[U: 11.04.22 — Acquitted.] Fascinating Update, As Barrack's Felonies Trial Winds Down... He Wants An Instruction To The Jury...

Mr. Barrack's lawyers are nothing, if they are not. . . thoroughly persistent. They just filed an 18 page brief, mid-trial, suggesting that the able USDC Judge Brian M. Cogan stopping them from -- in opening statements -- arguing that the idea that the government won't show the jury any classified information, during the trial. . . might mean the government is lying about Mr. Barrack's culpability. . . was, and is. . . unfair.

Nope, the judge was having none of that -- as an improper line of argument: the omission of classified information that has been shown to the judge in camera (but for which the jury is not cleared to be read in). . . is irrelevant, where the charge is that Mr. Barrack failed to disclose to we the people that he was working for pay for the UAE, while at the White House meeting with Tangerine, as a campaign adviser and financier. The charge is secret conflicts of interest -- not that he was a courier for secrets of our government (though in fairness he might have been -- so "the projection" here is palpable).

In any event, this notion that the defense threatens "graymail" (disclosure of classified information at trial, in order to get the defendant off). . . is not unusual, in trials like this. But to turn it all on its head, and say. . . since the government didn't show you any of that secret stuff, you may infer the government is lying about Mr. Barrack. . . is well beyond the pale, and pretty novel. As I say -- it is using "projection" to deflect from what the defendant actually did, by saying the government "might have" done "X and so. . ." Crazy. Here was the able judge's actual and quite proper instruction after that unlawful attempt in opening statements, by Mr. Barrack's counsel:

. . .[Judge speaking:] "[Y]ou heard a reference during the last opening argument by [Thomas Barrack's lawyer] in which he made a reference to certain classified information. Now, the fact of the matter is, there are many reasons why the government may not want to introduce evidence as to classified information in a public criminal trial; however, that doesn’t mean there is such information. I don’t want you thinking about, 'well, gee, is there stuff that the government held back or is there stuff that exists out there?' We don’t know. It doesn’t really matter, okay. What matters is you listen to the evidence that the government is going to put into this case and you decide if that evidence is sufficient to prove the defendants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .

Of course, a fair question would be. . . how much does the defense really have to lose, by trying this gambit? Afterall, Mr. Barrack is likely to get what might well amount to a life sentence, given his age -- on the mountain of evidence already in, in this trial in Brooklyn. This was Tangerine's main campaign financier, folks.

Updated @ 1 PM Eastern -- Barrack's counsel was also just denied the right to admit some FBI email chains, in order to argue that the FBI tried to manufacture evidence against him, and had targeted him for selective prosecution. These are almost always losers -- as they were today.

Onward, smiling in the sunshine -- almost 70 degrees here, at the moment. . . Taco time!

नमस्ते