglass of the Manhattan D.A.’s officer was far more passionate and animated, but he spoke for an eye-glazing five hours. Who on earth thought that was a smart idea? The jurors clearly lost focus as he got into the weeds of calls and emails, then repeated much of it, and kept them there until 8 p.m.   

How much information is the jury supposed to absorb?

Former President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower on his way to Manhattan criminal court, Monday, April 15, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

That was equally true yesterday as Judge Juan Merchan spent an hour on the crucial jury instructions that only lawyers could love.

If someone testified falsely, you can disregard his entire account.

Advertisement

Michael Cohen, whose credibility was savaged by the defense, is an “accomplice.”

IT FEELS ‘HORRIBLE’ WAITING FOR JURY TO DELIBERATE: CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY

The jury can’t convict on Cohen’s word alone, but can use his testimony if it’s corroborated with other evidence.

The extent of the defendant’s participation doesn’t matter as long as there’s a “general intent to defraud.” Ah, but intent does not require premeditation.

The defendant must be found to have falsified business records or caused them to be falsified.

Advertisement

Former President Trump sits in the courtroom during his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 21, 2024, in New York City.  (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

As long as the jury agrees on the facts, they can use different reasoning, whether it applies to, say, election fraud or taxes. 

And the mystery crime that supposedly boosts this into felony territory? A violation of New York election law, about which we’d heard almost nothing.

Whew. Got that?

JUDGE MERCHAN ‘MUDDIED UP THE WATERS’ TO TRY AND MAKE TRUMP TRIAL A ‘VERY COMPLICATED CASE’: JUDGE JEANINE PIRRO

Advertisement

It comes down to the jurors just using their common sense.

Todd Blanche scored some points, such as branding Cohen the GLOAT (Greatest Liar of All Time). But he left several gaping holes.

The defense lawyer began by saying that Trump and Stormy Daniels have repeatedly denied that a sexual encounter took place in 2006. Well, Stormy did lie about it in exchange for the money from Cohen, but she just as obviously now insists there was a hookup, as she testified.

Blanche said the president may have been too busy to focus on the 11 reimbursement checks he signed for Cohen. He argued that there was no email showing a conspiracy – uh, even incompetent criminals who have seen a couple of mob movies know you don’t leave a paper trail.

Advertisement

Blanche said the National Enquirer didn’t engage in catch-and-kill deals with the Trump campaign – of course they did, while the term wasn’t used, and that was confirmed by David Pecker.

The biggest shortcoming: The Trump defense didn’t address the emails, texts, Signal messages and banking records that back up Cohen’s account – because they don’t have an alternative version of events.

Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, walks out of a Manhattan courthouse after testifying before a grand jury, in New York, United States on March 15, 2023.  ((Photo by Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images))

The prosecution tried to knock down Blanche’s argument that Cohen did legal work for Trump and his wife in 2017 which the president might have thought was legitimate. But Cohen devoted less than 10 hours to that work and, Steinglass said, had spent more time being cross-examined at the trial.

Yes, Cohen lied over the years, Steinglass said, yes he stole from the Trump Organization, but now he’s just a “tour guide” for the evidence. Right.

Advertisement

The prosecutor said Trump’s team had “shamed” Stormy and suggested her story has not changed over the years. Of course it has!

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES

Steinglass did rebut the argument that there was no panic as the media pursued the porn star after the “Access Hollywood” tape by citing Hope Hicks’ saying they all felt Trump could lose the election.

The most absurd moment for the prosecution came when he hypothetically reenacted a 90-second call in which Cohen claims he both complained about harassing calls from a 14-year-old and discussed the Stormy situation with Trump. Only took 46 seconds! But if you don’t buy that, Steinglass said, maybe Cohen got the date wrong.

Advertisement

Oh, and who in the Biden campaign thought it was a brilliant idea for Robert De Niro to show up at the courthouse and start slamming Trump?

Politics

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

Published

on

ActBlue CEO faces June 10 grilling after fundraising powerhouse allegedly misled Congress on foreign donations

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: The embattled head of a Democratic fundraising behemoth is headed for a congressional grilling next month over allegations of fraudulent donations on its platform.

ActBlue’s CEO Regina Wallace-Jones will testify in a public hearing before the House Administration Committee on June 10, a committee spokesman told Fox News Digital. 

Wallace-Jones’ agreement to testify comes as ActBlue faces mounting scrutiny over whether it misled Congress regarding foreign donations on its payment processing platform.

“Ms. Wallace-Jones allegedly misled our committee at the outset of our investigation into ActBlue’s fraud prevention standards,” House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said in a statement. “It’s past time we set the record straight and got answers for the American people. I look forward to hearing her testify.”

Advertisement

House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., holds a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 10, 2025. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)

DEM FUNDRAISING GIANT ACTBLUE ROCKED BY ALLEGATIONS IT MISLED CONGRESS ABOUT FOREIGN DONATIONS

The statement referenced an explosive report in The New York Times earlier this year that said ActBlue’s then-outside counsel warned Wallace-Jones in 2023 the group may have misrepresented facts to Steil’s committee about its vetting of potentially illegal foreign donations.

Under U.S. law, foreign nationals who are not lawful permanent residents are generally prohibited from donating to candidates seeking federal office or political action committees.

Steil previously requested that Wallace-Jones testify before his committee on May 19. The invitation was met with outrage from ActBlue’s lawyers, who dismissed the committee action as a “partisan attack.”

Advertisement

But Republicans have pointed to documents that ActBlue has allegedly withheld in response to subpoenas issued in 2025, which Steil has characterized as “deliberately incomplete.”

All five current or former ActBlue employees who appeared in depositions with the committee invoked their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination a combined 146 times, according to an interim staff report released in April by House Republicans.

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones, a delegate from California, wears a U.S.-flag themed outfit ahead of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago, Ill., on Aug. 19, 2024.

TEXAS AG PAXTON SUES DEM FUNDRAISING PLATFORM ACTBLUE, ALLEGING ‘FRAUDULENT AND FOREIGN DONATIONS’

The House Administration Committee has been probing ActBlue’s fraud prevention safeguards since 2023, when Steil’s panel investigated the group’s failure to require credit card verification value (CVV) when processing payments.

Advertisement

“Given ActBlue’s demonstrated history of misleading Congress, there is considerable reason to believe that ActBlue may have deliberately withheld this responsive material to impede our investigation,” Steil and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, wrote in a letter to Wallace-Jones in April.

In the letter, the senior Republicans also directed ActBlue to produce a trove of documents related to its vetting of political contributions from abroad.

Wallace-Jones has denied making false statements to Congress. The group’s lawyers have previously characterized the investigation as politically motivated and contended that ActBlue has been forthright with the committee.

Amid the GOP scrutiny, ActBlue has experienced a wave of resignations from senior legal and compliance staff.

An election countdown calendar hangs at the ActBlue fundraising office in Somerville, Mass. (Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The June hearing notice immediately follows the House Administration Committee advancing legislation to crack down on fraudulent political donations, including illegal contributions from foreigners. The campaign finance measure cleared Steil’s panel unanimously on Thursday. 

“It’s a positive sign that people are beginning to take this risk and this threat seriously,” the Wisconsin Republican told Spectrum News.

Continue Reading

Politics

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

Published

on

The Steyer campaign pays influencers. Their posts don’t always make that clear

In recent weeks, several social media influencers have popped up in online feeds touting the California gubernatorial campaign of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer.

Some complain about the price of gasoline. Others mention environmental concerns. One cites her newfound sobriety as evidence that people can change — a nod to Steyer’s self-proclaimed metamorphosis from hedge fund titan to scourge of big corporations.

“I did not expect the most progressive governor candidate to be a billionaire, but look at the policies you guys,” said one content creator on TikTok with the user name Jaz R. “Hear me out. I know Tom Steyer is a billionaire, but he also is for the people.”

The posts include direct-to-the-camera appeals, with personal details interwoven into messages of support for Steyer. An influencer goes for a stroll as onscreen text touts Steyer’s policies. Some seek to convey authenticity, if occasionally ham-fistedly; one influencer mispronounces Steyer’s last name.

Advertisement

What they do not include is a disclosure that their creators were paid by the Steyer campaign to produce the videos, according to a complaint filed this week with California’s Fair Political Practices Commission and a Times review of the posts.

The complaint alleges that the Steyer campaign failed to notify the influencers it hired of their obligation to inform their audience when their posts have been sponsored by the campaign.

California passed a law in 2023 requiring that influencers disclose if they have been paid to create promotional content for or against a candidate or ballot measure, one of the few jurisdictions in the country with such a requirement. There is no such requirement at the federal level.

“Every time there’s a new technology, you have to create legislation that requires them to disclose,” said state Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange), who sponsored the bill.

Violating the law doesn’t carry criminal, civil or administrative penalties, but the FPPC can take influencers who break the law to court and ask a judge to force them to comply.

Advertisement

The complaint was filed by two California women — political influencers themselves — who said they noticed a number of new accounts that suddenly started posting similar-sounding videos promoting Steyer earlier this month.

“They had the exact same language, they had the same talking points,” said Beatrice Gomberg, who worked with Kaitlyn Hennessy in their digital sleuthing efforts.

The FPPC did not comment on the complaint.

Steyer’s campaign appears to have relied on paid influencers more than any candidate for governor, according to the most recent campaign finance filings.

That spending represents only a small fraction of the massive campaign war chest Steyer has seeded with nearly $180 million of his own money. But the complaint highlights the growing degree to which political candidates have come to seek out the authenticity that social media influencers seem to offer.

Advertisement

Steyer campaign spokesperson Kevin Liao said the campaign had properly followed the rules in hiring influencers and that the campaign is “confident” that Gomberg and Hennessy’s complaint is “baseless.”

“Creators make their living generating content. The campaign believes in compensating people for their time and work product and has paid creators to generate content,” Liao said in a statement. “Payments for creator content are disclosed in campaign finance reports, and we notify creators we directly work with of their disclosure requirements.”

While many of the new Steyer influencers have few followers, Steyer’s campaign disclosed in its most recent campaign finance report that it had paid thousands of dollars to numerous social media influencers with massive audiences, the Sacramento Bee reported.

Several of the videos produced by these popular social media personalities also failed to disclose that they had been paid by the campaign, according to the complaint and The Times’ review of the content.

But even accounts with few followers can still have a big impact if they are producing a steady stream of content supporting Steyer, said veteran California political strategist Mike Madrid.

Advertisement

“What they’re trying to do is trip the algorithm,” he said. “It looks like it has a bigger audience than it really does. It’s taking the concept of astroturfing into the digital age.”

Gomberg and Hennessy said they became friends after meeting at an April campaign event for Xavier Becerra, Steyer’s chief Democratic rival in the race, who holds a narrow advantage over Steyer in several recent political polls.

The pair have been prolific social media supporters of Becerra’s campaign ever since, though they insist they are not being paid for their efforts.

They said they discovered that many of the new pro-Steyer accounts seemed to be run by influencers — mostly women — who had previously created different social media accounts to hawk other products.

One of the pro-Steyer influencers had an online portfolio listing numerous clients, including the Steyer campaign and a gummy designed to boost arousal, according to the complaint and the Times review of the publicly accessible website.

Advertisement

The pair said they stumbled on an advertisement placed by a vendor for the campaign on a platform used by creators to find work. The advertisement indicated that creators would be paid $10 for each post, with bonuses for posts that amassed large viewership.

The vendor who posted the ad did not respond to a request for comment.

The advertisement has since been updated to say that it pays $1,000 per month and that creators will have to disclose that it is paid content.

As Gomberg and Hennessy dug deeper, they determined that some of the influencers promoting a candidate for governor weren’t even based in California.

A TikTok account using the handle jess.votes, for example, appears to be connected to a woman registered to vote in Florida. Other accounts were connected to women who indicated elsewhere that they were based in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan.

Advertisement

Several influencers who created seemingly paid content promoting Steyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Times.

The brouhaha over paid social media content is just the latest instance of the growing political impact of online creators.

Eric Swalwell’s campaign for governor — and congressional career — came to an end after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. A pair of influencers had publicly raised concerns about Swalwell’s behavior and helped connect victims with journalists who produced highly detailed reports of the allegations.

The California law requires influencers to disclose in a political post’s audio or text that it was sponsored and who paid for it.

The onus is on the creators to make the disclosure, but campaigns are required to tell them that they must do so. Despite passage of the law, the issue has so far remained largely under the radar.

Advertisement

“I have dozens of candidates and campaigns and I have not heard this issue come up one time,” said a campaign finance lawyer who requested anonymity because they represent numerous candidates with active campaigns.

Gomberg and Hennessy said that they were driven to call attention to potential violations of the disclosure requirements because of their concern about the corrosive influence such paid content could have if left unchecked.

“You have people who have trust in these creators,” Hennessy said. “You have a responsibility to your audience.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Published

on

Video: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

new video loaded: Why Were These C.E.O.s in Beijing With Trump?

Some of America’s most powerful C.E.O.s accompanied President Trump to Beijing during his summit with President Xi Jinping of China. Our reporter Ana Swanson explains what they were hoping to gain from the trip.

By Ana Swanson, Nour Idriss, Nikolay Nikolov and James Surdam

May 15, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending