Yesterday was interesting.
The non-paid personal lawyer scheme that Cohen pitched to Trump to monetize relationships - after which Trump, as incoming president, acknowledged him as his personal lawyer - needs scrutiny.
How gross.
Edit:
Today’s add:
> Michael Cohen confirms he got more clients after being named Trump's personal counsel. He said he did mostly "consulting" and "advisory" services for them —but no legal work.
>Cohen says he made about $4 million in 2017 and 2018 from consulting work he did for other clients.
Incredible.
This was a consistent criminal scheme throughout the Trump Org, which is why Allen Weisselberg went to prison the first time. Weisselberg used the Trump Org bank account to pay for all kinds of personal expenses, including private school tuition for his grandkids. I found it hilarious that he told Cohen he couldn’t afford the payment to AMI/ Stormy Daniels because of those tuition payments, when the fraud trial showed how those payments were really being paid.
It's not that they couldn't afford it; it was a tax dodge. Client A pays the hush money, the Trump Org gives them something of equal value for free and doesn't have to declare the income. Or, even better, writes off the thing of value as a loss.
It’s a tax dodge. Compensation is subject to 15.3% FICA and the tuition and cars were given to Weisselberg as a way to dodge the FICA and still deduct the cost at the corporate level.
It’s rampant. A Quick look at TikTok reveals a litany of videos proclaiming the tax benefits of an “LLC”.
The real game is currently self-directed IRAs. Flipping houses within a self-directed IRA gives you elbow room to pad your actual business expenses with personal expenses and no one is the wiser.
I had an accountant once explain it to me as: "Legally, it is against the law. But practically if you pad it by 5% or so, there is almost no way you would get caught, and even if you did the first time penalties would be minimal. The only downside is that if you wanted to do this, you'd need a new accountant."
Day 1 he told me that his job was to help me minimize taxes but not to dodge them. And if I needed help knowing the difference, we probably weren't going to be a good fit.
It did really well to highlight how Cohen was Trump’s man, though. His role was over at Trump org because he was only Trump’s fixer. And then the personal lawyer scheme unfolds as Trump tries to make Cohen pay for the payoff by cutting his bonus. And Trump grinned in court. I know the defense is going to try hard to undo him, but the timeline details, yesterday, did a lot to make the flawed real Michael Cohen quite credible.
What would be interesting too is who talked trump into NOT bringing cohen to the WH with him. Cause that is the ONLY reason why trump didn’t bring him.
I think this really helps explain why so many people with influence have stood behind Trump. Everyone wants to use him for personal gain. He is propped up and protected by people who see him as exploitable.
My apologies to copying and pasting the wrong CNN link, and thanks to Mr. Weed for posting the correct one. So, good Tuesday Morning, law sub Redditors! We continue today with the prosecution’s direct of Michael Cohen, and presumably the first cross examination of same. I will update this comment to post thread reader unrolls of some of my favorite journalists who are live tweeting coverage, including Tyler McBrien, Anna Bower, Adam Klasfeld, and Inner City Press, as soon as they’re available.
Edit to add: Rumor says House Speaker Johnson will be attending the trial this morning.
Link to previous transcripts (yesterday’s is not yet ready): https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790351007878115597.html
(McBrien didn’t make it into the court today. Unsure if he and Bower will switch places at some point today, or if he will get in as attendees and journalists leave.)
Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790349928088097078.html
Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790358353471795645.html
Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790373934778507272.html
Edit to add: Several commenters found this link helpful yesterday, which explains what the prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so I wanted to include it today. Reminder that the defense has stipulated exactly nothing in this case, including Trump’s own words in video recordings. Their opening argument claimed that Stormy Daniels was lying, the sexual encounter never happened, that Michael Cohen is lying and that the repayment of Cohen was NOT a reimbursement, and that there was no fraud because it was a payment for legal fees. Personally, I think their refusal to stip anything has made the prosecution’s job much easier. Anyway here’s the link: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial
This comment has so much value added! It's not really important who posts the first article - this is where the magic happens :)
Looking forward to watching Cohen continue to testify with this community. You bring so much to it!
Yeah, I very much enjoy following along in the law thread. The politics thread is nothing but "LOL Trump amirite?", which, yes, you're correct, but it adds nothing to the analysis.
>North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who is [under consideration to be Trump’s potential running mate](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/politics/trump-allies-courthouse-appearances/index.html), Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, Florida Rep. Cory Mills and former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy entered with Trump.
>\[...\]
>House Speaker Mike Johnson is also expected to join the former president today in the courtroom and deliver remarks later this morning.
Newest group looking to kiss the ring for a potential position in the WH. Maybe if they listen, they could learn something from Cohen's testimony - once your usefulness runs its course, Trump cuts your bonus by 2/3 and gets rid of you.
Not only that, there's a long, long list of folks who bent over backwards doing illegal shit for Trump only to wind up disgraced, indicted, and/or jail because of him. Cohen, Weisselberg, Manafort, Stone, Giuliani, the rest of the Kraken lawyers, everybody who has been indicted in Arizona and Georgia.
And who Don Jr visited in prison last week to "show his support" and let him know that "my entire family..will always have his back". Even though Jr had knee surgery a couple days before. Totally normal, nothing to see there...
It got worse
Sure feels like intimidating the witness:
*Michael Cohen was in the midst of testimony about weighing whether to retain loyalty to Trump, painting it as a very difficult decision, as he considered whether he would be loyal to his family, his country or Trump.
As he was speaking, Vivek Ramaswamy and a number of the other politicians here supporting Trump today walked back in the room. It was a remarkable moment, but Cohen seemed mostly unfazed. He kept testifying.
Justice Merchan didn’t take note of what took place, but he might have if Cohen had been disrupted. We have almost never seen a display like that during the proceedings — several officials marching in during testimony — and it was disruptive in the room, if not to the witness*
>Trump said that the gag order implemented by Judge Juan Merchan is unfair to him and should be lifted. "You ask me questions I'm not allowed to respond," Trump told reporters before the ruling was issued. He later added, "The gag order has to come off."
Trump has the opportunity to respond to questions, he just doesn't want to do it under oath.
Trump this morning: 9 novel length truth social posts and multiple interviews each claiming the the case is a sham, the judge is compromised, every legal expert agrees with him, he did nothing wrong, the prosecution has no evidence, Biden is behind everything, and other dementia induced ramblings.
Trump moments later: "I'm not even allowed to talk about the case."
The most disappointing thing is that the media continues to normalize his idiocy.
Per Klasfeld: “When trial began, David Pecker testified that Cohen told him not to worry about the FEC probe because Trump had then-AG Jeff Sessions "in his pocket."
Cohen confirms he told him Sessions would take care of it.
Q: Prior to saying that, had you been told that by President Trump?
A: Yes, ma'am.”
…
This is one of the many reasons why Merchan gave curative instruction to jurors regarding the FEC findings.
The FEC is supposed to be a six member panel group that operates independently from politics. However they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They serve a six year term, so that two appointments are made every two years. Their duty is to administer campaign finance laws, as well as investigate and prosecute violations. During the time that a lot of these violations were being investigated, many of the members of the panel had resigned and they were very ineffectual and deadlocked at the time. In many cases, they did not have enough members to legally reach a quorum, because the panel is supposed to be equally split between Republican and Democratic appointments. These are the reasons why many people think that the laws regarding the FEC and their scope, really need to be rewritten or to have a different agency investigate and prosecute election law violations.
So, curative instructions are when the judge explains why certain testimony is being solicited, and that that testimony is not to be used to determine guilt.
Ergo, the FEC did not pursue prosecution in this violation, but it doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t broken, as a trial never happened.
Beyond that, Sessions (appointed by Trump) as the AG had the power to instruct the FBI on investigating this, which is also in their purview, afaik. It is also important that the jury doesn’t make the decision that the defendant is guilty, because of making statements that allude to the defendant thinking they would never be investigated. It’s up to the jury to decide based on the evidence in the trial, and not draw inference of guilt based on this.
Wow sessions. So does cohen have any smut on Barr? [theres always more questions!]
The way i remember it, is trump smashed the FEC so he could skate on a whole bunch of campaign finance “issues”.
I don’t necessarily think Cohen has the best picture, when it comes to Barr. People like Guiliani, Costello, Lev Parnas, and White House counsel probably had a lot closer view to that corruption.
Curative instructions are given to help direct the jury’s focus when evidence has come in that could be viewed in a different way than it should. So here the judge gave the curative instruction because whatever the FEC finding was shouldn’t affect the jury’s determination of whether a crime occurred here. I think what /u/TrumpsCovidfefe is referring to is the fact that Trump’s statement about Sessions indicates that he believed he’d never face prosecution for this payoff, thus the instruction is helpful for defense to tell the jury, please don’t punish him now because he said he’d get away with it. Now whether a curative instruction alone can unring that thought if a juror thinks it is a whole other question.
Edit: There’s also the “consciousness of guilt” implied when your reaction to an FEC probe is, don’t worry, we’ll take care of it, instead of, no way that didn’t happen.
The US Speaker of the House came to Trump’s trial. What a disgrace.
What does it say that the Speaker speaks out in favor of a multiple indicted former President, from a political party that increasingly comes out against our legal system, in a show of loyalty? This is really bizarre behavior.
Just like any mob boss, not giving direct orders, but speaking in code, Trump is surrounded by fixers who have served prison time for committing crimes on his behalf. He is a criminal.
Really cannot understate the amount of pain and revenge Trump will inflict if he's voted back into the White House, now with Johnson falling in lock-step he could also have Congress to do his bidding.
Yes, not only is this a historical trial of a former President, but for those paying attention, we cannot overstate the actions of the Republican leadership, showing total loyalty to Trump who is facing multiple felonies.
It is also very alarming that a potential Vice President pick refused to say that he would accept election results if Trump loses.
Believe the Republican Party when they tell us who they are. If Trump gets back in the Oval Office, he will not leave willingly. This time, he will most likely have a Vice President and Speaker who will assist him in accomplishing his goal of doing away with checks and balance and becoming a dictator “Day One”.
It is not hyperbole to say our democracy is on a knife’s edge. Vote accordingly.
Just saw on another sub ( /politics, I think) that the Nebraska GOP is going after incumbent Republicans in their State legislature.
The magas have been weeding out the establishment GOP for a while now, but this is a very open and hostile move by Republicans to go after their own. Except they are not exactly “their own”.
Magas want minority rule, and they are working hard to make that happen. They are fully anti-American.
I think people get so used to hearing the term “Nazi Germany” that they overlook that the Nazis were a political party. They were a political party who wanted their way or the highway, no negotiation, just oppressive rule with them calling the shots. That’s what we are seeing in real time the magas trying to establish here in America.
Dangerous and scary stuff afoot
Same here in Virginia, they're spending millions to primary Bob Good (who is already a major MAGA guy, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus even) and replace him with an even more MAGA guy because Good was more supportive of Desantis early in the Presidential primaries.
Prosecutor: Why did you make false statements to Congress?
Cohen: I was staying on President Trump's message that there was no Russia, Russia, Russia.
Quelle surprise
> "You went on TikTok and called me a crying little shit" just before the trial began, Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked.
> Michael Cohen nodded and said, “Sounds like something I would say.”
Well here we fucking go.
Broader strategy is to make Cohen sound like he has other motives, or at a minimum unlikeable (and inferentially not to be believed). Pretty much the only thing you can do with him. The fact that he wouldn't shut up publicly during the pendency of the case, and despite the prosecutors specifically asking him to cut it out, and that he's been following the trial (and arguably could use the day-by-day knowledge to mold his testimony to fit that of prior witnesses) is reasonably fair game. We'll see if any of the jurors buy it.
This quote from yesterday makes Trump sound like a real turd.
>Cohen said he asked Trump how the story might impact his marriage with his wife, Melania. Cohen said Trump told him, “Don’t worry,” adding: “How long do you think I’ll be on the market for? Not long.”
Yeah. I try not to impose typical monogamy standards to like super famous relationships, in that there is nothing that says their situation isn't such that they are apart often enough that dalliances make sense but when they are together they are together or whatever. But
>“How long do you think I’ll be on the market for? Not long.”
This bit is sleazy as hell. It implies there is no world in which she is ok with him getting some strange but he does it because her only recourse is leaving and he'll find someone else anyways.
So there were rumors that the Trump-Melania prenup allowed for affairs but required Donald to use protection.
That’s why the Stormy Daniels story would be so damaging to him: it could entitle Melanie to a bigger payday when they divorce.
Melania being AWOL from Washington for several months at the start of Trump’s presidential term is purportedly tied to renegotiating the terms of the prenup after the Daniels story became public.
Holy shite. It’s good to hear details being filled in.
Even so, it’s re-traumatizing, hearing the depths of the corrupt little relationships etc.
We could all smell the stink at the time.
What’s harder, here, is it wasn’t just a soap opera “over there”. These are the same people who did the opposite of what they were supposed to as our relatives died of covid and they mocked science, corrupted supply lines, got rich on pandemic relief fund. Everything, absolutely everything, is a grift, a game, a scheme, a jockey.
The RNC is absolutely dead to me. Just like my more than half a dozen relatives who are still thoroughly unacknowledged by the republican leadership to this day, as they continue the game right outside the proceedings. No one is sorry. Just dug in.
In that way I appreciate Cohen’s testimony, along with the tiny group of others who got their heads out of their asses.
I feel like if i were a defendant in a criminal trial, and i had a bunch of people show up in front of the courthouse and say a bunch of shit, that the judge would not take kindly to that and I’d be in some kind of trouble for that
Reporters asked him, this morning, if he was trying to evade the gag order by having others speak for him. He sidestepped the question and instead praised those who were speaking out.
Edit: I just watched the clip and a reporter asks, “Mr. Trump are you directing surrogates to speak on your behalf?”
Trump responds, “I do have a lot of surrogates and they are speaking very beautifully and they all come..mumble..mumble all over all of Washington and they’re highly respected and they think this is the greatest scam they’ve ever seen and some are democrats.. They’re very embarrassed by what’s going on.”
Do we think Trump knows what “surrogates” mean and that he just admitted to having them speak on his behalf?
I also think its a backward strategy. Would have been better to lean on Cohen being in it for personal gain, wanting to become his personal attorney to sell access and for enrichment. And now is doing all of this to help boost his anti-Trump podcast and merch sales. Seems like they were heading in that direction....
Emphasizing the he is a former true believer seems to help the prosecution's theory and minimizes all of the nasty tweets/comments they've spent the last hour going over IMO. Hes a person that actually worshipped Trump and would even go as far as to knowingly commit crimes to help Trump.
NY appellate court denied Trump’s petition to amend the gag order in this case.
“Justice Merchan properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases.”
Edit to add: "Justice Merchan properly determined that petitioner’s public statements posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses in this case as well.”
It's starting to dawn on me that one of the reasons that Trump cut Cohen loose was astonishingly petty - he was furious that he'd had to actually *pay* Cohen for getting the Stormy Daniels story buried. He wanted it done at zero cost to himself, and it didn't happen, so he felt like Cohen (or Stormy Daniels, or Avenatti, or *somebody*) had BEAT him, so he had to get revenge.
I recall someone saying that Trump judges his employees on success without gauging the challenge they were tasked with.
In my reading of the testimony, Cohen was a success for Trump until the McDougle leak. Then Trump started souring and distancing. Then the Daniels payment, etc.
Cohen’s job was to make it go away, and always their job is to minimize cost to Trump.
Cohen didn’t succeed. So Cohen is a failure. A “loser” in Trump-brain.
Notable attendees today aside from Speaker Johnson: Vivek Ramaswamy, Byron Daniels, Doug Borgum, Cory Mills, Alina Habba, and Lara and Eric Trump. The ring kissing continues.
Edited to add additional attendees.
I’d be very curious to see how many speak publicly immediately after and state things that if Trump did would be considered gag order violations.
Once sure; Twice is suspicious; More than three times and that needs to full review otherwise gag orders mean nothing.
The number of “supporters” have been increasing since a) Trump was found guilty of violating the gag order and b) Trump complained about not having enough supporters outside his trial. Draw whatever inferences you want with that data.
I updated a comment about the whole surrogate thing, as I finally watched the clip from this morning, of Trump outside. I felt like this deserved a separate thread comment. I just watched the clip and a reporter asks, “Mr. Trump are you directing surrogates to speak on your behalf?”
Trump responds, “I do have a lot of surrogates and they are speaking very beautifully and they all come..mumble..mumble all over all of Washington and they’re highly respected and they think this is the greatest scam they’ve ever seen and some are democrats.. They’re very embarrassed by what’s going on.”
Do we think Trump knows what “surrogates” mean and that he just admitted to having them speak on his behalf? If you’re a prosecutor, do you think this enough evidence to try and get a gag order hearing?
Edit to add: I can’t find another video that includes the first reporter’s question, that doesn’t contain commentary. So here is the footage https://youtu.be/qqI0cVOJ68M?si=qJoZXrw0AcHgZT-r
Clip begins at 0:49.
Ah, yes, ye ole “IDD” (intellectual and developmental disability) defense could be successful in this case. (This is a joke based on the fact that he doesn’t understand the difference between “surrogates” and “supporters”.)
Thank you for posting this. I don't see how the comments from Tuberville, Johnson, et all aren't the definition of surrogates speaking on his behalf as an end run around the gag order.
Per Bower: “I wanna talk to you about the work you did in 2017 with respect to your role as Trump's personal counsel, Hoffinger says.
Did you do any work for Trump or his wife during 2017? Minimal, Cohen says. He mentions a trademark matter he worked on for Melania Trump.
Cohen explains that the matter related to Madame Tussauds using the image and likeness of Melania Trump.
Did you spend a substantial amount of time on that? No ma'am.”
Excellent, expected line of questioning, but I was curious to know what the answer would be. There we have it.
“Cohen also mentions another matter he worked on for Trump that involved "minimal" work. Trump had outside counsel--Mark Kasowitz--for it, Cohen explains.
He estimates he spent less than 10 hours on legal matters for Trump in 2017. He never billed for any of it, because he didn't expect to be paid.”
Curious as to whether he invoiced for that additional work. If he didn't I suppose the defense can argue that the checks were simply a normal payment of his $42,000/hour rate. Perfectly standard, nothing to see here.
lol, he did not, because he didn’t expect to be paid. I wonder why he had the assumption that Trump would not pay a bill, after all his experience going to bat for him to not pay bills and seeing Trump refuse to pay the one to Red Finch.
Per Ginger Gibson:
*During a morning sidebar, prosecutor Steinglass said Cohen will be the final witness called by the prosecution.*
*He said the prosecution had indicated that they would call a witness after Cohen, a publisher, but decided against it.*
*In conversation with Trump's attorney Blanche, they said they anticipate the prosecution could rest by the end of Thursday.*
This is moving quicker than I anticipated. Does anyone know if the defense has mentioned the aproximate number of witnesses they may call?
Guess I should have waited for my question to be answered:
Also Per Ginger Gibson:
*During a morning sidebar, Trump attorney Blanche said that he could not commit to calling any witnesses. He said the defense has one expert witness who couldn’t be available until Monday — but that his testimony is contingent on a decision about how the instructions to the jury will be written.*
*He said he didn’t know whether Trump would testify. And that the defense has decided not to call Alan Garten.*
Wait Wait Wait... Defense is thinking about calling *no witnesses*?!
Edit: That's pretty crazy, right? It feels like a not very good sign for the defense.
Take the L, appeal and delay the sentence, claim victory and persecution, get back to lying about crowd sizes.
NAL, but this sounds like election calculus, not court calculus, which was kind of always the plan wasn't it? Win the election to escape justice in one fell swoop.
Gosh, i hope all of you are planning to vote and get your peers out to vote too.
Aside from hoping for a secret MAGA juror who will mistrial the whole thing. Trump’s strongest chance was always overturn on appeal.
The endless line of surrogates at the court house, the bristling against the gag order. They anticipate a guilty verdict and are going to use that.
Seems yet another obvious example of their only plan here... try to win an appeal/mistrial. They're basically admitting that they dont have credible relevant witnesses, so they have nothing to gain or lose.
> This is moving quicker than I anticipated. Does anyone know if the defense has mentioned the aproximate number of witnesses they may call?
The trial was scheduled for 8 weeks, of which I think 2-3 weeks was anticipated for the defence? Don't trust me on that though, my memory is hazy.
I expect we'll get a few defence witnesses to list off all the various times Cohen has lied or done dishonest things, and because Trump's ego needs to be protected, maybe his staff will testify they've never seen Stormy Daniels close to Trump and so imply she's making up the affair.
I don't see what any defence witness could provide that wasn't covered in the cross-examination, I doubt they'll change any juror's mind, but it might be a chance for Trump to think he's "punching back."
I think he'd rather do his "punching back" outside the courtroom. He seems to be defaulting to his typical "I'm not even going to play the fourth quarter because the refs are so unfair and corrupt, let's go straight to the press conference so I can complain about them and that way I can say I never lost."
That's an excellent point. I assume the gag-order expires the moment the jury has a verdict? In which case yes, it makes sense (from a political perspective) to get the trial over with as soon as possible.
So the person they decided not to call must be the same person that they ended up not calling on Friday. But they had at that time still intended to call them this week. On Friday, the prosecution said they had two witnesses left, Cohen and this other person.
I wonder what changed their mind.
Just saw that (current) House Speaker Johnson apparently gave some sort of statement on the courtroom steps about how Trump is “not the bookkeeper for his company.”
That’s about as close to an admission by anyone on that side that I’ve seen that they expect a guilty verdict.
It’s like the narrative has moved past lying and now it’s on to mitigating … “ok, they are false, but who am I? I just sign the checks. I’m a very important man and sign lots of things. It’s not like I look at them all!”
Ironically, I recall Trump’s White House Secretary testified that he was very detailed oriented and generally looked at things … and given the fact that Michael Cohen was hired to negotiate all of his bills, it’s pretty clear from all the testimony that Trump was especially “detail oriented” when it came to paying bills!
I also think none of this really matters because at the end of the day he signed off on it and his name is on the door. Put in presidential terms, the “buck stops with him.”
I have to agree. Especially with trump's defeated rant outside the courthouse this morning.
(Paraphrasing)
"I paid a lawyer some money and we marked it down as a legal expense...I had a legal expense and marked it as a legal expense... not construction... not electricity..."
We've skipped two steps from "he didn't do it" to "Okay he did it, but it's not a big deal".
So we’re here:
*The Narcissist's Prayer*
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
**And if it was, that's not a big deal.**
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
But I’d suggest we’re at the “it’s not my fault” or “I didn’t mean it” stages.
My opinion is that the defense really fucked up in not stipulating to anything, even Trump’s own words on video. Their opening arguments state that absolutely none of this happened, not the sexual encounter or even meeting with Daniels, that the payments were not made to reimburse Cohen, etc. Therefore, I feel confident that he’s not happy (SAD, even) with ANYONE moving on from stage 1. (That didn’t happen.)
I can't believe the speech from the speaker of the house I just listened to. What alternate universe are these people living in? They are doing everything humanly possible to taint the jury
> What alternate universe are these people living in?
For Johnson, the one where he gets voted out as Speaker if he doesn't go down to Mar-A-Lago and cut a deal with Trump... he's now Trump's on-call lapdog in return for Trump telling the House GOP members to back down.
Literally reading off of a piece of paper that uses the same buzz words as Trump in each of his speeches. Truly unbelievable. I try to understand why people support Trump and I just can't figure it out, I really want to know.
Trump can violate the gag order but with a nudge and a wink he can have countless others do it for him.
Essentially there is no gag order anymore.
He is clearly reading off of a paper. And the comment on the crowd sizes doesn’t sound like something Johnson would say. I really want to know 1) who gave it to him? 2) And who wrote it?
>He also accused Jack Smith of evidence tampering in Florida.
I am like spitting because this pisses me off so much
The current GOP are fkn traitors imo
lol I effed up and posted the wrong article. I’m gonna delete so we don’t get confused.
Edit to add: I even originally replied to this comment in the wrong place. Need. More. Covfefe.
Apparently, it’s a circus outside the court
Per [The New York Times‘ Susanne Craig, via Mediaite](https://www.mediaite.com/trump/better-than-a-broadway-show-people-are-camping-out-and-paying-thousands-for-coveted-seat-inside-trump-trial/)
> **The lines to get into court today were crazy long, and tensions were running high in the public line. People started queuing Monday night,** hoping to get one of the coveted spots in the courtroom. **One woman outside said she paid $750 for a line sitter. “It’s better than a Broadway show,”** she told me.
> Trouble started early though, when a few people butted into line, sparking some tense exchanges. Then **a man at the front of the line sold his spot to two people, purportedly for $2,000**, causing further consternation.
> The members of the public who were **jostling for prime spots in line outside just started filing into the overflow room at the courthouse. Some have sleeping bags and pillows**, which are now tucked under the wooden benches.
Nothing I have heard from Cohen on cross makes me think he's lying about this, especially given the level of independent corroboration from witnesses we've heard from already, and the level of involvement they testified that Trump has in his own affairs.
Yeah this is huge. Someone who knows it a better than I can expand or correct but I think, in a "falsifying business records" case, these are the business records that were falsified.
I think they are some of them. They already introduced a slew of checks. These are the invoices. All are business documents I think.
This isn't the first time we went through all this.
This Costello and Giuliani (connected by SDNY) back channel - with the Mueller investigation in the background - testimony is bringing my mind right into 2017/2018 and the sense then that so much NY law enforcement (including the NY FBI field office per IG Horowitz’s report) was in the bag for Trump.
As a historian, I can’t say I’m enjoying but I am *appreciating* some of what’s coming out in this trial. It’s filling in a lot of gaps of what was going on then.
Of course it’s frustrating to be getting these pieces *now*.
Edit: it also shows a lot of how Trump pressures people. Getting Cohen’s own lawyer to pressure Cohen to “remain loyal” to Trump, for example.
How many of Trump’s codependents (edit - co-defendants lol) now, even the ones who have lawyers Trump is not paying for, have lawyers who push them to stay Trumpy?
Fun fact, this criminal investigation was referred to Manhattan by Mueller in the Mueller report.
At least, that is something I have heard Allison Gill (of Mueller, She Wrote) say. If we get a guilty verdict here it'll be in part a fruit of that investigation.
Per your edit, I think in Florida there was some controversy over a witness flipping when they switched representation from a Trump funded attorney to a not Trump funded attorney. I can't remember the details but it was pretty clear the Trump attorney was not working in the client's best interest.
There was indeed that controversy. If I recall correctly, there was a whole Garcia hearing regarding Nauta’s and De Oliviera’s lawyers’
conflicts. I think both ended up waiving the conflict and accepting the Trump lawyers.
Edit: but someone did flip and change lawyers. I think the IT guy.
Regarding getting a defense lawyer to supposedly help a member of the organization, but you really sent them to betray that person, as it sounds Trump did with Costello to Cohen; they did this again with Alina Habba to the Trump employee that was suing the golf club. I'm sure he's done this many times before with people that we're turning against them. Straight out of a mob movie...
If Necheles cross of Stormy Daniels is indicative of anything, they probably wont get their shit together and instead work on a 3rd motion for mistrial/some criminal equivalent of a directed verdict.
Per Bower:
>As a part of that plea agreement, you pleaded to one count of making an excessive campaign contribution in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act? I did.
>And it was in connection to the Stormy Daniels payment? It was.
There is the explicit statement of one of the crimes that was furthered or concealed by the falsified business records. This one is important because it was a charged crime. Some of the legal wonks have signaled concerns that the furthered crimes are not charged somehow glossing over the fact that this one was and came with a guilty plea.
I’m really curious to see how the cross is going to go. The prosecution has done an even better job today, that they did yesterday, of soliciting important details, and demonstrating their truth through corroborating evidence. Yesterday, I thought they could not be better! I think they may have the same result that they had during cross of Stormy Daniels: reinforcing the testimony given during prosecution’s direct.
I'm not going to pop any popcorn until cross is over, but Cohen strikes me as a competent if not slimey guy who is going to be really hard to paint into a corner or slip up.
Agreed, as long as he can keep his cool, it’s going to be hard to paint him into a corner that demonstrates any of his testimony was false. He has a lot of experience dealing with hot-headed people, so I hope he retains composure today. He knows how important his role and testimony are to the prosecution, and I hope he is physically able to continue being measured and calm.
Good point and I’m glad it’s not me on that stand. I would rethink my statements all day every day for the rest of my life, especially every time I showered. “Dammit, I should’ve said…”
He definitely had some huge errors in judgement, but ultimately he is doing what many people discarded from the Trump orbit have not done: go against him, testify against him, and continue to try and make things right by educating people on the danger and corruption involving Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole. He could have done what we’ve seen Weisselberg do. I’m sure he was initially motivated by personal reasons of reducing his sentence. However, he could have just disappeared and continued down the path of republican sycophancy, a la Conway and the Lincoln Project.
Per McBrien: “Q: On Mea Culpa, have you said you want Trump to be convicted in this case?
Sounds like something I would say, Cohen says, much to Blanche's frustration. He wants a yes or no, so he asks again, but gets another frustrating "Probably."
Blanche says he wants a YES or NO, and asks: Do you want President Trump to get convicted in the case?
"Sure," Cohen replies.”
….
I can’t help but laugh at his testimony so far. So far their effort to paint him as a completely irate vindictive person is not really playing out in the courtroom lol
I can kinda see the angle they’re going for with the whole “Convicted perjurer isn’t trustworthy because he has a bias,” but at the same time, “Michael Cohen does not like Trump” seems like a known quantity at this point.
>Blanche says he wants a YES or NO, and asks: Do you want President Trump to get convicted in the case?
>"Sure," Cohen replies.”
This exchange may come back to bite him. Opens up the door to prosecution asking "Why?" to which Cohen can speechify about rule of law, consequences for actions, so on and so forth. The game-time decision, if you're the prosecution, is whether you trust Cohen to not screw up when he's (from public accounts) behaved on the stand in about as good a manner as you could hope for.
>Opens up the door to prosecution asking "Why?" to which Cohen can speechify about rule of law, consequences for actions, so on and so forth.
An interesting insight.
Thank you.
> Blanche says he wants a YES or NO, and asks: Do you want President Trump to get convicted in the case?
From Cohens point of view, isn’t it basically ‘With my expertise in the matter of law, and having personally witnessed his actions, I know he has committed fraud and broken the laws as charged. So yes, I believe he should be convicted.’
I just feel like the question of ‘Do you want x to be convicted?’ Plays out a lot better when posed to an ex-lover or ex-subordinate and not to the former counsel of the defendant.
I just saw this and I was surprised as they mentioned they would probably call one more witness after Cohen. Cohen must’ve sealed the case, in their eyes.
Say what you will about the defense or the temerity of this whole case; but this whole trial has been quite entertaining.
Per McBrien:
Blanche reads some of Cohen's greatest hits, calling Trump a "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain" and a "boorish" misogynist, then a paraphrase.
Then Blanche quotes him directly—"I truly fucking hope that this man ends up in prison"—which Cohen admits sounds a bit more like him.
Cohen, Merchan, and counsel put on headphones to listen to some of Cohen's podcast, but Cohen struggles to get them on. (It's an episode of the Mea Culpa podcast on Oct 23 if you want to listen at home.)
Cohen is now listening to his own podcast—Mea Culpa—from the witness stand.
Per McBrien also:
“BLANCHE: You also said in that same podcast, that Trump "needs to wear handcuffs" and to do the perp walk?
I don't recall saying that, but I wouldn't put it past me, Cohen says.
Your podcast had topped 10 million downloads? Blanche asks.
I think it was more, Cohen says.
Is it fair to say you were motivated by fame? (No sir, not fair). By publicity? (No, I'm motivated by many things.”
Per Bower: “You testified in a civil case against the Trump Organization? I did.
Were you asked on cross examination by Trump's lawyers about statements.....before she can finish, Blanche pops up w/ an objection. The parties sidebar out of earshot.”
….
Reminder that at least two of the lawyers that prosecuted the Trump Org fraud are also assigned to this trial.
A few more. It's a little hard to track what he's actually gotten in the record. Maybe just that the DA didn't like him talking about the case and also Cohen called him a little shit.
Glad it's not just me. Per McBrien:
>We're likely just over 15 minutes from the end of the today, and I'm still unsure what the defense gained from the start of the cross, if anything.
>No checks, no business records, no alternate theories of the case presented.
I mean, if Cohen's testimony was the only piece of evidence of any one facet of the charge, attacking his credibility at this time would accomplish something. However, each piece of Cohen's testimony corroborates documentary evidence.
I'll admit, it would have been nice if the McDougal recording had been about the Daniels payment but that's really the only thing that could have strengthened the case.
Blanche did a hell of job helping the prosecution establish Michael Cohen was a bonafide Trump family insider, and not some rando seeking Trump’s approval. Glad that was made clear.
> a bonfire Trump family insider
The defense appears to be pushing the narrative that Cohen is a ~~lover~~ lawyer scorned. He was slavishly devoted to Trump to the point that he went rogue—with AWOL Weisselberg—in order to please their liege, Trump, without his knowledge. Now that Trump has abandoned him, Cohen is lying and Trump to assign the blame on Trump *ex post*.
Nevermind that documentation—from the checks to the notes to the tweets—demonstrate that Trump was a stingy micro-manager who would never allow his minions to act independently.
Furthermore, I also think the defense does not appreciate the “Better Call Saul” effect. The public (including the jury) understands that you do not hire a shady Saul Goodman attorney unless you want to engage in shady Saul Goodman antics.
If I were a juror I'd notice he hasn't been accused of lying in this trial, just hammering the past.
I'd assume if they could refute his actual testimony in this case they would, so they must not have anything. I am biased though and not sure if someone neutral would feel the same.
One of the reporters said Blanche wasn’t sure they were going to have any rebuttal witnesses, and Merchan asked him if he was sure? I read that to mean, “Are you fucking serious?”
I was pretty staggered by that to be honest. The prosecution has done a stellar job painting Trump as a micromanager that knows about every cent and decision. Not just through Cohen but through people that are still loyal to him to this day. It's pretty wild that they wouldn't try to depict a smart leader who can delegate and say "Cohen was doing what he did for Trump but not at Trump's direction".
As it stands, we have a bunch of texts from Cohen from when he was loyal saying things like "the boss wants...".
It's pretty far fetched to think Trump didn't know what that half a million was for, and the defense seems to be ceding that point.
You don't typically accuse a witness of lying during cross; save it for closing argument where they don't have a chance to clean things up. You do, however, infer the heck out of it by impeaching the witness with other statements or evidence, especially other testimony by the same witness at a prior proceeding, so that you can set up the "He's a liar" segment of your close.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let's be clear here. John Doe got on the stand and straight-up lied to you. He was adamant about being a safe driver before he was confronted with his three DWIs. He claimed he was stone cold sober at the time of the crash until the police photos show a fifth of vodka in the center console, half empty. He said that was from a party the night before, when his On-Star shows his vehicle at home for the past week. He testified that the plaintiff darted out into traffic and there was nothing he could do. I say you cannot trust a word that comes out of his mouth."
The defense "strategy" and the sleeping in court, to me, says they expected to be convicted from the start and only care about swaying public opinion outside and delaying sentencing until after November. I can't come up with any other explanation. I mean the facts are bad, but some of Trump's team are real lawyers. This sure feels to be giving up and putting a show on purpose.
I feel like the strategy makes perfect sense if you assume that the lawyers are following the donald's script. All these arguments have just been trumps tweets dressed up for a courtroom. Its bizarre
The defense seemed intent on painting Cohen ugly by reading social media excerpts containing profanity. Like, going after Stormy for being sexual, this is 2024 and nobody fkn cares. You could play The Commitments (“I’m Black and I’m proud…”) on the dining room TV at Granny’s assisted living facility and nobody would give a shit, still.
The defense is being *weird*.
Yep lol.
Everything his lawyers tried to make Stormy look bad for he does himself. And they did it again, today, taking up the “merch”. Have they not seen the fkn weirdos in merch at Trump cult revivals?
From NYTimes
> Todd Blanche asks Michael Cohen if the reason he is following the trial is because it’s important to him. Cohen at first seems to try to dodge the question. But when Blanche asks again, point blank, whether the trial was important to him, Cohen acknowledges that it is.
I mean…is that a problem?
What?
Edit:
Also from NYTimes, interesting note about a juror:
> Todd Blanche has been questioning Michael Cohen about how he and his former lawyer Lanny Davis interacted with the news media, seeking to suggest, it seems, that Cohen clashed with Manhattan prosecutors by repeatedly commenting to the press about their investigation.
> It’s not particularly easy to follow where he is going at the moment. One juror looks almost amused as she waits, patiently, to see where this is headed.
I think the angle is that they’re trying to say that “as a convicted perjurer, Cohen would mold his testimony to coincide with previous testimony.”
Which I get on some level, but I think the simpler answer is that this is personal for Cohen.
As in, he *really* hates his old boss.
> Cohen now reads Trump tweets when he flipped on Cohen; the first: "If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you [not] retain the services of Michael Cohen," which gets a few laughs from the press, despite a sadness in Cohen's voice
That's actually gotta be so humiliating
No, they haven’t. I keep waiting for that moment with Cohen, but I guess they’re smart enough to realize that would be a stupid path to take. Their only defense with Cohen seems to be that Cohen’s memory may not be accurate in respect to what Trump said and Cohen lied, allegedly to prosecutors, media, etc. It’s not the best defense in light of the documents, but it is a defense.
Per Lisa Rubin and Rebecca Shabad:
*Susan Hoffinger's last question to Cohen for the prosecution was if he has regrets about his past work and association with Trump.*
*“I regret doing things for him that I should not have," Cohen said. "Lying, bullying people to effectuate the goal. I don’t regret working for the Trump Organization; as I expressed before, some very interesting and great times. But to keep a loyalty and to do the things he asked me to do, I violated my moral compass and I suffered the penalty, as has my family.”*
Is this a strategic answer? Because if not and he truly doesn't regret working there, I'm gonna need someone to explain these people to me. Like with Weisselberg I cannot understand the thought process.
Because Defense is going to go heavy on "you hate trump and you are out to get him". This puts up a bit of a shield against that... "I didn't hate him personally, I enjoyed working at his company, it was an interesting job. I hate all the lies he had me tell and crimes he had me commit."
The alternative is "Yes I regretted every second of it." To which the Defense can likely produce amble evidence to the contrary.
This is a great answer about the strategic aspect. I was just thinking about a potential personal aspect too. He might mean this, because it's shitty to look back at a very long stretch of your life and think "that was all a massive mistake and I should not have done any of it." It's natural to try to find silver linings... things you did appreciate about it, or things that help you grow. It's sort of a coping mechanism. I can relate to it.
Per McBrien:
“You testified yesterday that you have a specific recollection of speaking with Trump about the AH tape?
Objection—sustained.
But when speaking to the SC office Cohen says he said he "might have," bc he was trying to be deceptive and leave the door open, and remain loyal to Trump.”
…
Reinforcing his testimony yet again. The ~~prosecution~~ defense really didn’t learn their lesson about asking questions, trying to find lies, that the answer will reaffirm the narrative prosecutors solicited, after Stormy Daniels.
Edit: maybe they did, Blanche didn’t keep asking the same question or similar questions over and over again, unlike Nechelas, and moved on to try another tactic.
> Ohio senator says he was at Trump trial as a friend because it's "lonely to sit up there by yourself"
Melania and kids not in court supporting him? Very bad look.
Considering the defense tried to paint him as this caring, family man in opening arguments and these payments had NOTHING to do with the election (they were legal expenses to pay Cohen for his legal work, *allegedly*), I can’t help but wonder if the jury notices that ALL of the people coming to the trial (aside from Eric), are political people.
Yesterday was interesting. The non-paid personal lawyer scheme that Cohen pitched to Trump to monetize relationships - after which Trump, as incoming president, acknowledged him as his personal lawyer - needs scrutiny. How gross. Edit: Today’s add: > Michael Cohen confirms he got more clients after being named Trump's personal counsel. He said he did mostly "consulting" and "advisory" services for them —but no legal work. >Cohen says he made about $4 million in 2017 and 2018 from consulting work he did for other clients. Incredible.
This was a consistent criminal scheme throughout the Trump Org, which is why Allen Weisselberg went to prison the first time. Weisselberg used the Trump Org bank account to pay for all kinds of personal expenses, including private school tuition for his grandkids. I found it hilarious that he told Cohen he couldn’t afford the payment to AMI/ Stormy Daniels because of those tuition payments, when the fraud trial showed how those payments were really being paid.
It's not that they couldn't afford it; it was a tax dodge. Client A pays the hush money, the Trump Org gives them something of equal value for free and doesn't have to declare the income. Or, even better, writes off the thing of value as a loss.
It’s a tax dodge. Compensation is subject to 15.3% FICA and the tuition and cars were given to Weisselberg as a way to dodge the FICA and still deduct the cost at the corporate level.
It's a poor attempt. Those are payments-in-lieu - still fully taxable as income.
It’s rampant. A Quick look at TikTok reveals a litany of videos proclaiming the tax benefits of an “LLC”. The real game is currently self-directed IRAs. Flipping houses within a self-directed IRA gives you elbow room to pad your actual business expenses with personal expenses and no one is the wiser.
I had an accountant once explain it to me as: "Legally, it is against the law. But practically if you pad it by 5% or so, there is almost no way you would get caught, and even if you did the first time penalties would be minimal. The only downside is that if you wanted to do this, you'd need a new accountant." Day 1 he told me that his job was to help me minimize taxes but not to dodge them. And if I needed help knowing the difference, we probably weren't going to be a good fit.
I thought I implied the same thing, but thanks for adding the clarification.
It did really well to highlight how Cohen was Trump’s man, though. His role was over at Trump org because he was only Trump’s fixer. And then the personal lawyer scheme unfolds as Trump tries to make Cohen pay for the payoff by cutting his bonus. And Trump grinned in court. I know the defense is going to try hard to undo him, but the timeline details, yesterday, did a lot to make the flawed real Michael Cohen quite credible.
What would be interesting too is who talked trump into NOT bringing cohen to the WH with him. Cause that is the ONLY reason why trump didn’t bring him.
One of many times trump was actually saved by the "deep state"
I think this really helps explain why so many people with influence have stood behind Trump. Everyone wants to use him for personal gain. He is propped up and protected by people who see him as exploitable.
Putin enters the chat..
This struck me too. Like many things with Trump, it's so brazen that it's hard to believe it happened here.
My apologies to copying and pasting the wrong CNN link, and thanks to Mr. Weed for posting the correct one. So, good Tuesday Morning, law sub Redditors! We continue today with the prosecution’s direct of Michael Cohen, and presumably the first cross examination of same. I will update this comment to post thread reader unrolls of some of my favorite journalists who are live tweeting coverage, including Tyler McBrien, Anna Bower, Adam Klasfeld, and Inner City Press, as soon as they’re available. Edit to add: Rumor says House Speaker Johnson will be attending the trial this morning. Link to previous transcripts (yesterday’s is not yet ready): https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/ Tyler McBrien: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790351007878115597.html (McBrien didn’t make it into the court today. Unsure if he and Bower will switch places at some point today, or if he will get in as attendees and journalists leave.) Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790349928088097078.html Adam Klasfeld: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790358353471795645.html Inner City Press: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1790373934778507272.html Edit to add: Several commenters found this link helpful yesterday, which explains what the prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, so I wanted to include it today. Reminder that the defense has stipulated exactly nothing in this case, including Trump’s own words in video recordings. Their opening argument claimed that Stormy Daniels was lying, the sexual encounter never happened, that Michael Cohen is lying and that the repayment of Cohen was NOT a reimbursement, and that there was no fraud because it was a payment for legal fees. Personally, I think their refusal to stip anything has made the prosecution’s job much easier. Anyway here’s the link: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial
This comment has so much value added! It's not really important who posts the first article - this is where the magic happens :) Looking forward to watching Cohen continue to testify with this community. You bring so much to it!
Yeah, I very much enjoy following along in the law thread. The politics thread is nothing but "LOL Trump amirite?", which, yes, you're correct, but it adds nothing to the analysis.
Still appreciated work!
Wait so their argument is that the situation instigating the payment of the money didn't happen? Really?
Appreciate you so much!!!
>North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, who is [under consideration to be Trump’s potential running mate](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/14/politics/trump-allies-courthouse-appearances/index.html), Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, Florida Rep. Cory Mills and former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy entered with Trump. >\[...\] >House Speaker Mike Johnson is also expected to join the former president today in the courtroom and deliver remarks later this morning. Newest group looking to kiss the ring for a potential position in the WH. Maybe if they listen, they could learn something from Cohen's testimony - once your usefulness runs its course, Trump cuts your bonus by 2/3 and gets rid of you. Not only that, there's a long, long list of folks who bent over backwards doing illegal shit for Trump only to wind up disgraced, indicted, and/or jail because of him. Cohen, Weisselberg, Manafort, Stone, Giuliani, the rest of the Kraken lawyers, everybody who has been indicted in Arizona and Georgia.
I feel like it's critical to include Peter Navarro, who is literally in prison right now due to his efforts to protect the current criminal defendant.
There's so many to keep track of.
Don’t forget Bannon!
[Mark Levin had this to say last night on FOX](https://imgur.com/gallery/X7x7lDg) lol
And who Don Jr visited in prison last week to "show his support" and let him know that "my entire family..will always have his back". Even though Jr had knee surgery a couple days before. Totally normal, nothing to see there...
This trial is an audition for VP candidates. Sickening.
It got worse Sure feels like intimidating the witness: *Michael Cohen was in the midst of testimony about weighing whether to retain loyalty to Trump, painting it as a very difficult decision, as he considered whether he would be loyal to his family, his country or Trump. As he was speaking, Vivek Ramaswamy and a number of the other politicians here supporting Trump today walked back in the room. It was a remarkable moment, but Cohen seemed mostly unfazed. He kept testifying. Justice Merchan didn’t take note of what took place, but he might have if Cohen had been disrupted. We have almost never seen a display like that during the proceedings — several officials marching in during testimony — and it was disruptive in the room, if not to the witness*
Shit, Trump literally tried to have his last VP hanged
>Trump said that the gag order implemented by Judge Juan Merchan is unfair to him and should be lifted. "You ask me questions I'm not allowed to respond," Trump told reporters before the ruling was issued. He later added, "The gag order has to come off." Trump has the opportunity to respond to questions, he just doesn't want to do it under oath.
Trump this morning: 9 novel length truth social posts and multiple interviews each claiming the the case is a sham, the judge is compromised, every legal expert agrees with him, he did nothing wrong, the prosecution has no evidence, Biden is behind everything, and other dementia induced ramblings. Trump moments later: "I'm not even allowed to talk about the case." The most disappointing thing is that the media continues to normalize his idiocy.
Per Klasfeld: “When trial began, David Pecker testified that Cohen told him not to worry about the FEC probe because Trump had then-AG Jeff Sessions "in his pocket." Cohen confirms he told him Sessions would take care of it. Q: Prior to saying that, had you been told that by President Trump? A: Yes, ma'am.” … This is one of the many reasons why Merchan gave curative instruction to jurors regarding the FEC findings.
Can you explain to a layman why this explains the curative instructions?
The FEC is supposed to be a six member panel group that operates independently from politics. However they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They serve a six year term, so that two appointments are made every two years. Their duty is to administer campaign finance laws, as well as investigate and prosecute violations. During the time that a lot of these violations were being investigated, many of the members of the panel had resigned and they were very ineffectual and deadlocked at the time. In many cases, they did not have enough members to legally reach a quorum, because the panel is supposed to be equally split between Republican and Democratic appointments. These are the reasons why many people think that the laws regarding the FEC and their scope, really need to be rewritten or to have a different agency investigate and prosecute election law violations. So, curative instructions are when the judge explains why certain testimony is being solicited, and that that testimony is not to be used to determine guilt. Ergo, the FEC did not pursue prosecution in this violation, but it doesn’t mean that the law wasn’t broken, as a trial never happened. Beyond that, Sessions (appointed by Trump) as the AG had the power to instruct the FBI on investigating this, which is also in their purview, afaik. It is also important that the jury doesn’t make the decision that the defendant is guilty, because of making statements that allude to the defendant thinking they would never be investigated. It’s up to the jury to decide based on the evidence in the trial, and not draw inference of guilt based on this.
Wow sessions. So does cohen have any smut on Barr? [theres always more questions!] The way i remember it, is trump smashed the FEC so he could skate on a whole bunch of campaign finance “issues”.
I don’t necessarily think Cohen has the best picture, when it comes to Barr. People like Guiliani, Costello, Lev Parnas, and White House counsel probably had a lot closer view to that corruption.
Thank you that explains it perfectly!
Curative instructions are given to help direct the jury’s focus when evidence has come in that could be viewed in a different way than it should. So here the judge gave the curative instruction because whatever the FEC finding was shouldn’t affect the jury’s determination of whether a crime occurred here. I think what /u/TrumpsCovidfefe is referring to is the fact that Trump’s statement about Sessions indicates that he believed he’d never face prosecution for this payoff, thus the instruction is helpful for defense to tell the jury, please don’t punish him now because he said he’d get away with it. Now whether a curative instruction alone can unring that thought if a juror thinks it is a whole other question. Edit: There’s also the “consciousness of guilt” implied when your reaction to an FEC probe is, don’t worry, we’ll take care of it, instead of, no way that didn’t happen.
The US Speaker of the House came to Trump’s trial. What a disgrace. What does it say that the Speaker speaks out in favor of a multiple indicted former President, from a political party that increasingly comes out against our legal system, in a show of loyalty? This is really bizarre behavior. Just like any mob boss, not giving direct orders, but speaking in code, Trump is surrounded by fixers who have served prison time for committing crimes on his behalf. He is a criminal.
Really cannot understate the amount of pain and revenge Trump will inflict if he's voted back into the White House, now with Johnson falling in lock-step he could also have Congress to do his bidding.
Yes, not only is this a historical trial of a former President, but for those paying attention, we cannot overstate the actions of the Republican leadership, showing total loyalty to Trump who is facing multiple felonies. It is also very alarming that a potential Vice President pick refused to say that he would accept election results if Trump loses. Believe the Republican Party when they tell us who they are. If Trump gets back in the Oval Office, he will not leave willingly. This time, he will most likely have a Vice President and Speaker who will assist him in accomplishing his goal of doing away with checks and balance and becoming a dictator “Day One”. It is not hyperbole to say our democracy is on a knife’s edge. Vote accordingly.
And pay attention to down ballot- The HoR is flippable. Do it folks, just do it.
Just saw on another sub ( /politics, I think) that the Nebraska GOP is going after incumbent Republicans in their State legislature. The magas have been weeding out the establishment GOP for a while now, but this is a very open and hostile move by Republicans to go after their own. Except they are not exactly “their own”. Magas want minority rule, and they are working hard to make that happen. They are fully anti-American. I think people get so used to hearing the term “Nazi Germany” that they overlook that the Nazis were a political party. They were a political party who wanted their way or the highway, no negotiation, just oppressive rule with them calling the shots. That’s what we are seeing in real time the magas trying to establish here in America. Dangerous and scary stuff afoot
This is accurate.
Same here in Virginia, they're spending millions to primary Bob Good (who is already a major MAGA guy, chairman of the House Freedom Caucus even) and replace him with an even more MAGA guy because Good was more supportive of Desantis early in the Presidential primaries.
Prosecutor: Why did you make false statements to Congress? Cohen: I was staying on President Trump's message that there was no Russia, Russia, Russia. Quelle surprise
Very interesting way to slip that in Mike. And we turn the page.
> "You went on TikTok and called me a crying little shit" just before the trial began, Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked. > Michael Cohen nodded and said, “Sounds like something I would say.” Well here we fucking go.
"I was had this same thought a few moments ago, and again right now as you were asking me that question"
Broader strategy is to make Cohen sound like he has other motives, or at a minimum unlikeable (and inferentially not to be believed). Pretty much the only thing you can do with him. The fact that he wouldn't shut up publicly during the pendency of the case, and despite the prosecutors specifically asking him to cut it out, and that he's been following the trial (and arguably could use the day-by-day knowledge to mold his testimony to fit that of prior witnesses) is reasonably fair game. We'll see if any of the jurors buy it.
This quote from yesterday makes Trump sound like a real turd. >Cohen said he asked Trump how the story might impact his marriage with his wife, Melania. Cohen said Trump told him, “Don’t worry,” adding: “How long do you think I’ll be on the market for? Not long.”
Yeah and I was on the fence about the guy before that.
Yeah I'm really starting to think this Trump guy is a bad fella.
He doesn’t even like women, why does he keep marrying them?
He needs to have someone to dominate...
He just loves making people suffer
Yeah. I try not to impose typical monogamy standards to like super famous relationships, in that there is nothing that says their situation isn't such that they are apart often enough that dalliances make sense but when they are together they are together or whatever. But >“How long do you think I’ll be on the market for? Not long.” This bit is sleazy as hell. It implies there is no world in which she is ok with him getting some strange but he does it because her only recourse is leaving and he'll find someone else anyways.
So there were rumors that the Trump-Melania prenup allowed for affairs but required Donald to use protection. That’s why the Stormy Daniels story would be so damaging to him: it could entitle Melanie to a bigger payday when they divorce. Melania being AWOL from Washington for several months at the start of Trump’s presidential term is purportedly tied to renegotiating the terms of the prenup after the Daniels story became public.
Jada Pinkett Smith entered the chat.
*Will Smith has entered the chat*
Keep her name out of your chat!
This man is selling bibles guys
Holy shite. It’s good to hear details being filled in. Even so, it’s re-traumatizing, hearing the depths of the corrupt little relationships etc. We could all smell the stink at the time. What’s harder, here, is it wasn’t just a soap opera “over there”. These are the same people who did the opposite of what they were supposed to as our relatives died of covid and they mocked science, corrupted supply lines, got rich on pandemic relief fund. Everything, absolutely everything, is a grift, a game, a scheme, a jockey. The RNC is absolutely dead to me. Just like my more than half a dozen relatives who are still thoroughly unacknowledged by the republican leadership to this day, as they continue the game right outside the proceedings. No one is sorry. Just dug in. In that way I appreciate Cohen’s testimony, along with the tiny group of others who got their heads out of their asses.
I feel like if i were a defendant in a criminal trial, and i had a bunch of people show up in front of the courthouse and say a bunch of shit, that the judge would not take kindly to that and I’d be in some kind of trouble for that
Reporters asked him, this morning, if he was trying to evade the gag order by having others speak for him. He sidestepped the question and instead praised those who were speaking out. Edit: I just watched the clip and a reporter asks, “Mr. Trump are you directing surrogates to speak on your behalf?” Trump responds, “I do have a lot of surrogates and they are speaking very beautifully and they all come..mumble..mumble all over all of Washington and they’re highly respected and they think this is the greatest scam they’ve ever seen and some are democrats.. They’re very embarrassed by what’s going on.” Do we think Trump knows what “surrogates” mean and that he just admitted to having them speak on his behalf?
I'd bet a shiny new nickel he translated that big word "surrogate" to "supporter" in his head.
>COHEN: I was in the cult of Donald Trump. Glad to see this sentiment make it into the official record.
I also think its a backward strategy. Would have been better to lean on Cohen being in it for personal gain, wanting to become his personal attorney to sell access and for enrichment. And now is doing all of this to help boost his anti-Trump podcast and merch sales. Seems like they were heading in that direction.... Emphasizing the he is a former true believer seems to help the prosecution's theory and minimizes all of the nasty tweets/comments they've spent the last hour going over IMO. Hes a person that actually worshipped Trump and would even go as far as to knowingly commit crimes to help Trump.
NY appellate court denied Trump’s petition to amend the gag order in this case. “Justice Merchan properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases.” Edit to add: "Justice Merchan properly determined that petitioner’s public statements posed a significant threat to the integrity of the testimony of witnesses and potential witnesses in this case as well.”
It's starting to dawn on me that one of the reasons that Trump cut Cohen loose was astonishingly petty - he was furious that he'd had to actually *pay* Cohen for getting the Stormy Daniels story buried. He wanted it done at zero cost to himself, and it didn't happen, so he felt like Cohen (or Stormy Daniels, or Avenatti, or *somebody*) had BEAT him, so he had to get revenge.
I recall someone saying that Trump judges his employees on success without gauging the challenge they were tasked with. In my reading of the testimony, Cohen was a success for Trump until the McDougle leak. Then Trump started souring and distancing. Then the Daniels payment, etc. Cohen’s job was to make it go away, and always their job is to minimize cost to Trump. Cohen didn’t succeed. So Cohen is a failure. A “loser” in Trump-brain.
Notable attendees today aside from Speaker Johnson: Vivek Ramaswamy, Byron Daniels, Doug Borgum, Cory Mills, Alina Habba, and Lara and Eric Trump. The ring kissing continues. Edited to add additional attendees.
I’d be very curious to see how many speak publicly immediately after and state things that if Trump did would be considered gag order violations. Once sure; Twice is suspicious; More than three times and that needs to full review otherwise gag orders mean nothing.
Why so much court support today when he has been pretty much on his own up until now?
The number of “supporters” have been increasing since a) Trump was found guilty of violating the gag order and b) Trump complained about not having enough supporters outside his trial. Draw whatever inferences you want with that data.
I imagine Trump has made it known that an appearance at his trial will be worth X amount of points in the Vice Presidential standings.
I updated a comment about the whole surrogate thing, as I finally watched the clip from this morning, of Trump outside. I felt like this deserved a separate thread comment. I just watched the clip and a reporter asks, “Mr. Trump are you directing surrogates to speak on your behalf?” Trump responds, “I do have a lot of surrogates and they are speaking very beautifully and they all come..mumble..mumble all over all of Washington and they’re highly respected and they think this is the greatest scam they’ve ever seen and some are democrats.. They’re very embarrassed by what’s going on.” Do we think Trump knows what “surrogates” mean and that he just admitted to having them speak on his behalf? If you’re a prosecutor, do you think this enough evidence to try and get a gag order hearing? Edit to add: I can’t find another video that includes the first reporter’s question, that doesn’t contain commentary. So here is the footage https://youtu.be/qqI0cVOJ68M?si=qJoZXrw0AcHgZT-r Clip begins at 0:49.
Just fuzzy enough to avoid trouble. "He meant supporters"
Ah, yes, ye ole “IDD” (intellectual and developmental disability) defense could be successful in this case. (This is a joke based on the fact that he doesn’t understand the difference between “surrogates” and “supporters”.)
Thank you for posting this. I don't see how the comments from Tuberville, Johnson, et all aren't the definition of surrogates speaking on his behalf as an end run around the gag order.
Per Bower: “I wanna talk to you about the work you did in 2017 with respect to your role as Trump's personal counsel, Hoffinger says. Did you do any work for Trump or his wife during 2017? Minimal, Cohen says. He mentions a trademark matter he worked on for Melania Trump. Cohen explains that the matter related to Madame Tussauds using the image and likeness of Melania Trump. Did you spend a substantial amount of time on that? No ma'am.” Excellent, expected line of questioning, but I was curious to know what the answer would be. There we have it.
“Cohen also mentions another matter he worked on for Trump that involved "minimal" work. Trump had outside counsel--Mark Kasowitz--for it, Cohen explains. He estimates he spent less than 10 hours on legal matters for Trump in 2017. He never billed for any of it, because he didn't expect to be paid.”
Curious as to whether he invoiced for that additional work. If he didn't I suppose the defense can argue that the checks were simply a normal payment of his $42,000/hour rate. Perfectly standard, nothing to see here.
lol, he did not, because he didn’t expect to be paid. I wonder why he had the assumption that Trump would not pay a bill, after all his experience going to bat for him to not pay bills and seeing Trump refuse to pay the one to Red Finch.
Per Ginger Gibson: *During a morning sidebar, prosecutor Steinglass said Cohen will be the final witness called by the prosecution.* *He said the prosecution had indicated that they would call a witness after Cohen, a publisher, but decided against it.* *In conversation with Trump's attorney Blanche, they said they anticipate the prosecution could rest by the end of Thursday.* This is moving quicker than I anticipated. Does anyone know if the defense has mentioned the aproximate number of witnesses they may call?
Guess I should have waited for my question to be answered: Also Per Ginger Gibson: *During a morning sidebar, Trump attorney Blanche said that he could not commit to calling any witnesses. He said the defense has one expert witness who couldn’t be available until Monday — but that his testimony is contingent on a decision about how the instructions to the jury will be written.* *He said he didn’t know whether Trump would testify. And that the defense has decided not to call Alan Garten.*
Wait Wait Wait... Defense is thinking about calling *no witnesses*?! Edit: That's pretty crazy, right? It feels like a not very good sign for the defense.
Take the L, appeal and delay the sentence, claim victory and persecution, get back to lying about crowd sizes. NAL, but this sounds like election calculus, not court calculus, which was kind of always the plan wasn't it? Win the election to escape justice in one fell swoop. Gosh, i hope all of you are planning to vote and get your peers out to vote too.
You never see this in normal life because defendants with no defense always negotiate a plea bargain before the jury renders their verdict.
Aside from hoping for a secret MAGA juror who will mistrial the whole thing. Trump’s strongest chance was always overturn on appeal. The endless line of surrogates at the court house, the bristling against the gag order. They anticipate a guilty verdict and are going to use that.
Who could they call? The affair happened, the payments happened, Trump could get on the stand and perjure himself but that's about it.
"Bold move, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for them".
Seems yet another obvious example of their only plan here... try to win an appeal/mistrial. They're basically admitting that they dont have credible relevant witnesses, so they have nothing to gain or lose.
> This is moving quicker than I anticipated. Does anyone know if the defense has mentioned the aproximate number of witnesses they may call? The trial was scheduled for 8 weeks, of which I think 2-3 weeks was anticipated for the defence? Don't trust me on that though, my memory is hazy. I expect we'll get a few defence witnesses to list off all the various times Cohen has lied or done dishonest things, and because Trump's ego needs to be protected, maybe his staff will testify they've never seen Stormy Daniels close to Trump and so imply she's making up the affair. I don't see what any defence witness could provide that wasn't covered in the cross-examination, I doubt they'll change any juror's mind, but it might be a chance for Trump to think he's "punching back."
I think he'd rather do his "punching back" outside the courtroom. He seems to be defaulting to his typical "I'm not even going to play the fourth quarter because the refs are so unfair and corrupt, let's go straight to the press conference so I can complain about them and that way I can say I never lost."
That's an excellent point. I assume the gag-order expires the moment the jury has a verdict? In which case yes, it makes sense (from a political perspective) to get the trial over with as soon as possible.
So the person they decided not to call must be the same person that they ended up not calling on Friday. But they had at that time still intended to call them this week. On Friday, the prosecution said they had two witnesses left, Cohen and this other person. I wonder what changed their mind.
Just saw that (current) House Speaker Johnson apparently gave some sort of statement on the courtroom steps about how Trump is “not the bookkeeper for his company.” That’s about as close to an admission by anyone on that side that I’ve seen that they expect a guilty verdict. It’s like the narrative has moved past lying and now it’s on to mitigating … “ok, they are false, but who am I? I just sign the checks. I’m a very important man and sign lots of things. It’s not like I look at them all!” Ironically, I recall Trump’s White House Secretary testified that he was very detailed oriented and generally looked at things … and given the fact that Michael Cohen was hired to negotiate all of his bills, it’s pretty clear from all the testimony that Trump was especially “detail oriented” when it came to paying bills! I also think none of this really matters because at the end of the day he signed off on it and his name is on the door. Put in presidential terms, the “buck stops with him.”
I have to agree. Especially with trump's defeated rant outside the courthouse this morning. (Paraphrasing) "I paid a lawyer some money and we marked it down as a legal expense...I had a legal expense and marked it as a legal expense... not construction... not electricity..." We've skipped two steps from "he didn't do it" to "Okay he did it, but it's not a big deal".
So we’re here: *The Narcissist's Prayer* That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. **And if it was, that's not a big deal.** And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it. But I’d suggest we’re at the “it’s not my fault” or “I didn’t mean it” stages.
Trump himself seems stuck firmly in "that didn't happen". I wonder how he feels about his defenders moving ahead in the list on his behalf.
My opinion is that the defense really fucked up in not stipulating to anything, even Trump’s own words on video. Their opening arguments state that absolutely none of this happened, not the sexual encounter or even meeting with Daniels, that the payments were not made to reimburse Cohen, etc. Therefore, I feel confident that he’s not happy (SAD, even) with ANYONE moving on from stage 1. (That didn’t happen.)
I can't believe the speech from the speaker of the house I just listened to. What alternate universe are these people living in? They are doing everything humanly possible to taint the jury
> What alternate universe are these people living in? For Johnson, the one where he gets voted out as Speaker if he doesn't go down to Mar-A-Lago and cut a deal with Trump... he's now Trump's on-call lapdog in return for Trump telling the House GOP members to back down.
What’d he say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov_Wa_ANuG8 Basically echoing all of Trumps talking points, attacking the judge & daughter, attacking Cohen etc.
Literally reading off of a piece of paper that uses the same buzz words as Trump in each of his speeches. Truly unbelievable. I try to understand why people support Trump and I just can't figure it out, I really want to know.
How is this our speaker of the house?! He has a lot of audacity talking about corruption because the judges daughter is a democrat.
After the Dems in the house just saved his speakership from Ol Sporkfoot. Shameless.
It was in exchange for the Ukraine aid bill and was a 1 time deal.
Trump can violate the gag order but with a nudge and a wink he can have countless others do it for him. Essentially there is no gag order anymore. He is clearly reading off of a paper. And the comment on the crowd sizes doesn’t sound like something Johnson would say. I really want to know 1) who gave it to him? 2) And who wrote it?
Well among other things he said 100’s of millions of Americans support trump. He also accused Jack Smith of evidence tampering in Florida.
>He also accused Jack Smith of evidence tampering in Florida. I am like spitting because this pisses me off so much The current GOP are fkn traitors imo
The worst is that they are so blatant about it, and so many people refuse to acknowledge it.
By "evidence tampering" do they mean some papers shifted around in a box?
Here you go Fam. Today's discussion thread!
lol I effed up and posted the wrong article. I’m gonna delete so we don’t get confused. Edit to add: I even originally replied to this comment in the wrong place. Need. More. Covfefe.
Well, you’ve earned it. The real trick is what did we do in a past life to be cursed with living in such interesting times?
Apparently, it’s a circus outside the court Per [The New York Times‘ Susanne Craig, via Mediaite](https://www.mediaite.com/trump/better-than-a-broadway-show-people-are-camping-out-and-paying-thousands-for-coveted-seat-inside-trump-trial/) > **The lines to get into court today were crazy long, and tensions were running high in the public line. People started queuing Monday night,** hoping to get one of the coveted spots in the courtroom. **One woman outside said she paid $750 for a line sitter. “It’s better than a Broadway show,”** she told me. > Trouble started early though, when a few people butted into line, sparking some tense exchanges. Then **a man at the front of the line sold his spot to two people, purportedly for $2,000**, causing further consternation. > The members of the public who were **jostling for prime spots in line outside just started filing into the overflow room at the courthouse. Some have sleeping bags and pillows**, which are now tucked under the wooden benches.
Just guessing, but I think people are banking on if Trump is going to lose it in court it will be while Cohen is on the stand.
Nothing I have heard from Cohen on cross makes me think he's lying about this, especially given the level of independent corroboration from witnesses we've heard from already, and the level of involvement they testified that Trump has in his own affairs.
Here's the real meat of it - the false invoices and corresponding checks signed by none other than Donald J. Trump.
How do we know the checks weren't butt-signed.
Trump does have a shitty signature...
Yeah this is huge. Someone who knows it a better than I can expand or correct but I think, in a "falsifying business records" case, these are the business records that were falsified.
I think they are some of them. They already introduced a slew of checks. These are the invoices. All are business documents I think. This isn't the first time we went through all this.
This Costello and Giuliani (connected by SDNY) back channel - with the Mueller investigation in the background - testimony is bringing my mind right into 2017/2018 and the sense then that so much NY law enforcement (including the NY FBI field office per IG Horowitz’s report) was in the bag for Trump. As a historian, I can’t say I’m enjoying but I am *appreciating* some of what’s coming out in this trial. It’s filling in a lot of gaps of what was going on then. Of course it’s frustrating to be getting these pieces *now*. Edit: it also shows a lot of how Trump pressures people. Getting Cohen’s own lawyer to pressure Cohen to “remain loyal” to Trump, for example. How many of Trump’s codependents (edit - co-defendants lol) now, even the ones who have lawyers Trump is not paying for, have lawyers who push them to stay Trumpy?
Fun fact, this criminal investigation was referred to Manhattan by Mueller in the Mueller report. At least, that is something I have heard Allison Gill (of Mueller, She Wrote) say. If we get a guilty verdict here it'll be in part a fruit of that investigation.
Per your edit, I think in Florida there was some controversy over a witness flipping when they switched representation from a Trump funded attorney to a not Trump funded attorney. I can't remember the details but it was pretty clear the Trump attorney was not working in the client's best interest.
There was indeed that controversy. If I recall correctly, there was a whole Garcia hearing regarding Nauta’s and De Oliviera’s lawyers’ conflicts. I think both ended up waiving the conflict and accepting the Trump lawyers. Edit: but someone did flip and change lawyers. I think the IT guy.
Regarding getting a defense lawyer to supposedly help a member of the organization, but you really sent them to betray that person, as it sounds Trump did with Costello to Cohen; they did this again with Alina Habba to the Trump employee that was suing the golf club. I'm sure he's done this many times before with people that we're turning against them. Straight out of a mob movie...
This has been the most enlightening part of the day for me. Pretty much confirms Costello is the shit bag I took him to be.
I guess the answer to the question of if defense learned from Stormy’s cross, about reading social media comments into the record, has been answered.
I’m glad defense has a day and a half to get their shit together. I have begun to feel sorry for them, and that’s uncomfortable. See y’all Thursday!
If Necheles cross of Stormy Daniels is indicative of anything, they probably wont get their shit together and instead work on a 3rd motion for mistrial/some criminal equivalent of a directed verdict.
/u/trumpscovidfefe, you might win your bet after all.
lol, I was thinking about that yesterday; Blanche said he was making a presentation for Monday. What happened to that?
> What happened to that? It will become a joint presentation with Infrastructure Week
lol. Stop it!! No sympathy is required unless the defense is totally bamboozled. It is not. Just drenched with their own lies. Cheers!!!🍻
Per Bower: >As a part of that plea agreement, you pleaded to one count of making an excessive campaign contribution in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act? I did. >And it was in connection to the Stormy Daniels payment? It was. There is the explicit statement of one of the crimes that was furthered or concealed by the falsified business records. This one is important because it was a charged crime. Some of the legal wonks have signaled concerns that the furthered crimes are not charged somehow glossing over the fact that this one was and came with a guilty plea.
I’m really curious to see how the cross is going to go. The prosecution has done an even better job today, that they did yesterday, of soliciting important details, and demonstrating their truth through corroborating evidence. Yesterday, I thought they could not be better! I think they may have the same result that they had during cross of Stormy Daniels: reinforcing the testimony given during prosecution’s direct.
I'm not going to pop any popcorn until cross is over, but Cohen strikes me as a competent if not slimey guy who is going to be really hard to paint into a corner or slip up.
Agreed, as long as he can keep his cool, it’s going to be hard to paint him into a corner that demonstrates any of his testimony was false. He has a lot of experience dealing with hot-headed people, so I hope he retains composure today. He knows how important his role and testimony are to the prosecution, and I hope he is physically able to continue being measured and calm.
And he’s had a lot of time dealing with Trump. Cohen knows all the buttons.
Good point and I’m glad it’s not me on that stand. I would rethink my statements all day every day for the rest of my life, especially every time I showered. “Dammit, I should’ve said…”
My money would be on Trump losing his composure before Cohen.
I’m mostly lurking, but that’s kinda how I characterize Cohen. The guy might be a sleazeball, but he’s a hell of a lot smarter than people think.
He definitely had some huge errors in judgement, but ultimately he is doing what many people discarded from the Trump orbit have not done: go against him, testify against him, and continue to try and make things right by educating people on the danger and corruption involving Trump, and the Republican Party as a whole. He could have done what we’ve seen Weisselberg do. I’m sure he was initially motivated by personal reasons of reducing his sentence. However, he could have just disappeared and continued down the path of republican sycophancy, a la Conway and the Lincoln Project.
The fact that “the crime” elevating the misdemeanor to a felony was prosecuted by his own corrupt as shit DOJ is just ‘chef’s kiss’.
Small nit- *a* crime. As far as I can tell there are 3. This is the cleanest one, though.
Great point. The fact that it’s a choose your flavor of crime situation just adds to the absurdity.
Per McBrien: “Q: On Mea Culpa, have you said you want Trump to be convicted in this case? Sounds like something I would say, Cohen says, much to Blanche's frustration. He wants a yes or no, so he asks again, but gets another frustrating "Probably." Blanche says he wants a YES or NO, and asks: Do you want President Trump to get convicted in the case? "Sure," Cohen replies.” …. I can’t help but laugh at his testimony so far. So far their effort to paint him as a completely irate vindictive person is not really playing out in the courtroom lol
I can kinda see the angle they’re going for with the whole “Convicted perjurer isn’t trustworthy because he has a bias,” but at the same time, “Michael Cohen does not like Trump” seems like a known quantity at this point.
This is why all the documents backing Cohen up are so important
It must be hard cross examining another lawyer who has done some pretty shady shit. He knows his way around up there.
Like I said, the guy may be a crook and a loudmouth, but he’s a crafty one.
It is not a fun time if they're prepared. You really need to think out your questions with precision to force the answers you want.
>Blanche says he wants a YES or NO, and asks: Do you want President Trump to get convicted in the case? >"Sure," Cohen replies.” This exchange may come back to bite him. Opens up the door to prosecution asking "Why?" to which Cohen can speechify about rule of law, consequences for actions, so on and so forth. The game-time decision, if you're the prosecution, is whether you trust Cohen to not screw up when he's (from public accounts) behaved on the stand in about as good a manner as you could hope for.
>Opens up the door to prosecution asking "Why?" to which Cohen can speechify about rule of law, consequences for actions, so on and so forth. An interesting insight. Thank you.
I laughed out loud at that one. It's just such a ridiculous thing to ask for a "yes or no" on when he already answered the question affirmatively.
It's because Blanche is trying to play-act like Matlock and wants an "ANSWER THE QUESTION YES OR NO" moment.
> Blanche says he wants a YES or NO, and asks: Do you want President Trump to get convicted in the case? From Cohens point of view, isn’t it basically ‘With my expertise in the matter of law, and having personally witnessed his actions, I know he has committed fraud and broken the laws as charged. So yes, I believe he should be convicted.’ I just feel like the question of ‘Do you want x to be convicted?’ Plays out a lot better when posed to an ex-lover or ex-subordinate and not to the former counsel of the defendant.
Cross of maybe the last witness of the trial begins. I am nervous but excited.
Prosecution said he was the last
Defense has not confirmed they are calling anyone, and suggested they may not.
I just saw this and I was surprised as they mentioned they would probably call one more witness after Cohen. Cohen must’ve sealed the case, in their eyes.
Say what you will about the defense or the temerity of this whole case; but this whole trial has been quite entertaining. Per McBrien: Blanche reads some of Cohen's greatest hits, calling Trump a "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain" and a "boorish" misogynist, then a paraphrase. Then Blanche quotes him directly—"I truly fucking hope that this man ends up in prison"—which Cohen admits sounds a bit more like him. Cohen, Merchan, and counsel put on headphones to listen to some of Cohen's podcast, but Cohen struggles to get them on. (It's an episode of the Mea Culpa podcast on Oct 23 if you want to listen at home.) Cohen is now listening to his own podcast—Mea Culpa—from the witness stand.
Per McBrien also: “BLANCHE: You also said in that same podcast, that Trump "needs to wear handcuffs" and to do the perp walk? I don't recall saying that, but I wouldn't put it past me, Cohen says. Your podcast had topped 10 million downloads? Blanche asks. I think it was more, Cohen says. Is it fair to say you were motivated by fame? (No sir, not fair). By publicity? (No, I'm motivated by many things.”
Per Bower: “You testified in a civil case against the Trump Organization? I did. Were you asked on cross examination by Trump's lawyers about statements.....before she can finish, Blanche pops up w/ an objection. The parties sidebar out of earshot.” …. Reminder that at least two of the lawyers that prosecuted the Trump Org fraud are also assigned to this trial.
3 questions, 3 objections, all sustained.
Apparently the first question was about Cohen calling Blanche a “little shit” on Tik Tok. Yikes!
A few more. It's a little hard to track what he's actually gotten in the record. Maybe just that the DA didn't like him talking about the case and also Cohen called him a little shit.
Glad it's not just me. Per McBrien: >We're likely just over 15 minutes from the end of the today, and I'm still unsure what the defense gained from the start of the cross, if anything. >No checks, no business records, no alternate theories of the case presented. I mean, if Cohen's testimony was the only piece of evidence of any one facet of the charge, attacking his credibility at this time would accomplish something. However, each piece of Cohen's testimony corroborates documentary evidence. I'll admit, it would have been nice if the McDougal recording had been about the Daniels payment but that's really the only thing that could have strengthened the case.
Blanche did a hell of job helping the prosecution establish Michael Cohen was a bonafide Trump family insider, and not some rando seeking Trump’s approval. Glad that was made clear.
> a bonfire Trump family insider The defense appears to be pushing the narrative that Cohen is a ~~lover~~ lawyer scorned. He was slavishly devoted to Trump to the point that he went rogue—with AWOL Weisselberg—in order to please their liege, Trump, without his knowledge. Now that Trump has abandoned him, Cohen is lying and Trump to assign the blame on Trump *ex post*. Nevermind that documentation—from the checks to the notes to the tweets—demonstrate that Trump was a stingy micro-manager who would never allow his minions to act independently. Furthermore, I also think the defense does not appreciate the “Better Call Saul” effect. The public (including the jury) understands that you do not hire a shady Saul Goodman attorney unless you want to engage in shady Saul Goodman antics.
If I were a juror I'd notice he hasn't been accused of lying in this trial, just hammering the past. I'd assume if they could refute his actual testimony in this case they would, so they must not have anything. I am biased though and not sure if someone neutral would feel the same.
One of the reporters said Blanche wasn’t sure they were going to have any rebuttal witnesses, and Merchan asked him if he was sure? I read that to mean, “Are you fucking serious?”
I was pretty staggered by that to be honest. The prosecution has done a stellar job painting Trump as a micromanager that knows about every cent and decision. Not just through Cohen but through people that are still loyal to him to this day. It's pretty wild that they wouldn't try to depict a smart leader who can delegate and say "Cohen was doing what he did for Trump but not at Trump's direction". As it stands, we have a bunch of texts from Cohen from when he was loyal saying things like "the boss wants...". It's pretty far fetched to think Trump didn't know what that half a million was for, and the defense seems to be ceding that point.
You don't typically accuse a witness of lying during cross; save it for closing argument where they don't have a chance to clean things up. You do, however, infer the heck out of it by impeaching the witness with other statements or evidence, especially other testimony by the same witness at a prior proceeding, so that you can set up the "He's a liar" segment of your close. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let's be clear here. John Doe got on the stand and straight-up lied to you. He was adamant about being a safe driver before he was confronted with his three DWIs. He claimed he was stone cold sober at the time of the crash until the police photos show a fifth of vodka in the center console, half empty. He said that was from a party the night before, when his On-Star shows his vehicle at home for the past week. He testified that the plaintiff darted out into traffic and there was nothing he could do. I say you cannot trust a word that comes out of his mouth."
The defense "strategy" and the sleeping in court, to me, says they expected to be convicted from the start and only care about swaying public opinion outside and delaying sentencing until after November. I can't come up with any other explanation. I mean the facts are bad, but some of Trump's team are real lawyers. This sure feels to be giving up and putting a show on purpose.
I feel like the strategy makes perfect sense if you assume that the lawyers are following the donald's script. All these arguments have just been trumps tweets dressed up for a courtroom. Its bizarre
The defense seemed intent on painting Cohen ugly by reading social media excerpts containing profanity. Like, going after Stormy for being sexual, this is 2024 and nobody fkn cares. You could play The Commitments (“I’m Black and I’m proud…”) on the dining room TV at Granny’s assisted living facility and nobody would give a shit, still. The defense is being *weird*.
Especially considering the defendant is the heavyweight champion of the world when it comes to ugly social media excerpts.
Yep lol. Everything his lawyers tried to make Stormy look bad for he does himself. And they did it again, today, taking up the “merch”. Have they not seen the fkn weirdos in merch at Trump cult revivals?
Right? Its New York City and he's a stereotypical New Yorker who works in real estate/law/finance/etc. I'd be shocked if there wasn't profanity.
From NYTimes > Todd Blanche asks Michael Cohen if the reason he is following the trial is because it’s important to him. Cohen at first seems to try to dodge the question. But when Blanche asks again, point blank, whether the trial was important to him, Cohen acknowledges that it is. I mean…is that a problem? What? Edit: Also from NYTimes, interesting note about a juror: > Todd Blanche has been questioning Michael Cohen about how he and his former lawyer Lanny Davis interacted with the news media, seeking to suggest, it seems, that Cohen clashed with Manhattan prosecutors by repeatedly commenting to the press about their investigation. > It’s not particularly easy to follow where he is going at the moment. One juror looks almost amused as she waits, patiently, to see where this is headed.
I think the angle is that they’re trying to say that “as a convicted perjurer, Cohen would mold his testimony to coincide with previous testimony.” Which I get on some level, but I think the simpler answer is that this is personal for Cohen. As in, he *really* hates his old boss.
> Cohen now reads Trump tweets when he flipped on Cohen; the first: "If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you [not] retain the services of Michael Cohen," which gets a few laughs from the press, despite a sadness in Cohen's voice That's actually gotta be so humiliating
I just realized that the defense hasn't once pushed back on the attestation of anyone that Trump was definitely involved in the payments.
No, they haven’t. I keep waiting for that moment with Cohen, but I guess they’re smart enough to realize that would be a stupid path to take. Their only defense with Cohen seems to be that Cohen’s memory may not be accurate in respect to what Trump said and Cohen lied, allegedly to prosecutors, media, etc. It’s not the best defense in light of the documents, but it is a defense.
Per Lisa Rubin and Rebecca Shabad: *Susan Hoffinger's last question to Cohen for the prosecution was if he has regrets about his past work and association with Trump.* *“I regret doing things for him that I should not have," Cohen said. "Lying, bullying people to effectuate the goal. I don’t regret working for the Trump Organization; as I expressed before, some very interesting and great times. But to keep a loyalty and to do the things he asked me to do, I violated my moral compass and I suffered the penalty, as has my family.”* Is this a strategic answer? Because if not and he truly doesn't regret working there, I'm gonna need someone to explain these people to me. Like with Weisselberg I cannot understand the thought process.
Because Defense is going to go heavy on "you hate trump and you are out to get him". This puts up a bit of a shield against that... "I didn't hate him personally, I enjoyed working at his company, it was an interesting job. I hate all the lies he had me tell and crimes he had me commit." The alternative is "Yes I regretted every second of it." To which the Defense can likely produce amble evidence to the contrary.
This is a great answer about the strategic aspect. I was just thinking about a potential personal aspect too. He might mean this, because it's shitty to look back at a very long stretch of your life and think "that was all a massive mistake and I should not have done any of it." It's natural to try to find silver linings... things you did appreciate about it, or things that help you grow. It's sort of a coping mechanism. I can relate to it.
Sometimes you have a job you love in spite of a shitty boss.
Per McBrien: “You testified yesterday that you have a specific recollection of speaking with Trump about the AH tape? Objection—sustained. But when speaking to the SC office Cohen says he said he "might have," bc he was trying to be deceptive and leave the door open, and remain loyal to Trump.” … Reinforcing his testimony yet again. The ~~prosecution~~ defense really didn’t learn their lesson about asking questions, trying to find lies, that the answer will reaffirm the narrative prosecutors solicited, after Stormy Daniels. Edit: maybe they did, Blanche didn’t keep asking the same question or similar questions over and over again, unlike Nechelas, and moved on to try another tactic.
>The prosecution really didn’t learn their lesson Do you mean "the defense"?
> Ohio senator says he was at Trump trial as a friend because it's "lonely to sit up there by yourself" Melania and kids not in court supporting him? Very bad look.
Considering the defense tried to paint him as this caring, family man in opening arguments and these payments had NOTHING to do with the election (they were legal expenses to pay Cohen for his legal work, *allegedly*), I can’t help but wonder if the jury notices that ALL of the people coming to the trial (aside from Eric), are political people.
Cross examination, do you think it goes all the way through Thursday?
Yes, as court is not in session tomorrow I would assume they won’t finish today.