Based on what I have read in the NYT, here are my reactions:
- As expected, the prosecution is emphasizing the big picture–a fraud on the American people prior to the 2016 election. The case wouldn’t be worth the effort if it didn’t stand for something more than putting false information in business records.
- Pecker is a logical choice for the first witness.
- While I am not completely sure of this, because the NYT postings were not altogether clear on the matter, it appears that the Trump team is using a mud on the wall approach rather than creating a consistent narrative on their own. That’s a fairly normal approach to the average criminal trial, but will it work here with either the jury or the court of public opinion? I have my doubts.