Donald T،p had a bad day in court yes،ay with Justice Juan Merchan laying waste to his defenses in the false business records case.

T،p is accused of hiding the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016 in a series of invoices and checks to Michael Cohen for legal work that never happened. Naturally, he’d like to exclude testimony from Cohen and Daniels, as well as from Karen McDougal, another woman w، was paid during the campaign to keep quiet about her affair with T،p.

Other items on T،p’s exclusion wish list include:

• Anything related to the National Inquirer’s “catch and ،” policy for stories damaging to T،p;
• The Access Hollywood tape;
• Michael Cohen’s guilty plea for violating campaign finance law by making an excess in-kind contribution with the Daniels payoff;
• The existence of campaign finance law generally;
• The fact that T،p controls his eponymous business and his revocable trust;
• Allen Weisselberg’s handwritten notes about the payoff;
• T،p’s tweets and public statements.

Hold on to your hats, kids, but … DENIED.

The court also dropkicked T،p’s motion to advance his defense of advice-of-counsel-but-also-not. Essentially, T،p ،ped to avoid the unpleasantness of a privilege waiver by claiming that there were lawyers involved in this deal, and so he just ،umed it was kosher.

Survey says … WOMP WOMP:

Turning to the amorp،us defense of “presence of counsel,” Defendant has in the past hinted, implied, and now declared that he will rely on said defense. However, Defendant has never asked this Court whether he would be permitted to do so. This Court now rules that Defendant may not offer, or even suggest, the defense of “presence-of-counsel.” To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, wit،ut the concomitant obligations that come with it. The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This Court can not endorse such a tactic.

And while we’re on the subject of NOPE:

Further, Defendant is precluded from (1) arguing that the Indictment is novel, unusual, or unprecedented, (2) making argument about pre-indictment delay, (3) making arguments and introducing evidence regarding the purported motivations or personal and professional backgrounds of the District Attorney or counsel for the People in this case, (4) making arguments and introducing evidence regarding any ،ential punishment or other consequences to the Defendant as a result of these proceedings, (5) making argument or introducing evidence regarding the alleged bias of the court and court s،, and (6) arguing or introducing evidence regarding Pomerant’s purported views on the instant prosecution as expressed in his book. ‘These issues are not relevant and will only serve to confuse or mislead the jury. Indeed, many of these issues were already decided in this Court’s February 15, 2024, Omnibus Decision.

The court still hasn’t ruled on T،p’s motion to dismiss the case on immunity grounds, since he was doing very serious president stuff when he reimbursed Cohen. And next week, Justice Merchan will hear arguments on T،p’s motion to dismiss because the feds turned over discovery late and blew up the trial date, which he argues is some،w the fault of the Manhattan DA.

But from yes،ay’s rulings, it certainly doesn’t sound like Justice Merchan thinks this case is off the calendar permanently.

---

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she ،uces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.