"Such a disgrace," President Trump said after leaving the courtroom. He claimed the case was brought on behalf of his political opponents, whom he referred to as "vultures that circle the Oval Office."
He blasted the judge for the decisions issued in the hearing, and said the judge "hates Trump."
President Trump read from several commentaries covering his case, as he has done in media appearances recently.
Mr. Bove argued for an instruction that data on phones in evidence could have been altered. Prosecutors argued there was no basis for such an instruction.
"Daus testified he was unable to verify what was uploaded to the phone. The inference is in 2016, he did a reset, and he loaded something else we don't know about onto the phone," Mr. Bove said.
Justice Merchan said he would not give such an instruction but the defense could argue it.
"The defendant decided not to testify. Having done so, he can't introduce any argument to the jury regarding his intent," Mr. Colangelo said.
Mr. Bove continued to press the issue with Mr. Pecker's testimony, arguing that Mr. Pecker testified he told Mr. Cohen "this is bulletproof," and President Trump would have inferred that Mr. Cohen, his personal attorney, had properly vetted the scheme.
The defense had previously filed with the court that they were not pursuing an advice-of-counsel defense, meaning they were not arguing that President Trump relied on the legal advice given by Mr. Cohen when the charged actions happened. They had then also made an argument pushing to use an "involvement of counsel" defense that the judge shut down.
Attorneys argued over how David Pecker's non-prosecution agreement and Mr. Cohen's guilty plea would be taken by jurors, and Justice Merchan maintained his earlier decision.
"I don't think we need to go back and forth on this," he said. The judge had instructed jurors not to take either of these agreements as evidence of the defendant's guilt.
The defense argued that the case has not made it straightforward that non-disclosure agreements are legal and it should be included in the jury instructions.
"It should be clear to the jury that hush money alone is not illegal," Mr. Bove added.
After a short break, Mr. Bove said the defense proposed edits to the instructions to remove bias specific to President Trump. Prosecutors argued this was unnecessary at this stage, after jurors received instructions during questioning at the jury selection stage.
"It isn't necessary to remind the jury they shouldn't be biased against President Trump," Mr. Steinglass said. "We would propose more neutral language.
The judge pointed out the instruction proposed by the defense is not normally given.
"The problem with this theory, Judge, and the reason it shouldn't go to the jury is that Michael Cohen testified and he didn't know anything about it. He was asked, why did Allen Weisselberg gross that number up to $420,000. He answered, 'I don't know. I just want to get my money back,'" Mr. Bove said.
"The government is talking about tax filing by Mr. Cohen. The Trump Organization was transparent. That doesn't amount to some kind of agreement to make false filings for Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Cohen didn't know anything about it," Mr. Bove said.
Mr. Colangelo said they opposed the use of the word "proof" as it was not required for the object crime.
The defense argued it was necessary with this charging structure.
Mr. Bove argued both levels of charges have a willfullness component and that the tax predicate should not go to the jury.
"What I propose is, remove President Trump from the equation. The government doesn't have to establish this crime in its entirety but the concept of presence is important. We think this is an accurate statement of the law that will be extraoridnarily important to the jury's deliberations if they get to the point of considering a felony," Mr. Bove said. "The criminal conspiracy predicate here is distinct from accessorial liability.
Defense attorneys proposed adding to "the intent to conceal another crime."
"It's an important point here, because of the way that the government's charges are structured," Mr. Bove said.
Mr. Colangelo argued, "there's nothing in this statute about two separate intents."
Justice Merchan asked Mr. Bove to explain the opposition to "intent to defraud," namely, specifying to the jury that the government did not have to prove this.
"We're dealing with an enhanced intent element to elevate this to a felony. It really leaves nothing for the concealment of mens rea (knowledge of wrongdoing)," he said. "This instruction would be confusing because it would permit the jury to merge intent to defraud with the enhanced intent element."
Mr. Colangelo argued this was a term with an actual definition and if they were to give the jury more guidance "it's in defining 'intent to defraud.'"
Justice Merchan initially said he would strike "reasonably foreseeable consequences" as per the defense's request, but reserved judgment.
The defense argued that the cases the prosecution cited to define accessorial liability were not jury instruction cases.
Prosecutors proposed defining "intent" as "a person acts with intent to defraud when his conscious intent is to do so."
The defense wanted a more specific definition, but proposed one from an opinion in a current court case, and the judge found that deviated too far from the standard charge.
The parties debated about language about the number of Mr. Cohen's criminal convictions. The judge reminded the attorneys that it is important the jury is not led to believe Mr. Cohen's conviction is an indication that the defendant in this case, President Trump, is also guilty.
"I think what we can do is, strike the 'convicted of' language, leave 'participated in,'" Justice Merchan said, while warning the defense against trying to "take advantage" of that language is arguing Mr. Cohen was "convicted" or "participated" in different crimes to imply guilt or innocence of the defendant.
The parties debated the use of "legitimate press function" and how much explanation to include, and the judge allowed the inclusion of additional context by the defense.
"There is evidence that AMI in this case very much wanted to resolve their exposure and move forward," Mr. Bove argued. "In addition to that, the FEC very much relied on the non-prosecution agreement for fact finders."
The defense and prosecution submitted examples of decisions the FEC had issues, and the judge reviewed them while reserving a decision.
"Would I have made the payment irrespective of the candidacy or not?" Mr. Colangelo quoted. "We think that subjective valuation is the way that regulation is applied."
Justice Merchan said his inclination was to use both the defense and prosecution's proposals.
Justice Merchan moved on to the defense's request to dispute "the purpose of influencing an election" as an offense that requires a clear and unambiguous link to the Trump 2016 campaign.
"Our position here is that this type of instruction here is necessary to make clear to the jury that there is a zone of First Amendment-protected activity," Mr. Bove said. He argued that the Supreme Court has found such language "ambiguous."
Mr. Blanche argued that New York law recognizes that conspiracy charges require a "willfully" component.
"Falsified business records in the first degree requires that there be intent to commit another crime, so how do you respond to that?" Justice Merchan asked.
Mr. Colangelo responded, "the crime is established through the formation of a conspiracy and its execution through unlawful means."
Prosecuting attorney Matthew Colangelo argued they were not required to present a criminal violation.
"The election law says a 152 violation occurs when two or more people conspire to promote someone's election to office by unlawful means. Unlawful means doesn't mean criminal, it means a violation of law," Mr. Colangelo said.
Justice Merchan asked the parties to start with Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) issues.
Mr. Bove said their position is that there needs to be a criminal violation charged.
"Because conspiracy to violate, under New York election law, it's only a crime if it has a criminal object," he said. "This is an issue both at the FECA level and when you talk about that one predicate charge that's clearly very important to us."
"I feel very good," President Trump told reporters on the way in. "I think we’ve had a great case we’ve put on."
"But we have a situation where we have no crime. And this next couple of hours is very important because the judge can try and manufacture one where he goes from a misdemeanor, which doesn't exist because of the statute of limitations, doesn't exist," he said.
He reminded reporters he could not share everything because "I'm gagged," but hinted he might risk another violation.
Justice Merchan said in a long case like this, "summations will not be quick."
"I expect that summations from both attorneys will take at least a day. I expect my instructions will take at least an hour. My preference is not to break up summations," Justice Merchan said.
He said that with only part of the day left today and then Thursday, it could not be done this week in a cohesive manner.
President Trump left the courtroom, but did not answer when reporters asked why he would not testify.
Ms. Hoffinger followed up with a few more questions, and Mr. Costello confirmed that he and Mr. Citron next met with Mr. Cohen on May 3, 2018. During that meeting, Mr. Citron had given Mr. Cohen a retainer agreement that Mr. Cohen never signed.
Mr. Costello stepped down from the witness stand.
"Your honor, the defense rests," Mr. Bove said.
Mr. Bove showed the email where Mr. Costello sent Mr. Cohen the news video.
"Was that you pressuring Michael Cohen?" Mr. Bove asked.
Defense attorney Emil Bove showed communications between Mr. Costello and Mr. Cohen and asked, "When you wrote that, were you concerned about things that Michael Cohen later wrote to you when he said he never had a legal representation?"
"No, not at all," Mr. Costello said. "Every time Jeff asked him about the retainer, 'Michael did you sign the retainer yet,' he gave an excuse. He tried to let us believe he was paying McDermott Will & Emery"
Mr. Costello started to say something about that law firm, and prosecutors objected.
Ms. Hoffinger asked Mr. Costello if he was putting pressure on Mr. Cohen.
"No, do you want me to explain it?" Mr. Costello said.
"In this email, aren't you encouraging him not to cooperate, yes or no?" Ms. Hoffinger asked.
Prosecutors showed more email exchanges between Mr. Costello, Mr. Cohen, and Jeff Citron, Mr. Costello's law partner, in which Mr. Costello indeed courts Mr. Cohen's business and makes mention of Mr. Giuliani.
An April 21, 2018, email from Mr. Costello to Mr. Cohen reads: "Michael, I just spoke to Rudy Giuliani and told him I was on your team. Rudy was thrilled and said this could not be a better situation for the President or You. He asked me if it was ok to call the President and Jay Sekulow and I said fine."
Ms. Hoffinger asked, "This email speaks for itself, right sir?"
Mr. Cohen testified that he believed Mr. Costello to be spying on him on behalf of Rudy Giuliani, and therefore President Trump. Mr. Costello contradicted him and testified that Mr. Cohen had reached out continuously and hoped the connection to Mr. Giuliani would be beneficial.
Ms. Hoffinger asked, "Did you tell him at the first meeting that your relationship with Rudy Giuliani would be useful to him?"
Prosecuting attorney Susan Hoffinger continued cross-examination of defense witness Robert Costello.
Mr. Costello affirmed that Mr. Cohen ultimately retained another lawyer to represent him in his criminal case.
President Trump has been attending his trial with large groups of supporters as of late. As per his campaign, today's entourage includes Don Trump, Jr., former acting attorney general Matt Whitaker, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Sen. Eric Schmitt, Rep. Daniel Webster, Rep. Dan Meuser, Rep. Ronny Jackson, Rep. Troy Nehls, Rep. Dale Strong, Rep. Maria Salazar, Sebastian Gorka, Chuck Zito, Joe Piscopo, Bill White.
“Every single person is saying there’s no crime," he told reporters.
The defense is no longer calling former FEC commissioner and expert witness Bradley Smith, after the judge ruled the expert would only be able to give testimony limited to definitions of a few terms.
Mr. Smith posted on social media that a jury could be "lost without knowing technology & industry norms."
Prosecutors are set to finish their cross-examination of witness Robert Costello, whom the defense called as a rebuttal witness to former lawyer Michael Cohen.
Before that, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan may issue a ruling on the defense's motion to dismiss.
Prosecutors rested their case yesterday, and as the court adjourned, defense attorneys moved for a dismissal, arguing that the government had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.