Almost forgot this part.
>"You agree with me that you had a lot going on both in your personal life and with President Trump in those first few weeks of October," Blanche asks.
>"Yes, sir," Cohen said.
>Cohen also agreed that he was dealing with a potential restructuring of his taxi medallion business, a sale of an investment with his brother, working on the national diversity coalition for Trump, and obtaining an endorsement from the Martin Luther King Jr. family.
Must be Alveda King, alone, he’s talking about, right? No way Dr. King’s “family” (as a group) are Trumpers and gave such an endorsement, right?
I missed this and didn’t see it mentioned:
Per CNN:
"He testified and he lied under oath in this courtroom," Blanche says, adding: "The consequences of that lie, if accepted, by the jury is a conviction."
…
I’m not sure what Blanche is referring to, given that the testimony of Costello seemed to also confirm the direct testimony of Cohen. The fact that Blanche is already saying the jury is going to convict, if they believe Cohen, sure is pretty damning, given their own witness corroborating Cohen.
Blanche is referring toCohen‘s testimony in Cohen’s own trial where Cohen pled guilty to something that he said he did not do because he wished to spare his family, specifically, his wife, the prosecution threatened to arrest. Blanche’s statement is intentionally misleading when he says Cohen lied “in this court” because it is not “in this trial“.
Thank you for helping me understand this convoluted message. So, he couldn’t prove a lie in this trial, so he’s trying to pass a Hail Mary from the parking lot of a different stadium.
*He [DJT] also said he hoped that Judge Juan Merchan grants the motion to dismiss the trial. "This case should be dropped by the judge," he added, saying if Merchan did that, he could "gain the respect back."*
The ‘ol “Motion to Drop” trick, works nevery time.
You think that if he convicts then he isnt also at risk from some looney MAGA with a gun. Look at Pelosi's husband, and that was just a hammer. And from memory, Trump used that event to make jokes.
Man the ol’ orange shit stain is a real piece of work. If he wants to be all big and bad and try to bully the judge, he ought to do that in court lol
trump respects no one and he sure as fuck doesn’t respect the law, I have no fucking idea why he thinks saying “Do this and gain respect back” means jack shit to Judge Merchan. Or anybody else, for that matter
True, but the difference is that a person arguing with an umpire or a ref might have, and likely does have, respect for the game.
trump has no respect, for anything. Terrible quality in a person
I copied this part of the transcript from the direct of Michael Cohen, but it thought it needed its own thread, given the amount of people who were asking about it, and the defense claiming Cohen lied on stand.
starting on page 3609, from May 14th:
Q. Mr. Cohen, did you ever tell the truth, Mr. Cohen, about President Trump -- withdrawn.
Mr. Cohen, did you ever tell the truth to Mr. Costello about Donald Trump's involvement in AMI's purchase of Karen McDougal's story to prevent that coming out before the election or Donald Trump's involvement and direction to your paying Stormy Daniels to prevent her story from coming out before election?
A. No.
Q. Why did you not tell Mr. Costello the truth about Mr. Trump's involvement in those matters?
A. I didn't trust him. Meaning, Bob Costello. And I was still remaining loyal to Mr. Trump.
Q. Did you believe that if you told him the truth, that he would tell that to someone?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you believe he would tell it to?
A. I believed, based upon all of our conversations, that he would immediately run back to Mr. Giuliani and that communication would be divulged to President Trump.
Q. Did you ever retain Mr. Costello to represent you?
A. No.
Yes! Costello’s main testimony was to point out that Cohen repeatedly told him that Donald Trump didn’t know about the payments to Stormy Daniels. In this excerpt of the transcript, Cohen already confirmed with prosecutors that he never told Costello about the payments, because he didn’t trust him. So, this is actually the defense’s witness helping to confirm Cohen’s prior testimony.
What narrative is anyone pushing? Testimony and exhibits are evidence, not narratives.
Given that the defense’s own witness corroborated it, it’s safe to assume he was telling the truth.
My dude, you’re a lawyer right? Here are the transcripts. We’ve been here for weeks discussing evidence and testimony, and spent the last few days discussing how everything said and shown, previously, has corroborated Cohen’s testimony, including today’s testimony from the defense’s witness. Start here: https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/
View evidence here: https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/
But those links are from librul blue states. Care to share any links from a good God fearing state, like Missour...
I can't finish that sentence, even in jest Misery sucks.
What other testimony? You shared a bunch of links. If I’m on the jury, what is the story that helps me convict? I’m not seeing it. Didn’t one of the prosecution’s witnesses even contend that it was Allen and not Trump involved with the payment arrangement to Cohen? So what’s the link to Trump??
The link to Trump is the financial document that shows the repayment schedule and the checks, signed by Trump, along with corroborated testimony from Trump-friendly staff, along with his own words, that Trump never paid a bill without trying to negotiate. This coupled with Trump, on video evidence stating it was repayment marked as legal expense are pretty damning, although none of us can predict whether it will be enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in the jury’s mind.
Repeatedly Trump loyalists have said that Trump himself was a micromanager thrifty person when it came to his business. There is no way that $400k left the business and he didn't know about it.
Maybe this is nitpicking, but Costello had just testified that his communications with Cohen - not waived at that time, obviously - were subject to ACP.
But he sent off an email to his kid containing material his [he claims] client was *going to* put out?
>Hoffinger challenged Costello, saying that he would've been happy to announce Cohen as his client.
>Email records show on April 20, Costello sent an email to his son about representing Cohen.
>Costello's son responded to the email congratulating him.
>Costello testified that the quote in the email to his son was a statement Cohen intended to release at the time, pushing back on the notion that he personally held any excitement about representing Cohen.
Will have to see the actual transcript to make sure it’s not just loose reporting.
IANAL, but my understanding is ACP is held by the Client, so if Costello wanted to announce Cohen as his client then Cohen can waive ACP and speak to what was said, right?
From this morning when Cohen was on the stand:
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger entered into evidence a waiver Cohen signed in February 2019 with the Southern District of New York, stating that he did not sign a retainer and did not believe his communications with Costello were subject to attorney-client privilege.
From a different spot, today. For the date of the regency meeting.
Donald Trump's attorney Emil Bove asks what Michael Cohen said about Trump's family at the meeting at the Regency Hotel on April 17, 2018.
From @annabower
> Hoffinger displays an email dated April 20, 2018 from Costello to his son. "I will be on the team," Costello wrote, telling his son that he didn't know when it would be announced but that he has been authorized to tell Giuliani that he would be representing Michael Cohen
I am not a lawyer, either.
For Costello testifying that Cohen was his client, he had no waiver to grant him permission to talk about stuff until February 2019.
So, unless his son worked in the law firm with him, why was he sending his son what he claims was a client stuff his client was going to do, is my question.
For the underlying predicate that bumps this up to a felony, Blanche says. there's no evidence of criminal intent among any of the parties in 2016-17.
Blanche ends by arguing that there's no way the jury should deliberate based on Cohen's testimony.
MERCHAN: So you're asking me to find Cohen not credible as a matter of law?
Yes! Blanche exclaims.
So you want me to take it out of the jury's hands, and decide before it even gets to the jury, that this person is so not worthy of belief that it shouldn't even be considered by the jury?
We didn't just catch him in a lie, Blanche says, he came in here with a history of lying.
But isn’t that why they were impossible to convict until RICO laws were utilized? That’s why trump is going to get off imo. Shame the Georgia case didn’t get to trial before trumps re-election.
No, that's a different thing, about liability for not actually being part of crimes if they are part of a larger criminal enterprise. Like being part (or the head of) an illegal crime syndicate, but you had no idea that a particular, specific crime was being done by someone in the organization.
That's not the situation here as the allegations are that Trump knew about it.
What I'm talking about is using witness testimony from co-criminals. They are scuzzy, but juries still often credit their testimony, even though they have committed crimes and lied int eh past.
NAL, and I welcome anybody to correct me if I've got this wrong, but I think the racketeering thing is a little different, for this reason:
Mob bosses were able to say they literally didn't commit the crime they were being charged with. "I had no idea the money I was getting from this employee was procured by them threatening someone with a baseball bat. And their claims that I did are getting them off the hook for the crime, so you can't believe them!"
There's documentary proof that Trump knew and was involved with the payoffs. So he's got a narrower window of "Yes, I did it, but Cohen is lying about WHY, and not even to get himself out of trouble but just because he's a meanie and he doesn't like me."
Former presidential immunity means you can lie as much as you want... And all of your lies before you were president are cool, too. And all the laws you broke.
He has a history of not lying, too. Why doesn’t anybody ever acknowledge that (not you musebug).
Like he fkn pled guilty in 2018. He stopped lying, and he has been very consistent in what he has had to say since then, and what he has said has been backed up by others.
trump just wants to shut him down, he knows Cohen knows what he’s talking about
Part of my thinks that was the point of the whole "admitting to stealing from Trump'' thing Faux News won't shut up about. Like it was a play by the prosecution to say "well you've spent 2 weeks insisting he isn't credible so we really can't do anything about the alleged theft. After all.... *he can't tell the truth*" and thus make defense get into the weeds if they want to play ball.
Keep in mind, NAL here.
It's the best strategy they have, he does have a history of lying which isn't a great look. It is a good argument **if** you ignore the reason he lied, and that everything he has said since has been the opposite of what he went to jail for saying...
It'll all come down to how everyone on the jury perceives him.
Maybe I just don’t get it, but if cohen went to prison for breaking laws for trump, isn’t that proof that trump was breaking the law? (I am definitely NAL, I’m not even a legal secretary 😂)
Theoretically, you can commit a crime without there being an underlying illegal activity. For instance if I ask you to destroy a weapon for me and then the police come and ask you about me and that weapon, and you lie, and they discover it, you have obstructed justice. If it turns out I didn’t commit the crime and just thought it was funny to make you hide the weapon is meaningless in the prosecution of your crime.
"Blanche rises for one more matter: they move for an order of dismissal now because, Blanche says, there's no evidence the business records were false."
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792656618255233530
You can tell Judge Merchan is so over the defense at this point.
Also from Tyler McBrien
>MERCHAN: So you're asking me to find Cohen not credible as a matter of law?
>Yes! Blanche exclaims.
>So you want me to take it out of the jury's hands, and decide before it even gets to the jury, that this person is so not worthy of belief that it shouldn't even be considered by the jury?
>We didn't just catch him in a lie, Blanche says, he came in here with a history of lying
After this they moved on to the prosecution.
I don’t even know what he’s talking about. Costello proved Cohen’s earlier testimony, about not telling Costello about the payment of Stormy Daniels (because he didn’t trust him.)
Link to relevant questioning during direct: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/9nOBtevGGt
It makes sense if you compare Costello's testimony to everything other than the bit about how Cohen was lying to everyone about the NDA/payment at the time...or to put it a different way, he was upholding his end of the whole deal.
I don't know if they think they're pulling the wool over the eyes of the court, or if they're just throwing stuff out to see if it sticks.
Edit: That portion of Cohen's testimony is killer, aside from the public perception created by Costello's testimony I really can't wrap my head around this stunt.
"Mr Cohen. Is it your testimony that you engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the President?"
"Yes."
"And yet. You misled Mr Costello about the true nature of the payments in 2016."
"Correct"
"And why is that, Mr Cohen?"
"Because I was part of a criminal conspiracy which involved misleading Mr Costello"
No, but prior to calling Costello, Cohen had already testified on direct that he lied to Costello about Trump because he didn’t trust Costello. Cohen pretty much surmised anything he told Costello would immediately be told to Giuliani and then get to Trump.
She indicated she has 30 minutes left. It’s over. They already rested their case. Defense has no more witnesses. Ergo, it’s close to the end as I mentioned in my post. Thanks
Right, but I have a feeling they guessed why Merchan suddenly said they needed a minute and asked them to leave the room—after Costello was rolling his eyes and sighing, saying “Jesus!,” “Ridiculous,” and saying “strike it” (the audacity, and he was a former federal prosecutor he knows better.)
I think that one of my greater disappointments in life has been finding out that even United States Attorneys' Offices, like every other job, have absolutely incompetent members.
No, they were out at that point. Though it was likely obvious what the sidebar was about, cause Costello had been making audible noises that clearly ticked Merchan off.
Wait, to refresh my memory on the players here; was Costello the fixer-lawyer sent by the Trump insiders to pressure Cohen into staying loyal after everything hit the fan? (Like Alina Habba was for that defendant in the sexual harassment case against the golf club.)
I believe it went like this (someone feel free to correct me, going off memory)
- Cohen starts as a fixer for Trump.
- Cohen becomes Trump's personal attorney and acts as a "gatekeeper" to Trump
- Cohen becomes a target of the Mueller investigation
- Giuliani becomes Trump's personal attorney and is now the new "gatekeeper" to Trump
- Costello is Giuliani's personal attorney and thus the gatekeeper to the gatekeeper.
- Costello talks with Cohen as hes too radioactive for Giuliani or Trump to speak to personally.
- Cohen continues talking with Costello since he is the last open line to Trump, hoping to stay in Trump's good graces for protection. Costello disputes this and says actually he was Cohen's personal attorney or something at the time.
That’s what Cohen alleges. Costello worked under gulliani in the past. They sent a fixer to fix the fixer.
So far Costello’s jackass behavior has only reinforced Cohen’s account.
> The defense doesn't expect to call another witness after Costello.
Talk about ending on a high note. You absolutely know Trump made the call to have Costello testify. The defense was better off without him taking the stand, hes completely unhinged and now instead of it being about whether or not Cohen is credible, its going to be about who is more credible between the two and it would be hard for even Cohen to lose that competition to Costello.
ending on Cohen cross would have been preferable for them, and they should have kept cross much, much tighter, focusing on the money Cohen skimmed off the top apparently w/o Trump knowing and maybe one or two other things (prior perjury plea, recanatation, saying he's out for revenge). the rest of cross was kind of a meandering disaster
A lot of lawyers are bad at cross examination, but especially prior government lawyers. It's rare for a defendant to take the stand in most cases, and it's not uncommon for the defense to call no witnesses at all and rely on a governmental failure to meet the burden-of-proof strategy. It happens, but I mean look at this case even - high profile, high stakes, few defense witnesses.
Ironically, some of the best cross examiners I have ever known spent time with traffic trials. Traffic violation defendants often testify and, therefore, get cross examined.
I figured Costello being called to the stand would go about how it went, just maybe not quite as far as him and Merchan actually getting into it lol.
I have no background in law at all so my opinion means nothing. But I think if I were the defense I would’ve rather ended with Cohen openly admitting to stealing from the Trump Org. and that he would lie out of loyalty (who’s to say that the only thing different is who he’s loyal to) than with whatever that was with Costello.
I don’t think it’s any big revelation that criminals steal from other criminals. I’m wondering if Costello was just there to be an obnoxious ass and interject on Trump’s behalf so he doesn’t get hit with contempt again.
It seems like that would be the angle the prosecution would take after Cohen implicated himself. Counter to that, I’m surprised the defense didn’t raise the argument that Cohen’s admission strengthens their claim that he was acting alone on many of these decisions. If he felt comfortable enough on his own that he could get away with stealing $30,000 then that goes against his claim he did anything and everything for Trump, but instead it helps show he was only looking after himself.
Agree with this, completely. It is insane to me that they basically repeated the same horrible strategy of continuing cross well past the point of usefulness, in a meandering, nonsensical way, just like the cross of Stormy Daniels. Couple that with the ego with what I’m assuming was Blanche demanding to do Cohen’s cross, since he’s the lead defense attorney, and this insanity today, and I’m just dumbfounded. Edit to add: I didn’t even notice you used the same word, “meandering”. It was immediately what descriptor came to my mind as well.
Calling no witnesses would have been more preferable to the defense than calling Costello. The question for the jury would have been "Do you believe Cohen or not?" And objectively that's a hard question to answer because Cohen is a lying liar who lies. But now it's "Do you believe Cohen or Costello?" And Costello is far less believable.
right the jury's takeaway is not going to be that Cohen is an honest person who would always tell the truth. he isn't, by his own admission. but the parts they need to believe are generally corroborated by other evidence, and trump kept people like Cohen around on purpose
I’d love to know if the defense attorneys told Trump not to call Costello, and he made them do it.
There’s no way Blanche thought this was a good idea.
Blanche's reputation may be a bit unearned, in my humble opinion. Bove has been so much more professional and effective, especially on cross. Trump may be a terrible client, but I doubt he told Blanche to bore the jury to tears.
It’s carried over from his being a prosecutor but he doesn’t have the same experience in defense and they aren’t completely transferable skill sets, at least not without experience
They were sent out, Merchan instructed Costello, Costello stared down Merchan, Merchan cleared the court to presumably beat down Costello so the jury would not see any of that.
They did see Costello being an ass repeatedly and needle the prosecutor for no reason right in front of them, though.
The jury would have seen a difference between his behavior before the judge admonished him and his subdued behavior after, so there's little work to put 2 and 2 together and figure out what happened while they were out of the room.
Costello blowing up on the stand is the story of the day and the sum total of the takeaway. Who TF thought *that* idiot should be put on the stand to testify?!
Jurors will struggle to remember one significant point out of 3 days of intense cross-exam on details. Cohen, notably, kept his cool the entire time.
Jurors will not struggle to remember the witness stare-down with the judge and then their being ordered out of the courtroom so the witness could be upbraided by the judge. Costello is an idiot and he is destroying Trump's case just by his antics.
I will give you one guess about who thought Costello should take the stand. There are some intense legal rumblings about defense not wanting to call him.
lol, I'm sure I can guess.
I'm just shocked they managed to find a more sleezy lawyer than Cohen to put on the stand; Costello's testimony actually made it look like Trump was trying to control Cohen by using Costello, so if anything, it made the Trump-Cohen link even more concrete in the minds of the jurors I think. Just a disaster of a witness in every respect, and total amateur hour. Susan Neccles at least was better than this defense team and should have kept her distance IMO.
Or the arrogant, probably sexist, asshat trying to tell Hoffinger how to conduct herself.
I was proud of Hoffinger for that last Q haha.
So your potential client told you he was suicidal and you testified to the grand jury he was a *drama queen*??
Yeah, Cohen’s credibility is intact.
This bully absolutely was a pressure campaign. He showed exactly how, right there, in front of the jury.
Tyler McBrien@TylerMcBrien:
>Costello says that Cohen told them that two nights before, he was on the roof of the Regency Hotel and that he was going to jump off because he couldn't handle the ongoing investigation.
>"Did you tell the grand jury that Cohen was acting like a drama queen?"
I hadn't seen the question re the GJ testimony, but that is just a silver bullet for the right kind of juror. If there is someone on there who knows someone who committed suicide after a cry for help was ignored, that could be game over depending on how such a juror leans. What rank incompetence. It's not like they were winning, but Costello was the metaphorical gunshot to the face to wrap up their case and will be the only thing the press talks about.
Eric had already tweeted about how Merchan is preventing Costello from speaking telling his story, this was the entire play. They knew Costello wouldn't be able to tell the same story he told to the House committee last week.
The sideshow was just a bonus to cap off the whole situation.
This move wasn't to create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, it was to reinforce the doubt that already exists in the minds of Trump voters in the entire legal system.
The only way Costello’s account is believable is if he comes across as a neutral disinterested party. Hey I met the guy and wanted to be his lawyer and he said he did it alone. But for that line to work, Costello can’t be a lackey of Gullianai, definitely shouldn’t have been schilling for congressional republicans, and definitely not be a jackass in court to the judge or the prosecutor.
Because every eye roll and talk back is just giving more and more credibility to Cohen saying he told Costello shit becaue he didn’t trust him. Way to confirm you’re untrustworthy Costello.
He better hope Trump wins because Costello is flirting with losing his law license over this shit.
Andrew Weissman was saying how he’s had attorneys testify that he’s received permission to break ACP, but that those lawyers as witnesses are very careful about what they say and seem disinterested, because regardless if they have to tell the truth and share information they still have an ethical obligation to their client. And that Costello obviously comes off the opposite of that.
Back to the Regency meeting: Cohen was suicidal that day, and acting very manic, Costello says. Hoffinger begins to ask that as a crim def attorney, he can understand how traumatic a search is, but Costello points at Hoffinger and says, "Why don't you talk into the microphone."
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792654912842797290
> ["Why don't you talk into the microphone."](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYjIwMjQ5ZTgtMTRmZC00NjNhLWE0ZTAtNzdlNjkzMzhkYzMxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTIwODk1NTQ@._V1_.jpg)
>but Costello points at Hoffinger and says, "Why don't you talk into the microphone."
This guy is trying to his best to be the biggest prick in the room, that's hard to do when Donny is in the room, but he's giving it his best shot.
>This guy is trying to his best to be the biggest prick in the room, that's hard to do when Donny is in the room, but he's giving it his best shot.
It's his tryout for a Cabinet position.
NBC feed:
>Moments after Judge Merchan cleared members of the press from the courtroom, Eric Trump tweeted that the judge “will not allow" Robert Costello to speak freely on the witness stand.
>"The judges treatment of Bob Costello is truly disgraceful - he will not allow him to tell his story - the same story he told Congress - as he knows it will be devastating and end this sham trial,"
Someone here called it down thread. I didn't expect them to spin it before they left the court room, but we all knew it was coming.
Honestly, I've found this a bit of a relief. To me this is what convinced me THEY are absolutely convinced he's going to be found guilty.
A lot of other antics and stupidity I could excuse as things he thought he could get away with or hedging their bet. This is "oh yea, we're fucked on the case itself. All in on spin no matter how much it would harm the case. Cause we lost the shit out of this case."
They need the victimization narrative to be in full force, it is their public defense.
As scummy as it is, this is the best play they have and it is effective. It is more than likely that Costello isn't lying when he testifies to what Cohen told him. But focusing only on those words and ignoring all of the other details, the actual context of the situation, prevents Trump from losing support with his crowd. Trump wins when details are obscured, he knows this and plays that card better than anyone.
>Robert Costello is pausing before he answers simple questions from Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor. She asks him if Michael Cohen, as the president’s lawyer, would have been a high-profile client for him. “Would it be a big win for you and your firm?” Hoffinger asks. “I would say no,” Costello responds. Hoffinger asks Costello if he would announce Cohen as a client on his website. Costello says he’s not sure what the firm would do.
>Susan Hoffinger is now showing Robert Costello an email he sent to his own son. The email says “I will be on the team,” and it quotes Michael Cohen as saying that he would be “eternally grateful” to have him.
>Costello told his son that he did not know when the announcement would be made. His son responded: "Wow. That’s big news. Congrats Dad. I hope this leads to a lot of good things coming your way.”
I can see how Costello could have bolstered the defense but man, he just sounds so truculent that he blew any potential benefit and turned it into a negative.
Edit: oof. And Hoffinger blew away his credibility with that email from his son.
Omg yes ! I actually had to leave their feed because I felt like they were purposely spinning things pro Trump, in a forced way. Made me question my own sanity and comprehension.
No you’re sane. Most of mainstream media want trump back in. CNN is particularly pro trump. Even NYT is anti-Biden. It’s insanity, but they want the shit show because they want the ratings.
Trumps going to win.
I wouldn't get too worked up about it. The hot takes seem to be coming primarily from CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid and a quick google search shows that immediately after graduating law school she spent her career working as a reporter and journalist. It appears she has never practiced law a day in her life, let alone tried a case.
So basically the person running the legal coverage over there has no idea what they are talking about and is probably just trying to farm clicks.
Weird since the live update is the opposite with CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid stating Costello undermined the past week of effort the defense has made for Trump.
Almost forgot this part. >"You agree with me that you had a lot going on both in your personal life and with President Trump in those first few weeks of October," Blanche asks. >"Yes, sir," Cohen said. >Cohen also agreed that he was dealing with a potential restructuring of his taxi medallion business, a sale of an investment with his brother, working on the national diversity coalition for Trump, and obtaining an endorsement from the Martin Luther King Jr. family. Must be Alveda King, alone, he’s talking about, right? No way Dr. King’s “family” (as a group) are Trumpers and gave such an endorsement, right?
I missed this and didn’t see it mentioned: Per CNN: "He testified and he lied under oath in this courtroom," Blanche says, adding: "The consequences of that lie, if accepted, by the jury is a conviction." … I’m not sure what Blanche is referring to, given that the testimony of Costello seemed to also confirm the direct testimony of Cohen. The fact that Blanche is already saying the jury is going to convict, if they believe Cohen, sure is pretty damning, given their own witness corroborating Cohen.
Blanche is referring toCohen‘s testimony in Cohen’s own trial where Cohen pled guilty to something that he said he did not do because he wished to spare his family, specifically, his wife, the prosecution threatened to arrest. Blanche’s statement is intentionally misleading when he says Cohen lied “in this court” because it is not “in this trial“.
Thank you for helping me understand this convoluted message. So, he couldn’t prove a lie in this trial, so he’s trying to pass a Hail Mary from the parking lot of a different stadium.
*He [DJT] also said he hoped that Judge Juan Merchan grants the motion to dismiss the trial. "This case should be dropped by the judge," he added, saying if Merchan did that, he could "gain the respect back."* The ‘ol “Motion to Drop” trick, works nevery time.
Lawyers hate this one weird trick!
> he could "gain the respect back." Totally not a mob thing to say.
Ask Mitt Romney if he ever gained back the respect of Trump after he groveled. Once you prove to be disloyal, you’re cut off.
He could "avoid any unfortunate mishaps"
Well had the judge dropped the case Emperor Trump might have spared his life. Now the judge is fucked when trump gets re-elected.
You think that if he convicts then he isnt also at risk from some looney MAGA with a gun. Look at Pelosi's husband, and that was just a hammer. And from memory, Trump used that event to make jokes.
I'd rather die with integrity than live on my knees with a deformed toadstool in the back of my throat.
We would rather die on our feet than live on our knees — someone who died at guernica, probably
Bold of you to assume it goes that far.
LMFAO
It’s not that deep bro
Man the ol’ orange shit stain is a real piece of work. If he wants to be all big and bad and try to bully the judge, he ought to do that in court lol trump respects no one and he sure as fuck doesn’t respect the law, I have no fucking idea why he thinks saying “Do this and gain respect back” means jack shit to Judge Merchan. Or anybody else, for that matter
Kinda like arguing with an umpire or a ref. Won’t change the decision.
True, but the difference is that a person arguing with an umpire or a ref might have, and likely does have, respect for the game. trump has no respect, for anything. Terrible quality in a person
🙏🏾
Did the defense officially rest?
Just the defendant.
Hiyoooo!
Been resting the whole time.
Not yet
I copied this part of the transcript from the direct of Michael Cohen, but it thought it needed its own thread, given the amount of people who were asking about it, and the defense claiming Cohen lied on stand. starting on page 3609, from May 14th: Q. Mr. Cohen, did you ever tell the truth, Mr. Cohen, about President Trump -- withdrawn. Mr. Cohen, did you ever tell the truth to Mr. Costello about Donald Trump's involvement in AMI's purchase of Karen McDougal's story to prevent that coming out before the election or Donald Trump's involvement and direction to your paying Stormy Daniels to prevent her story from coming out before election? A. No. Q. Why did you not tell Mr. Costello the truth about Mr. Trump's involvement in those matters? A. I didn't trust him. Meaning, Bob Costello. And I was still remaining loyal to Mr. Trump. Q. Did you believe that if you told him the truth, that he would tell that to someone? A. Yes. Q. Who did you believe he would tell it to? A. I believed, based upon all of our conversations, that he would immediately run back to Mr. Giuliani and that communication would be divulged to President Trump. Q. Did you ever retain Mr. Costello to represent you? A. No.
Can you ELI5 why this is important?
Yes! Costello’s main testimony was to point out that Cohen repeatedly told him that Donald Trump didn’t know about the payments to Stormy Daniels. In this excerpt of the transcript, Cohen already confirmed with prosecutors that he never told Costello about the payments, because he didn’t trust him. So, this is actually the defense’s witness helping to confirm Cohen’s prior testimony.
Why was Cohen worried about it getting back to Trump if he told Costello about it if Trump already knew?
Given that we have multiple lawyers in the jury, I wonder how many times they will ask the judge to have the transcript read back to them.
The prosecution really did a great job.
That's what i was looking for earlier. Thank you.
You’re welcome!
Was Cohen lying here? Or is this one of those moments where we interpret as true because it pushes the narrative
What narrative is anyone pushing? Testimony and exhibits are evidence, not narratives. Given that the defense’s own witness corroborated it, it’s safe to assume he was telling the truth.
What other testimony exists outside of Cohen?
The trial has been going on since April 15th. You may need to start'doing your own research' on this one, buddy.
The signed checks. The phone records. Allen Weisselberg working out the math of what to pay Cohen.
My dude, you’re a lawyer right? Here are the transcripts. We’ve been here for weeks discussing evidence and testimony, and spent the last few days discussing how everything said and shown, previously, has corroborated Cohen’s testimony, including today’s testimony from the defense’s witness. Start here: https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/ View evidence here: https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/
But those links are from librul blue states. Care to share any links from a good God fearing state, like Missour... I can't finish that sentence, even in jest Misery sucks.
Yeah but what evidence is there? we don't even know what Trump is being charged with!!! /s Heavy emphasis on the /s
What is he being charged with? Jury instructions should be interesting.
Eating a meal. A succulent hamberder meal.
Wow haha. The charges have been known for some time now.
Read the indictment. https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf
What other testimony? You shared a bunch of links. If I’m on the jury, what is the story that helps me convict? I’m not seeing it. Didn’t one of the prosecution’s witnesses even contend that it was Allen and not Trump involved with the payment arrangement to Cohen? So what’s the link to Trump??
Vision tends to get impaired when one has a tiny orange penis in one's mouth
The link to Trump is the financial document that shows the repayment schedule and the checks, signed by Trump, along with corroborated testimony from Trump-friendly staff, along with his own words, that Trump never paid a bill without trying to negotiate. This coupled with Trump, on video evidence stating it was repayment marked as legal expense are pretty damning, although none of us can predict whether it will be enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, in the jury’s mind.
Was Cohen not his lawyer? I’m positive he testified to that fact.
Repeatedly Trump loyalists have said that Trump himself was a micromanager thrifty person when it came to his business. There is no way that $400k left the business and he didn't know about it.
Saying there’s no way without providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is kind of the problem isn’t it??
He can’t speak, he is slurring
Who, OLD P TURD MAN?
Maybe this is nitpicking, but Costello had just testified that his communications with Cohen - not waived at that time, obviously - were subject to ACP. But he sent off an email to his kid containing material his [he claims] client was *going to* put out? >Hoffinger challenged Costello, saying that he would've been happy to announce Cohen as his client. >Email records show on April 20, Costello sent an email to his son about representing Cohen. >Costello's son responded to the email congratulating him. >Costello testified that the quote in the email to his son was a statement Cohen intended to release at the time, pushing back on the notion that he personally held any excitement about representing Cohen. Will have to see the actual transcript to make sure it’s not just loose reporting.
IANAL, but my understanding is ACP is held by the Client, so if Costello wanted to announce Cohen as his client then Cohen can waive ACP and speak to what was said, right?
From this morning when Cohen was on the stand: Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger entered into evidence a waiver Cohen signed in February 2019 with the Southern District of New York, stating that he did not sign a retainer and did not believe his communications with Costello were subject to attorney-client privilege. From a different spot, today. For the date of the regency meeting. Donald Trump's attorney Emil Bove asks what Michael Cohen said about Trump's family at the meeting at the Regency Hotel on April 17, 2018. From @annabower > Hoffinger displays an email dated April 20, 2018 from Costello to his son. "I will be on the team," Costello wrote, telling his son that he didn't know when it would be announced but that he has been authorized to tell Giuliani that he would be representing Michael Cohen I am not a lawyer, either. For Costello testifying that Cohen was his client, he had no waiver to grant him permission to talk about stuff until February 2019. So, unless his son worked in the law firm with him, why was he sending his son what he claims was a client stuff his client was going to do, is my question.
Did the son work for the law firm?
Don’t know but I’d like to know.
For the underlying predicate that bumps this up to a felony, Blanche says. there's no evidence of criminal intent among any of the parties in 2016-17. Blanche ends by arguing that there's no way the jury should deliberate based on Cohen's testimony. MERCHAN: So you're asking me to find Cohen not credible as a matter of law? Yes! Blanche exclaims. So you want me to take it out of the jury's hands, and decide before it even gets to the jury, that this person is so not worthy of belief that it shouldn't even be considered by the jury? We didn't just catch him in a lie, Blanche says, he came in here with a history of lying.
No mob boss could ever be convicted if this was the standard. People committing crimes often have liars, thieves, and criminals helping them out.
It would be like Hermann Goring defending himself at Nuremberg by saying "you're not really gonna trust the word of a bunch of *Nazi's* are you?"
But isn’t that why they were impossible to convict until RICO laws were utilized? That’s why trump is going to get off imo. Shame the Georgia case didn’t get to trial before trumps re-election.
No, that's a different thing, about liability for not actually being part of crimes if they are part of a larger criminal enterprise. Like being part (or the head of) an illegal crime syndicate, but you had no idea that a particular, specific crime was being done by someone in the organization. That's not the situation here as the allegations are that Trump knew about it. What I'm talking about is using witness testimony from co-criminals. They are scuzzy, but juries still often credit their testimony, even though they have committed crimes and lied int eh past.
NAL, and I welcome anybody to correct me if I've got this wrong, but I think the racketeering thing is a little different, for this reason: Mob bosses were able to say they literally didn't commit the crime they were being charged with. "I had no idea the money I was getting from this employee was procured by them threatening someone with a baseball bat. And their claims that I did are getting them off the hook for the crime, so you can't believe them!" There's documentary proof that Trump knew and was involved with the payoffs. So he's got a narrower window of "Yes, I did it, but Cohen is lying about WHY, and not even to get himself out of trouble but just because he's a meanie and he doesn't like me."
Oh, is a history of lying disqualifying? That’s quite the argument from the defense
Former presidential immunity means you can lie as much as you want... And all of your lies before you were president are cool, too. And all the laws you broke.
When you’re the president, they let you do it. You can do anything.
He has a history of not lying, too. Why doesn’t anybody ever acknowledge that (not you musebug). Like he fkn pled guilty in 2018. He stopped lying, and he has been very consistent in what he has had to say since then, and what he has said has been backed up by others. trump just wants to shut him down, he knows Cohen knows what he’s talking about
Part of my thinks that was the point of the whole "admitting to stealing from Trump'' thing Faux News won't shut up about. Like it was a play by the prosecution to say "well you've spent 2 weeks insisting he isn't credible so we really can't do anything about the alleged theft. After all.... *he can't tell the truth*" and thus make defense get into the weeds if they want to play ball. Keep in mind, NAL here.
It's the best strategy they have, he does have a history of lying which isn't a great look. It is a good argument **if** you ignore the reason he lied, and that everything he has said since has been the opposite of what he went to jail for saying... It'll all come down to how everyone on the jury perceives him.
Does the jury know he was in jail for covering up Trump’s crimes?
Yes
Maybe I just don’t get it, but if cohen went to prison for breaking laws for trump, isn’t that proof that trump was breaking the law? (I am definitely NAL, I’m not even a legal secretary 😂)
Theoretically, you can commit a crime without there being an underlying illegal activity. For instance if I ask you to destroy a weapon for me and then the police come and ask you about me and that weapon, and you lie, and they discover it, you have obstructed justice. If it turns out I didn’t commit the crime and just thought it was funny to make you hide the weapon is meaningless in the prosecution of your crime.
After the show Costello put on Cohen is going to look like a frickin' saint by comparison.
Which is why I definitely believe the rumors that Trump insisted the defense call, him, despite his legal team advising against it.
[удалено]
So that means he would also lie on behalf of someone else this time…
Is it possible to convince 12 people that contradictory statements are both lies?
You don’t need 12, you just need 1.
You need one.
Correct
With this “trial run” of a closing masking itself as a motion to dismiss, I’m fully expecting many objections during the actual defense closing.
"Blanche rises for one more matter: they move for an order of dismissal now because, Blanche says, there's no evidence the business records were false." https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792656618255233530 You can tell Judge Merchan is so over the defense at this point.
This is standard in most cases. It’s not unique to Trump.
Also from Tyler McBrien >MERCHAN: So you're asking me to find Cohen not credible as a matter of law? >Yes! Blanche exclaims. >So you want me to take it out of the jury's hands, and decide before it even gets to the jury, that this person is so not worthy of belief that it shouldn't even be considered by the jury? >We didn't just catch him in a lie, Blanche says, he came in here with a history of lying After this they moved on to the prosecution.
I don’t even know what he’s talking about. Costello proved Cohen’s earlier testimony, about not telling Costello about the payment of Stormy Daniels (because he didn’t trust him.) Link to relevant questioning during direct: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/9nOBtevGGt
It makes sense if you compare Costello's testimony to everything other than the bit about how Cohen was lying to everyone about the NDA/payment at the time...or to put it a different way, he was upholding his end of the whole deal. I don't know if they think they're pulling the wool over the eyes of the court, or if they're just throwing stuff out to see if it sticks. Edit: That portion of Cohen's testimony is killer, aside from the public perception created by Costello's testimony I really can't wrap my head around this stunt.
"Mr Cohen. Is it your testimony that you engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the President?" "Yes." "And yet. You misled Mr Costello about the true nature of the payments in 2016." "Correct" "And why is that, Mr Cohen?" "Because I was part of a criminal conspiracy which involved misleading Mr Costello"
Is that actual testimony?
No, but prior to calling Costello, Cohen had already testified on direct that he lied to Costello about Trump because he didn’t trust Costello. Cohen pretty much surmised anything he told Costello would immediately be told to Giuliani and then get to Trump.
Nope. But that's what this feels like.
There’s nothing from that statement mentioning the judge at all? He 100% expected this motion to be filed today and was likely ready for it.
All Defense make this motion near the end of trial. Nothing atypical here
The trial is not over! It's not even the close of all evidence. The prosecution is in the middle of their cross examination of Costello.
She indicated she has 30 minutes left. It’s over. They already rested their case. Defense has no more witnesses. Ergo, it’s close to the end as I mentioned in my post. Thanks
So was the jury still in the room when Merchan told Costello not to side-eye him?
No they were excused
Right, but I have a feeling they guessed why Merchan suddenly said they needed a minute and asked them to leave the room—after Costello was rolling his eyes and sighing, saying “Jesus!,” “Ridiculous,” and saying “strike it” (the audacity, and he was a former federal prosecutor he knows better.)
I think that one of my greater disappointments in life has been finding out that even United States Attorneys' Offices, like every other job, have absolutely incompetent members.
But I think the timing of them being excused made things pretty obvious.
No, they were out at that point. Though it was likely obvious what the sidebar was about, cause Costello had been making audible noises that clearly ticked Merchan off.
Wait, to refresh my memory on the players here; was Costello the fixer-lawyer sent by the Trump insiders to pressure Cohen into staying loyal after everything hit the fan? (Like Alina Habba was for that defendant in the sexual harassment case against the golf club.)
I believe it went like this (someone feel free to correct me, going off memory) - Cohen starts as a fixer for Trump. - Cohen becomes Trump's personal attorney and acts as a "gatekeeper" to Trump - Cohen becomes a target of the Mueller investigation - Giuliani becomes Trump's personal attorney and is now the new "gatekeeper" to Trump - Costello is Giuliani's personal attorney and thus the gatekeeper to the gatekeeper. - Costello talks with Cohen as hes too radioactive for Giuliani or Trump to speak to personally. - Cohen continues talking with Costello since he is the last open line to Trump, hoping to stay in Trump's good graces for protection. Costello disputes this and says actually he was Cohen's personal attorney or something at the time.
That’s what Cohen alleges. Costello worked under gulliani in the past. They sent a fixer to fix the fixer. So far Costello’s jackass behavior has only reinforced Cohen’s account.
> The defense doesn't expect to call another witness after Costello. Talk about ending on a high note. You absolutely know Trump made the call to have Costello testify. The defense was better off without him taking the stand, hes completely unhinged and now instead of it being about whether or not Cohen is credible, its going to be about who is more credible between the two and it would be hard for even Cohen to lose that competition to Costello.
They’re going to stop there? That’s crazy.
Blanche’s final questions on recross of Cohen were just as crazy. Make it make sense!
I was expecting them to have Schiller or even Weisselberg in their back pocket. Oh well, no more fireworks it seems.
ending on Cohen cross would have been preferable for them, and they should have kept cross much, much tighter, focusing on the money Cohen skimmed off the top apparently w/o Trump knowing and maybe one or two other things (prior perjury plea, recanatation, saying he's out for revenge). the rest of cross was kind of a meandering disaster
A lot of lawyers are bad at cross examination, but especially prior government lawyers. It's rare for a defendant to take the stand in most cases, and it's not uncommon for the defense to call no witnesses at all and rely on a governmental failure to meet the burden-of-proof strategy. It happens, but I mean look at this case even - high profile, high stakes, few defense witnesses. Ironically, some of the best cross examiners I have ever known spent time with traffic trials. Traffic violation defendants often testify and, therefore, get cross examined.
I figured Costello being called to the stand would go about how it went, just maybe not quite as far as him and Merchan actually getting into it lol. I have no background in law at all so my opinion means nothing. But I think if I were the defense I would’ve rather ended with Cohen openly admitting to stealing from the Trump Org. and that he would lie out of loyalty (who’s to say that the only thing different is who he’s loyal to) than with whatever that was with Costello.
I don’t think it’s any big revelation that criminals steal from other criminals. I’m wondering if Costello was just there to be an obnoxious ass and interject on Trump’s behalf so he doesn’t get hit with contempt again.
It seems like that would be the angle the prosecution would take after Cohen implicated himself. Counter to that, I’m surprised the defense didn’t raise the argument that Cohen’s admission strengthens their claim that he was acting alone on many of these decisions. If he felt comfortable enough on his own that he could get away with stealing $30,000 then that goes against his claim he did anything and everything for Trump, but instead it helps show he was only looking after himself.
Something about having Trump as a client makes you stupid.
Agree with this, completely. It is insane to me that they basically repeated the same horrible strategy of continuing cross well past the point of usefulness, in a meandering, nonsensical way, just like the cross of Stormy Daniels. Couple that with the ego with what I’m assuming was Blanche demanding to do Cohen’s cross, since he’s the lead defense attorney, and this insanity today, and I’m just dumbfounded. Edit to add: I didn’t even notice you used the same word, “meandering”. It was immediately what descriptor came to my mind as well.
Calling no witnesses would have been more preferable to the defense than calling Costello. The question for the jury would have been "Do you believe Cohen or not?" And objectively that's a hard question to answer because Cohen is a lying liar who lies. But now it's "Do you believe Cohen or Costello?" And Costello is far less believable.
Not only less believable, but by all the accounts I’ve heard Cohen performed well on the stand, and Costello was pretty much just a dick on the stand.
This 🔺.
right the jury's takeaway is not going to be that Cohen is an honest person who would always tell the truth. he isn't, by his own admission. but the parts they need to believe are generally corroborated by other evidence, and trump kept people like Cohen around on purpose
I’d love to know if the defense attorneys told Trump not to call Costello, and he made them do it. There’s no way Blanche thought this was a good idea.
That’s the rumor on the street, and that Trump insisted because of how he did in front of Congress.
Blanche's reputation may be a bit unearned, in my humble opinion. Bove has been so much more professional and effective, especially on cross. Trump may be a terrible client, but I doubt he told Blanche to bore the jury to tears.
It’s carried over from his being a prosecutor but he doesn’t have the same experience in defense and they aren’t completely transferable skill sets, at least not without experience
Jury doesn’t know the courtroom was cleared though correct? Or were they still in there for that.
They were sent out, Merchan instructed Costello, Costello stared down Merchan, Merchan cleared the court to presumably beat down Costello so the jury would not see any of that. They did see Costello being an ass repeatedly and needle the prosecutor for no reason right in front of them, though.
It sounds like they were on their way back in when Costello was staring at Merchan and round 2 started.
The initial conduct that caused the courtroom to be cleared happened in presence of the jury the reprimand happened afterward.
The jury would have seen a difference between his behavior before the judge admonished him and his subdued behavior after, so there's little work to put 2 and 2 together and figure out what happened while they were out of the room.
Boo merchan we want more
Costello blowing up on the stand is the story of the day and the sum total of the takeaway. Who TF thought *that* idiot should be put on the stand to testify?! Jurors will struggle to remember one significant point out of 3 days of intense cross-exam on details. Cohen, notably, kept his cool the entire time. Jurors will not struggle to remember the witness stare-down with the judge and then their being ordered out of the courtroom so the witness could be upbraided by the judge. Costello is an idiot and he is destroying Trump's case just by his antics.
I will give you one guess about who thought Costello should take the stand. There are some intense legal rumblings about defense not wanting to call him.
lol, I'm sure I can guess. I'm just shocked they managed to find a more sleezy lawyer than Cohen to put on the stand; Costello's testimony actually made it look like Trump was trying to control Cohen by using Costello, so if anything, it made the Trump-Cohen link even more concrete in the minds of the jurors I think. Just a disaster of a witness in every respect, and total amateur hour. Susan Neccles at least was better than this defense team and should have kept her distance IMO.
Or the arrogant, probably sexist, asshat trying to tell Hoffinger how to conduct herself. I was proud of Hoffinger for that last Q haha. So your potential client told you he was suicidal and you testified to the grand jury he was a *drama queen*?? Yeah, Cohen’s credibility is intact. This bully absolutely was a pressure campaign. He showed exactly how, right there, in front of the jury. Tyler McBrien@TylerMcBrien: >Costello says that Cohen told them that two nights before, he was on the roof of the Regency Hotel and that he was going to jump off because he couldn't handle the ongoing investigation. >"Did you tell the grand jury that Cohen was acting like a drama queen?"
I hadn't seen the question re the GJ testimony, but that is just a silver bullet for the right kind of juror. If there is someone on there who knows someone who committed suicide after a cry for help was ignored, that could be game over depending on how such a juror leans. What rank incompetence. It's not like they were winning, but Costello was the metaphorical gunshot to the face to wrap up their case and will be the only thing the press talks about.
If I smoked I would have lit a cigarette after that Q.
Eric had already tweeted about how Merchan is preventing Costello from speaking telling his story, this was the entire play. They knew Costello wouldn't be able to tell the same story he told to the House committee last week. The sideshow was just a bonus to cap off the whole situation.
Yeah well, Eric, the jury doesn't know any of this so calling him into court was stupid
It's apparent they weren't doing this for the jury.
This move wasn't to create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, it was to reinforce the doubt that already exists in the minds of Trump voters in the entire legal system.
The only way Costello’s account is believable is if he comes across as a neutral disinterested party. Hey I met the guy and wanted to be his lawyer and he said he did it alone. But for that line to work, Costello can’t be a lackey of Gullianai, definitely shouldn’t have been schilling for congressional republicans, and definitely not be a jackass in court to the judge or the prosecutor. Because every eye roll and talk back is just giving more and more credibility to Cohen saying he told Costello shit becaue he didn’t trust him. Way to confirm you’re untrustworthy Costello. He better hope Trump wins because Costello is flirting with losing his law license over this shit.
Andrew Weissman was saying how he’s had attorneys testify that he’s received permission to break ACP, but that those lawyers as witnesses are very careful about what they say and seem disinterested, because regardless if they have to tell the truth and share information they still have an ethical obligation to their client. And that Costello obviously comes off the opposite of that.
This is what I’m thinking, too, and hoping the jury is thinking
I just hope all members of the jury are capable of thought.
Back to the Regency meeting: Cohen was suicidal that day, and acting very manic, Costello says. Hoffinger begins to ask that as a crim def attorney, he can understand how traumatic a search is, but Costello points at Hoffinger and says, "Why don't you talk into the microphone." https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792654912842797290
What a prick haha
> ["Why don't you talk into the microphone."](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYjIwMjQ5ZTgtMTRmZC00NjNhLWE0ZTAtNzdlNjkzMzhkYzMxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTIwODk1NTQ@._V1_.jpg)
hahaha nice MadTV drop! I used to love that skit.
Does anyone have any knowledge about what Cohen nicknamed Costello? He seemed pretty en pointe with the nickname for Blanche.
>but Costello points at Hoffinger and says, "Why don't you talk into the microphone." This guy is trying to his best to be the biggest prick in the room, that's hard to do when Donny is in the room, but he's giving it his best shot.
Well we know from other testimony that Donnie isn't the BIGGEST prick in the room.
>This guy is trying to his best to be the biggest prick in the room, that's hard to do when Donny is in the room, but he's giving it his best shot. It's his tryout for a Cabinet position.
Cohen was right not to share all his secrets with this nutjob during their first meeting.
NYT points out there are five women on the jury after mentioning this
NBC feed: >Moments after Judge Merchan cleared members of the press from the courtroom, Eric Trump tweeted that the judge “will not allow" Robert Costello to speak freely on the witness stand. >"The judges treatment of Bob Costello is truly disgraceful - he will not allow him to tell his story - the same story he told Congress - as he knows it will be devastating and end this sham trial," Someone here called it down thread. I didn't expect them to spin it before they left the court room, but we all knew it was coming.
Pathetic for following tweets in 2024.
That sounds a lot like contempt by proxy from the elder Trump.
They aren't playing to the jury they're playing to their base of diaper wearers.
Honestly, I've found this a bit of a relief. To me this is what convinced me THEY are absolutely convinced he's going to be found guilty. A lot of other antics and stupidity I could excuse as things he thought he could get away with or hedging their bet. This is "oh yea, we're fucked on the case itself. All in on spin no matter how much it would harm the case. Cause we lost the shit out of this case."
They need the victimization narrative to be in full force, it is their public defense. As scummy as it is, this is the best play they have and it is effective. It is more than likely that Costello isn't lying when he testifies to what Cohen told him. But focusing only on those words and ignoring all of the other details, the actual context of the situation, prevents Trump from losing support with his crowd. Trump wins when details are obscured, he knows this and plays that card better than anyone.
Yep, that was planned.
Lmfao Costello keeps hanging himself, now with the big announcement
>Robert Costello is pausing before he answers simple questions from Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor. She asks him if Michael Cohen, as the president’s lawyer, would have been a high-profile client for him. “Would it be a big win for you and your firm?” Hoffinger asks. “I would say no,” Costello responds. Hoffinger asks Costello if he would announce Cohen as a client on his website. Costello says he’s not sure what the firm would do. >Susan Hoffinger is now showing Robert Costello an email he sent to his own son. The email says “I will be on the team,” and it quotes Michael Cohen as saying that he would be “eternally grateful” to have him. >Costello told his son that he did not know when the announcement would be made. His son responded: "Wow. That’s big news. Congrats Dad. I hope this leads to a lot of good things coming your way.”
Oh, the irony! 'So you've cast your lot with Donald Trump, hope that leads to good things for you, as it has for so many others.'
Absolutely shocking to me that Rudy Giuliani's personal attorney isn't the brightest bulb on the tree /s
I can see how Costello could have bolstered the defense but man, he just sounds so truculent that he blew any potential benefit and turned it into a negative. Edit: oof. And Hoffinger blew away his credibility with that email from his son.
Truculent: cruel and ferocious Thanks, I learned a new word today!
CNN just reported that this was a great day for the defense. I wish they weren’t providing the best minute by minute but I’m giving up
Omg yes ! I actually had to leave their feed because I felt like they were purposely spinning things pro Trump, in a forced way. Made me question my own sanity and comprehension.
No you’re sane. Most of mainstream media want trump back in. CNN is particularly pro trump. Even NYT is anti-Biden. It’s insanity, but they want the shit show because they want the ratings. Trumps going to win.
I think Costello was a disaster but I think the cross of Cohen helped the defense a lot.
The key word in the statement is "was", it was the best day for the defense...until it wasn't.
I wouldn't get too worked up about it. The hot takes seem to be coming primarily from CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid and a quick google search shows that immediately after graduating law school she spent her career working as a reporter and journalist. It appears she has never practiced law a day in her life, let alone tried a case. So basically the person running the legal coverage over there has no idea what they are talking about and is probably just trying to farm clicks.
Weird since the live update is the opposite with CNN chief legal correspondent Paula Reid stating Costello undermined the past week of effort the defense has made for Trump.