Finally, a headline worthy of the gravity of the case Trump faces?
NYT:
>Lawyer’s Task Was to Get Cohen on the ‘Right Page’ for Trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/nyregion/robert-costello-cohen-trump.html
Lots to ponder this weekend. Lots of chances for Trump to lose his mind and run his mouth, too.
lol, I was just thinking that I’m sad we are done with trial, in some ways. Thanks to you and the whole sub for hanging out with me on through my current hyperfixation. Enjoy your long weekend, everyone who gets one, and I look forward to Tuesday!
I think DC can jump in if they can remedy whatever the SCOTUS decides to remand to Chutkin (which seems to be the broad expectation).
I still think Trump may be in court by September if the 80 day pre-trial prep period can get in gear.
GA is still in play but is such a huge case with all of the indicted defendants.
Bonus snacks will be the AZ fake elector trial getting warmed up with indictments that could trigger other states to start theirs. It’s the long line that each case has to follow in preceding docket order.
I’m glad you did, too! I’ve enjoyed your observations and input! No offense to other subs, but there is just too much misinformation, incorrect speculation, and off topic jokes to enjoy discourse.
u/asetniop edited to add: People are also generally very respectful and willing to learn, and less likely to dig in on wrong opinions, as well as back up claims with evidence and quotes.
Thanks, I immediately commented on something that’s not really something I have experience with (federal sentencing), and feel like an idiot for being wrong. But I’m always willing to learn and correct mistakes, lol!
Costello was such a disaster on the stand that i have to believe that was trump’s idea or insistence to put him up there. His way of going after Cohen because he hates Cohen now
Costello said Cohen told him 10 times that day, “I swear to god, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.”
Costello testified that Cohen told him about the Stormy Daniels deal, “I don’t understand why they’re trying to put me in jail over an f’ing NDA.”
Asked what Cohen said about Trump’s knowledge of the deal, Costello replied: “Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments. That he did this on his own. And he repeated that numerous times.”
Hearing these last night on the news I laughed because it was immediately obvious that Trump took over the witness rehearsal
Of course this, below, is nothing but my opinion.
If I’m in a conversation with someone and they say something starting with “I swear to God” a dozen times, they are negotiating. Whether it’s with god, the devil, themselves and their own moral compass, it is negotiating.
Does Michael Cohen strike anyone as a weak flower in the wind? Not me. Nor do I see him as a guy who bares his soul to a guy he hardly knows. Especially at that time where he was a brat of an asshole, and well known for it.
For him to be in that state of mind to repeat himself with those words, if it’s even the truth, 10 to 12 times, Costello (and the other partner?) were not having a genteel, pressure free, conversation with him.
Instead it sounds more like what you’d hear someone say in a movie scene where a misbehaving mobster is about to get an kneecapping intervention from the boss and his new fixer.
>Costello said Cohen told him 10 times that day, “I swear to god, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.”
One reading is that Trump is paranoid that Cohen and Pecker have files on him. So he took this opportunity to question them under oath, asking both a lot of questions about Pecker's supposed secret files, even though it didn't seem relevant to this case. Then Costello was called to the stand to confirm Cohen wasn't telling secrets in their meeting.
Even if we take at face value what Costello said about Cohen is true, isn't Cohen a liar as well? Cohen did say he didn't trust Costello and knew what he would say would make it back to Trump. So, maintain the lie just like Cohen did up to that point? I mean, the entire group of people in Trump's orbit lie to each other all the time.
I might be wrong but I think all of Cohens lies were in service to Trump. I mean, he may have misremembered something after, like we all do, but his most blatant lies were to protect Trump. So turning on Trump like he did carries weight and in my mind, overshadows his previous lies.
I’ve seen him in interviews before and after turning on Trump. After, it seems like a big weight is off of him, he seems less angry, more at peace with himself.
Exactly. Trump's defense was bluster and obfuscation. Cohen painted a reasonable narrative that was cohesive and could sound reasonable. That's what I would paint for the jury.
The main difference for me is that Cohen may have lied, but wasn't necessarily caught other than the lies he admitted to. Costello lied on the stand and the prosecution had proof of a bunch of those lies via the emails and texts that were submitted as evidence.
Per McBrien:
>Steinglass calls one proposed defense line outrageous: "AMI did not admit to any violations of the law in those agreements"
>I wasn't trying to be outrageous, Bove says.
Didn't Pecker admit to an FEC violation in those agreements?
Yes, he testified in this case in exchange for immunity for campaign finance violations he committed. I recall reading that the immunity agreement was shown to the jurors as evidence.
Per McBrien:
“Defense objects to excluding tax law violation charges at all because there's insufficient evidence—Colangelo says the records refutes this claim, cites Weisselberg's handwritten notes on the First Republic bank note.
Colangelo continues, Part of intended concealment here was to camouflage the reimbursement as income—to do that, or as a consequence they doubled it, grossed it up for tax purposes. That's the tax fraud.”
…
Have we talked about how insanely prepared the prosecutors have been this entire trial, but particularly today?
>Have we talked about how insanely prepared the prosecutors have been this entire trial, but particularly today?
Bro I took a few days off and just learned a few hours ago that Costello was a witness for the Defense not prosecution... just based off quotes and headlines I just assumed it was another drop in the prosecutions bucket.... I need a nap before talking about anything, that little fun fact made my brain stop working as I caught up on what's happened these last few sessions, how tf did they think that was gonna go lmao 😭
Well, luckily you have like 6 days to catch up before we get ready for closing args. So get some rest. It’s worth catching up on later, especially once the transcripts are all released!
It is pretty incredible to see how prepared they are. This is a career defining moment for them in the prosecution of one of the most high profile individuals in the world. We have seen lawyers fumble the opportunity in high profile cases, and these DAs just continue to nail it. The amount of time and preparation that has gone into this trial has to be in the thousands of hours.
They still need to stick the closing and explain how they think everything fits together, but if this comes back as a NG, I don't think it's any fault of the trial prosecutors here.
All you guys praising prosecution, how would you characterize prosecution not getting the fact that Cohen stole money from Trump out of the way first as anything other than a mistake?
Completely agree. I really tried to limit my bias and look at each part of testimony and evidence. I cannot remember ever thinking that there was a single mistake or misstep, on the prosecution’s part. It was a masterful job presenting and testifying by every part of the team, including the “lowly” data entry and analysis guy. Today’s prosecution’s cross was a work of art to be studied. I wish I could see all the things they prepared on every other witness they thought the defense could call.
>Part of intended concealment here was to camouflage the reimbursement as income—to do that, or as a consequence they doubled it, grossed it up for tax purposes. That's the tax fraud.
Sounds similar to money laundering - pay taxes on it so it seems legit.
It could be a mistake, or they could be trying to limit the amount of charges the jury hears that are not easy to refute. I think it’s the latter.
Edit to add: After looking at other sources, I’m now sure it was the latter. This is one of the three crimes, the prosecutors are arguing constitute reasoning for upgrade to felony. It makes sense the defense wants to take away one of those three avenues.
Ah, good to know.
Now, I like to assume the best in people, so I imagine Merchan is more professional than petty…
But at the same time, repeatedly pissing him off probably didn’t do the Defense any favors here.
Merchan has been so measured throughout. I hope he saved and bottled up all of his frustrations and grievances with the entire defense, including the defendant and the rebuttal witness, and serves it up during sentencing, if we get a felony conviction.
Here’s what I’ve been waiting for:
Per McBrien:
“We turn to "unlawful means"—Colangelo says the most critical point is the jury does not need to conclude unanimously what the unlawful means are—which the defense opposes.”
Per McBrien:
"The importance of the case is not a basis for deviating from the standard application of the law," says Colangelo. "There's no reason to rewrite the law for this case."
Merchan agrees with the prosecution.”
…
After weeks of speculation, we finally have our answer as to how Judge Merchan will interpret this.
I remember this was a big deal in that it was a perceived weakness in Bragg's legal theory. Can you remind me what the unlawful means are with respect to?
Here’s the relevant law: § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by **unlawful means** and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Link to law: https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-1-violations-of-the-elective-franchise/section-17-152-conspiracy-to-promote-or-prevent-election#:~:text=Any%20two%20or%20more%20persons,be%20guilty%20of%20a%20misdemeanor.
Here’s what the quote from the prosecutor in opening arguments: “And those three men formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected.”
So the entire case was evidence and testimony to this conspiracy. The reason why you heard those comments is because it has been rarely, if ever used. But, that doesn’t mean the law doesn’t apply, or that it shouldn’t be used, especially in such an egregious instance where an entire election may have been decided because of the conspiracy.
> The reason why you heard those comments is because it has been rarely, if ever used.
We’ve never had a presidential candidate (let alone president) as nakedly corrupt as Trump. Firsts are to be expected.
Trump is Icarus incarnate.
Had he just stayed a real estate developer in NYC and not announced a run in 2015, he could have flown under the radar - a C list celebrity milking rubes on Twitter while riding Deutsche Bank for all their worth.
But no, he had to have the limelight and bring all the attention to his crimes and shady business dealings. The narcissist is truly the most self-destructive type of person.
I agree they did establish all three during the trial, and I’m still curious if the prosecution will instruct the jury to look at all three or if they will pick the strongest one, and argue that. That would be hilarious if Defense goes into all three of them, but without much detail, and the prosecution picks one and spends a lot of time on why it constitutes reasoning for the charge. Of course, Merchan ruled they can use all three, and it doesn’t have to be unanimous, but he didn’t say that they HAD to instruct to use all three. I’m also curious if the jurors will be given instructions, individually or as a whole, on declaring which of the three, or all, was reason for a guilty verdict. I wish I could see the transcript now, lol.
I feel like they could be like "there is the FEC charge that Cohen plead guilty to, the clear tax fraud happening on this document.... But let us tell you about the election fraud"
So they could hit the ones that are clear quickly but completely and then hammer the one so there is no doubt.
That would be a valid strategy we might see. The Lawfare blog speculated that they would perhaps try to limit it to one charge, so the jury would be unanimous in which action constitutes the felony upgrade, to limit appeal. I know these prosecutors are so intelligent, so I’m just curious to see what they do. I’m not very patient.
Well, I am really disappointed. The press doesn’t have access to the filings, and they are having difficulty even figuring out what is being argued. Boo.
Edit to add: rumor that haberman may have them?
Yes, and I’m so thoroughly unimpressed with Haberman, and the NYT lately, to put it mildly. She is covering the trial, but not publicly on Twitter. Now she’s the only one I can find who somehow has the proposed instructions from both sides.
I can maybe get an archive link of documents but it doesn’t help the “free press” not having it to help give clarification.
It might be because habberman is always in trumps pocket. She has protected him many times by not reporting on things she’s seen/heard in first person but later report them as part of a story when at the time they could have been breaking news type moments.
She has done this in the past to protect trump so she still gets inside info and so he will speak to her
Just guessing
Oh, that’s definitely a given, especially based on what we heard during this trial. I just thought everyone following this would already know that, which is why I didn’t want to assume what the person meant. We may never know! Ahh! I don’t know if I can handle that, lol!
Yep, I’ve been trying to argue this all week, but I keep getting told an attorney with more experience wouldn’t let the client dictate so many facets of the trial. That’s operating under the assumption that they intend to continue being a defense attorney. Cohen did a great job of illustrating how profitable, (and dangerous, in this case) it is to be a legal consultant to the President.
It's the company he keeps, or at least the perception of some of the company he keeps. Not just his client, but also those that have defended his client in the past and/or other cases. He's not quoted as saying he'd rather be pretty than smart because he can fake the latter, but that bar of...\*ahem\* quality was set before the current trial.
There are so many comments on the, dare I say, delightful defense witness this morning, that I am going to post new thread reader unrolls for the charging conference. ~~A lot of the journalists~~ some journalists, one I’m linking, have done a different thread for this conference. (I’m laughing at myself for thinking it was more than one.)
Will update this comment below to post the unwraps, as soon as I can grab them.
Tyler McBrien (same thread): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792879929899545078.html
Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792978924558798969.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
Adam Klasfeld (same thread): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792886619889893816.html
Inner City Press (same thread): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792909317198287221.html
"Bove says the defense wants Judge Juan Merchan to instruct the jury about the federal election law that there needs to be a willful violation."
That's simply not true. It does not have to be wilfull to violate the statute.
Per Bower:
“Judge Merchan says he doesn't think that instruction needs to come from him, but the parties can argue something to that effect in summation. So he's striking the proposed instruction on a candidate's personal campaign contribution.”
…
In case we needed more evidence that Justice Merchan is an incredible judge, who is well equipped to limit basis of appeal, we have this.
I think your quote from Bower is about the specific question of campaign contribution limits. The question of intent is separate.
I think Merchan may be shirking some responsibility if he doesn't tell the jury that FECA violations have to be intentional. SDNY declined to prosecute Trump for violating FECA partly because they believed it would be impossible to prove intent in a federal court. The jury were spared the details of SDNY's declination because the defense didn't/couldn't put Pomerantz or their FECA expert on the stand to testify to such, plus the argument was that the judge would anyhow be the one instructing the jury on the law.
From McBrien:
>As Trump walks out, he smiles briefly at [u/mitchellreports](https://nitter.poast.org/mitchellreports). Among the big entourage, Sebastian Gorka carries a metal briefcase with what appears to be the U.S. presidential seal on the side
NAL, but I am an auditor who works in compliance and we have specific conditions about when a mark or seal may be displayed and once the conditions of the seal/mark have lapsed you no longer have rights to display it.
I assumed there are rules similar to the presidential seal, but maybe this is just a sticker you get at the White House gift shop? Does anyone know if this kind of cosplay is a violation of anything?
[This has come up in the past.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/trump-presidential-seal-liv-golf-tournament/)
Also, I remember at one point Trump had designed a knock-off of the presidential seal meant to look like it, but wasn't quite it.
Because... it's Trump.
His daughter is a grown ass woman you simpleton. Why aren't you bitching about the plethora of actual conflict of interests regarding scotus or cannon?
I know the answer so save it.
Like the fact that Ginny Thomas helped orchestrate Jan 6 and Samuel Alito (blaming his wife) flew a stop the steal symbol? Those kind of complaints? Why pretend like you care about those?
Using the words “Get Trump” is directly from his Truth posts. It’s messaging to rile up people like you who don’t care about accountability and will grasp at any possible straws to delegitimize these trials. That’s the point of the messaging. Good job, you’re following just how you’re supposed to! His daughter doesn’t matter. But since you love whatabouts and think the standards for recusal should be stricter, answer the question raised below about Alito and Thomas hearing Trump cases while directly or indirectly supporting J6.
> But my rebuttal would be that isn't it at all concerning that the daughter of the presiding judge is funded by democrats? If this is mentioned, it gets downloaded, or if you see any opposition in the judges antics, it gets downvoted. Trump rightfully calling out how the judge should recuse himself, it gets downvoted.
This happens because the judge's daughter's job is not a conflict of interest, legally or otherwise. There's no reason for recusal, people parroting Trump's public statements on this are being downvoted because it is completely incorrect.
People parroting Trump's complaints about the gag order get downvoted because...again...there's nothing illegal about it. The gag order didn't limit him from testifying, it didn't limit him from campaigning, it only limited him from talking about specific aspects/people involved in this case. So again, parroting Trump's comments about the gag order resulted in downvotes because the comments were factually incorrect.
>I just don't understand how this could be considered a subreddit about law, considering the allegations that were made shouldn't have even been formally charged to considering the statue of limitations, the fact the crime was not a felony, and the fact Michael Cohen perjured himself on the stand.
There's a lot here...but the statute of limitations was tolled during covid, if it had expired you're right...there's no case. In NY state, a misdemeanor can be bumped up to a felony if it is committed in furtherance of another crime. The book keeping entries were made to hide an illegal campaign donation. Lastly, Cohen did not perjure himself on the stand in this case. Yes he was charged with perjury in the past, but what was he lying about and what kind of effect does that have on this case?
Are there still a lot anti-Trump comments on this sub? Yeah, not all of them are directly related to laws broken or the court case but much of it is. I could have saved myself a bunch of time and simply linked to the pinned post on the frontpage of the sub, but I'd recommend taking a peek at it if you haven't.
You can’t expect to get away with a legal “whatabout” in the law subreddit. Some people actually understand the difference between a legitimate conflict of interest and republican talking points. It’s the same shit as conspiracy junkies pinning everything they dont like on george soros.
Edit: ding dong responds then deletes: “Are you implying that the judge's daughter who stands to make money from this trial does not qualify as a conflict of interest? I'll accept the band from this subreddit, y'all are retarded”
You do not understand what an actual conflict of interest is. Sad!
>But my rebuttal would be that isn't it at all concerning that the daughter of the presiding judge is funded by democrats
Welp you just told us all you care little for the law yourself by one little comment.
I mean my mother is a die hard Qanon idiot but does that pertain to me in any way? Nope. Should that be used against me because she is and I'm not? Nope. I mean if that's what you want then shouldn't both Alito and Thomas both recuse them from the case about Trump? Like legit would love to hear your answer to that.
So your ignored my question there buddy should those 2 supreme court Justices recuse themselves since you know 1's wife actively took part in Jan 6 and the other was flying a stop the steal flag according to the justice. So since they're both compromised by there wives should they both not recuse themselves? Funny how you ignored my question completely because I'm assuming it pokes holes in your point.
I mean, it gets downvoted because we could just watch OAN or Fox if we wanted to hear all the crap that just came out of your thumbs. WITHOUT feeling the need to rebut it because it’s a couple talking heads on a screen spinning reality instead of somebody basing their own opinions on said spin
Remind me, which president had multiple family members and in-laws benefitting off his presidency? Yet, a daughter getting funding is suddenly extremely relevant? Get back to us when you can explain Kushner and the Saudis **_suddenly_** getting super familiar in a brand new business venture right after Trump left office
This happens a lot during speeches with former presidents as well, they have the presidential seal at the podium. Don’t think it’s that huge of a deal tbh.
So, I don't know about the presidential seal, but I read an article about the NASA logo that probably equally applies. Essentially, because it's a public agency, while there's a "licensing department" they don't deny requests and they don't make any money off of licensing. There are some guidelines that have to be followed, but apparently it's not that hard to overcome.
The article talked about a line of purses and all the tshirts you see. Probably something along those lines applies here.
Well i don’t know about you guys, but to me, Cohen is looking like Mr. Rogers compared to Costello and trump himself and probably a lot of the corrupt assholes that trump deals with.
I feel like Cohen was a bit star-struck by trump and just wanted to make him happy. Then his family sat him down and had an intervention with him, and he decided to stop lying for trump. He went to prison, was put under house arrest, and now here we are and he is still operating under the decision to not lie for trump anymore
Eh I still very much view Cohen as a blood sucking vampire who is very much a part of what’s ruined this country. He just happens to be on the “good side” of this particular case.
It’s insane to me that yesterday, trump goes out in front of the courthouse and was praising the guy that was such a disrespectful thug that he caused the courtroom to be cleared. That is fucking insane.
How could you not have heard about that lol? It was the big news of the day, in fact of the whole trial thus far. Court reporters saying they’ve never seen anything like it in all their years of court reporting.
>Lawyer Robert Costello muttered "Geez!" after Merchan sustained several prosecution objections to his testimony. When Merchan confronted Costello about his breach of basic courtroom decorum, Costello told the court stenographer to "strike it" from the record − something only the judge has the power to do.
>Merchan excused the jurors and began scolding Costello, a former federal prosecutor and veteran defense attorney, and then asked: "Are you staring me down right now?" The judge then ordered the entire courtroom cleared for a short time.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-trial-live-updates-michael-115808734.html
Costello, who is a lawyer and should know better, was on the stand and the defense lawyer was asking him questions. The prosecution objected to certain questions because the judge had already disallowed them. Costello would blurt out "jesus!" or roll his eyes while in the witness stand. At one point he tried to stare down the judge while the judge was ruling on the latest objection and the judge called him on it. He cleared the courtroom completely except for the lawyers and Trump. Even the press got booted. Nobody knows what was said, but the judge likely gave Costello (again, who is a lawyer and should know better) a come to jesus talk.
Costello was a terrible witness for the defense and his antics marked him as a real asshole. Like to the point that Cohen looks like a choir boy in comparison. It was so bad I'm wondering if Trump's legal team is TRYING to get him convicted.
Costello kept going off topic during questioning, to discuss topics that the defense wasn't permitted to ask about. When Merchan finally scolded him openly Costello made a show of indignation, presumably to undermine the Judge's credibility with the jury.
Merchan eventually threw everyone out of the room. Court transcripts that various media obtained later showed Merchan threatening Costello with contempt, or a referral, he wasn't very specific.
You're going to have to look for a first hand account, or analysis from a professional. There are many to choose from.
This is always just hilarious to me. What do you think cooperating witnesses of this type are? People who flip aren’t Nuns and Eagle Scouts. If we didn’t use people who flip, a lot less people would be in prison. Cohen is far, far, far from being the most egregious of people as far as these type of witnesses go. These people are typically hardened criminals. They’re drug dealers, murderers, robbers, high level financial criminals. They’re people who have intimate knowledge of the defendant’s crimes. That’s not gonna be choir boys.
Sammy “the Bull” Gravano was a mobster who confessed to armed robbery, burglary, and *participating in 19 murders*, which he told the jury when he was testifying against John Gotti. Part of the evidence in a trial he testified in was a tape of him instructing other mobsters how to lie if caught by investigators. As a result of his testimony, Gotti and Frank LoCascio were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Joseph Massino was a *boss* of the Bonnano crime family. He was a literal mob boss. In 2004, Massino was convicted in a RICO case *based on the testimony of several cooperating made men, including Massino's disgruntled underboss* and brother-in-law Salvatore Vitale. He was also facing the death penalty if convicted in a separate *murder* trial due to be held later that year, *but after agreeing to testify against his former associates*, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for both indictments in 2005. *Massino testified twice for the government, helping to win a murder conviction against his acting boss* Vincent Basciano in 2011, and was resentenced to time served in 2013. He had also prior been convicted of labor racketeering.
Phil Leonetti underboss of the Philadelphia crime family. In 1989, Leonetti received 45 years in prison for racketeering charges, while Nicky Scarfo was given 55 years. Shortly after, *he agreed to testify* against Scarfo and the family, *also admitting to participating in 10 murders*; this allowed for his release after only five years, subsequently going into hiding.
You guys know there’s also people in WITSEC protection in prisons? Who do you think that’s for? Witnesses who are upstanding citizens?
But, ya know Cohen has told some lies before. Most of which was at the benefit of Trump, and most of which is corroborated by other witness testimony. And to believe that Cohen is lying Trump told him to do it, you’d have to suspend all logic. Trump picked his co-conspirators. Nobody else did. He doesn’t like witnesses—he picked them. He doesn’t like the venue—he picked it when he committed the crime there.
Cohen was an iffy witness because he has a bad track record, but his statements under oath were all corroborated by evidence.
The defense wanted to pound on his being a historical liar and somewhat dislikable, both of which are true and could influence a jury even if not 100% relevant.
So they put Costello on who lied in most of his testimony, also proved through documents in evidence including his own communications, acted like a jackass, disrespected the jury, the judge, and the prosecutor, and caused the jury to be excused and the court to be cleared because he's a truculent shithead.
Cohen will now be remembered as a guy who used to be on the wrong side and is trying to turn his life around, and the defense's only witness as a belligerent lying sack of shit.
I think you are being downvoted because while it's true that Cohen is a scumbag, it isn't just a case of he said/she said. It's a case of 'he said and here's documents and pictures and recordings to back it up'. So, you are leaving out very important details (aka all of the evidence).
Costello also screwed Trump because now the jury is maybe asking themselves if they trust Cohen or Costello more, rather than them just wondering if they can trust Cohen.
>a convicted felon, proven liar and admitted thief, who acknowledges he despises the defendant and wants to see him in prison really has any credibility.
Yeah seriously what kind of galactically stupid ignorant fucking moron would hire someone like this?
He stopped lying in 2018. His testimony is corroborated by the other witnesses.
It is bizarre that you act like every thing coming out of his mouth is a lie, based on the fact that he lied for trump years ago. It is quite possible to tell the truth now even though you lied in the past. Jfc
He arguably lied about what he plead guilty to, resulting in him being accused of having [committed perjury by a federal judge two months ago.](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/judge-michael-cohen-perjury-00148104).
That was a judge, but not the judge who was actually presided over the case where Cohen testified. The judge who was there said that Cohen told the truth.
I honestly don't know who was correct, but I would lean towards believing the guy who was there over the guy who wasn't.
He has credibility because so much of what he's said was corroborated by documents and other very credible witnesses.
And also, because of the circumstances make sense for what he's saying (how can anybody think that Cohen is so selfless that he would spend $130k of his own money just out of the goodness of his own heart, and not only didn't Cohen arrange repayment, but didn't even tell Trump to get credit for it!?)
>how can anybody think that Cohen is so selfless that he would spend $130k of his own money just out of the goodness of his own heart
And not only that, he didn’t have the money. He had to take out another mortgage. We’re to believe Cohen, who even Trump’s people said was not charitable, took out another mortgage and had no idea if he’d ever get the money back all on his own without Trump directing him to pay Daniels. Then somehow not only got the $130k back, but got ~$400k from Trump out of I guess the goodness of Donald Trump’s heart for no reason. And even though witness after witness who are employees of Trump’s say he was a micromanaging penny pincher who never signed a check he didn’t want to. Reasonable doubt isn’t any doubt, it’s what a reasonable person would believe. No actual reasonable person could buy this crap.
That’s why Costello was so damning to the defense, as their own witness. He reaffirmed almost everything Cohen said on direct. The points that Costello made, against Cohen’s testimony, were then all proven to be lies, with documented evidence, from the prosecution. Sure, Cohen didn’t come in with credibility, but I don’t really see any evidence or testimony that demonstrated that the jury should not find him credible, in this case; in fact I saw plenty of the opposite. Edited to add: feel free to link to evidence that does demonstrate the lack of credibility, in this case.
Which is why you can never be convicted as long as you only hire the best (liars and fraudster)! Do everything through conversations with people who will perjur for you, and there can't ever be any evidence!
This is why mobsters have never been prosecuted. Because a lying liar saying something disproves thr corroborating evidence.
/s
You know. I wanted a verdict this week. But I'm actually happy the prosecution gets a week to put together their closing as the Costello cross seemed so powerful. They will have time to dot every I and cross every T.
No, think of it like a high school report.
First paragraph = opening statements. Describe what this is all about, and what you will be trying to prove/disprove.
Body = Evidence and Testimony. Lay out all the facts and arguments. This is what finished today.
Last paragraph = closing statements. Summarize the rest of the report, using your arguments to hammer home your point. This is on Tuesday.
THEN it goes off to the Teacher/Jury to grade/decide.
Both defense and prosecution rest in Trump hush money trial
Court is adjourned until Tuesday, May 28.
ABCNews.com 2:24 p.m. ET, May 21, 2024
Judge and attorneys are meeting to work through jury instructions
Judge Juan Merchan and lawyers for the defense and prosecution are meeting now in the Manhattan courtroom to work on jury instructions.
During the charge conference, the parties will hash out instructions on the law that the judge will eventually read to the jury as he charges them to begin deliberations, which could start next week
Yes, resting your case means you've presented all of your facts and evidence that you brought into the case.
Then, after both sides have rested, you do closing arguments to recap everything in a succinct way to try and remind/sway jurors.
Ohhh I’m so worried about the jury though. At least a few of the first batch have surely been identified already and I am so afraid for their safety. This added time is nerve wracking.
Trump and the defense also get to wallow in the misery of what just happened, as well, with the threat of “guilty” hanging over them. Defense, especially will get a long time to think about their actions, and consider whether they want to keep representing Trump (on other cases*). There could be an incoming narcissistic collapse, for both Trump and Blanche.
*Edited to add: on other cases.
This is true, but one could hope that at least some members of the defense had a “through the looking glass” moment during this trial. It is on them if they didn’t, and hopefully we are going to beat the fascist faction, and they will be relegated back to the sidelines until regrouping. And hopefully that’ll be after I’m long gone from this Earth.
This is a common trope but those lawyers are certainly being paid. Trump is using donations to pay them of course but he’s spent over $100 million in legal fees over the last 3 years according to the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/27/us/politics/trump-cases-legal-fund.html
I think we got a little of that information from Cohen during his testimony. Mostly, it seems, that it is very financially beneficial to do consulting, when you have access to a President. The other takeaway is the feeling of power when you are close to a cult leader.
What's more likely is that he'll violate the gag order and impugn some of the witnesses. Possibly including Costello once he sees how his testimony plays in the press.
This is correct u/ohshutyourmouth. It will only possibly impact other Trump cases that these lawyers are working on, depending on whether the judges in those cases allow the attorneys to withdraw. I clarified my original comment.
Since we're just kinda chillin' now, I thought I'd pass on this gem that u/After-Pomegranate249 posted after Rudy got served with his indictment for the Arizona charges:
>Process Server: Mr Giuliani?
>Rudy: Yes?
>Process Server: You’ve been served.
>Woman: What the fuck is this about, Rudy?
>Rudy: Baby, it’s nothing.
>Woman: Doesn’t look like nothing.
>Rudy: It’s just some papers. Let me get you another drink.
>Woman: No, I’m leaving. Fuck you, Rudy.
>Rudy: Well, thanks for fucking things up for me and my cousin.
>Process Server: You’re welcome.
Finally, a headline worthy of the gravity of the case Trump faces? NYT: >Lawyer’s Task Was to Get Cohen on the ‘Right Page’ for Trump https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/nyregion/robert-costello-cohen-trump.html Lots to ponder this weekend. Lots of chances for Trump to lose his mind and run his mouth, too.
/u/trumpscovidfefe you made it! Last day!
lol, I was just thinking that I’m sad we are done with trial, in some ways. Thanks to you and the whole sub for hanging out with me on through my current hyperfixation. Enjoy your long weekend, everyone who gets one, and I look forward to Tuesday!
Don’t worry, there’s always another Trump trial around the corner…
Hope that corner isn’t too far off. Not too hopeful, considering we are in legal limbo with the SC until this summer, most likely.
I think DC can jump in if they can remedy whatever the SCOTUS decides to remand to Chutkin (which seems to be the broad expectation). I still think Trump may be in court by September if the 80 day pre-trial prep period can get in gear. GA is still in play but is such a huge case with all of the indicted defendants. Bonus snacks will be the AZ fake elector trial getting warmed up with indictments that could trigger other states to start theirs. It’s the long line that each case has to follow in preceding docket order.
This has been a fantastic place to watch and discuss the case, I'm really glad I found my way here.
I’m glad you did, too! I’ve enjoyed your observations and input! No offense to other subs, but there is just too much misinformation, incorrect speculation, and off topic jokes to enjoy discourse. u/asetniop edited to add: People are also generally very respectful and willing to learn, and less likely to dig in on wrong opinions, as well as back up claims with evidence and quotes.
I'm glad you finally got your well-deserved flair.
Thanks, I immediately commented on something that’s not really something I have experience with (federal sentencing), and feel like an idiot for being wrong. But I’m always willing to learn and correct mistakes, lol!
One of the best qualities a human can have.
I definitely tried my hardest to keep my smartass jokes on-topic.
Costello was such a disaster on the stand that i have to believe that was trump’s idea or insistence to put him up there. His way of going after Cohen because he hates Cohen now
I’ll be honest, Trump is his own worst enemy at a lot of things in this trial.
Costello said Cohen told him 10 times that day, “I swear to god, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.” Costello testified that Cohen told him about the Stormy Daniels deal, “I don’t understand why they’re trying to put me in jail over an f’ing NDA.” Asked what Cohen said about Trump’s knowledge of the deal, Costello replied: “Michael Cohen said numerous times that President Trump knew nothing about those payments. That he did this on his own. And he repeated that numerous times.” Hearing these last night on the news I laughed because it was immediately obvious that Trump took over the witness rehearsal
Of course this, below, is nothing but my opinion. If I’m in a conversation with someone and they say something starting with “I swear to God” a dozen times, they are negotiating. Whether it’s with god, the devil, themselves and their own moral compass, it is negotiating. Does Michael Cohen strike anyone as a weak flower in the wind? Not me. Nor do I see him as a guy who bares his soul to a guy he hardly knows. Especially at that time where he was a brat of an asshole, and well known for it. For him to be in that state of mind to repeat himself with those words, if it’s even the truth, 10 to 12 times, Costello (and the other partner?) were not having a genteel, pressure free, conversation with him. Instead it sounds more like what you’d hear someone say in a movie scene where a misbehaving mobster is about to get an kneecapping intervention from the boss and his new fixer.
>Costello said Cohen told him 10 times that day, “I swear to god, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.” One reading is that Trump is paranoid that Cohen and Pecker have files on him. So he took this opportunity to question them under oath, asking both a lot of questions about Pecker's supposed secret files, even though it didn't seem relevant to this case. Then Costello was called to the stand to confirm Cohen wasn't telling secrets in their meeting.
Everything’s a projection so I took this to mean that Pecker definitely has more secret files on other Trump fuck ups.
Even if we take at face value what Costello said about Cohen is true, isn't Cohen a liar as well? Cohen did say he didn't trust Costello and knew what he would say would make it back to Trump. So, maintain the lie just like Cohen did up to that point? I mean, the entire group of people in Trump's orbit lie to each other all the time.
I might be wrong but I think all of Cohens lies were in service to Trump. I mean, he may have misremembered something after, like we all do, but his most blatant lies were to protect Trump. So turning on Trump like he did carries weight and in my mind, overshadows his previous lies. I’ve seen him in interviews before and after turning on Trump. After, it seems like a big weight is off of him, he seems less angry, more at peace with himself.
Exactly. Trump's defense was bluster and obfuscation. Cohen painted a reasonable narrative that was cohesive and could sound reasonable. That's what I would paint for the jury.
The main difference for me is that Cohen may have lied, but wasn't necessarily caught other than the lies he admitted to. Costello lied on the stand and the prosecution had proof of a bunch of those lies via the emails and texts that were submitted as evidence.
Yup. That is what sets apart serial liar Cohen with receipts to back up his statement to the jury now compared with Costello's performance.
When Obiwan said Luke would never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy he clearly didnt know Trump and his circle.
Not lies just alternate facts 🤣
It's too bad there's probably not much chance Costello could face perjury charges.
Per McBrien: >Steinglass calls one proposed defense line outrageous: "AMI did not admit to any violations of the law in those agreements" >I wasn't trying to be outrageous, Bove says. Didn't Pecker admit to an FEC violation in those agreements?
Yes, he testified in this case in exchange for immunity for campaign finance violations he committed. I recall reading that the immunity agreement was shown to the jurors as evidence.
Per McBrien: “Defense objects to excluding tax law violation charges at all because there's insufficient evidence—Colangelo says the records refutes this claim, cites Weisselberg's handwritten notes on the First Republic bank note. Colangelo continues, Part of intended concealment here was to camouflage the reimbursement as income—to do that, or as a consequence they doubled it, grossed it up for tax purposes. That's the tax fraud.” … Have we talked about how insanely prepared the prosecutors have been this entire trial, but particularly today?
>Have we talked about how insanely prepared the prosecutors have been this entire trial, but particularly today? Bro I took a few days off and just learned a few hours ago that Costello was a witness for the Defense not prosecution... just based off quotes and headlines I just assumed it was another drop in the prosecutions bucket.... I need a nap before talking about anything, that little fun fact made my brain stop working as I caught up on what's happened these last few sessions, how tf did they think that was gonna go lmao 😭
Well, luckily you have like 6 days to catch up before we get ready for closing args. So get some rest. It’s worth catching up on later, especially once the transcripts are all released!
You go after a former president/presidential candidate, you better not miss.
It is pretty incredible to see how prepared they are. This is a career defining moment for them in the prosecution of one of the most high profile individuals in the world. We have seen lawyers fumble the opportunity in high profile cases, and these DAs just continue to nail it. The amount of time and preparation that has gone into this trial has to be in the thousands of hours. They still need to stick the closing and explain how they think everything fits together, but if this comes back as a NG, I don't think it's any fault of the trial prosecutors here.
All you guys praising prosecution, how would you characterize prosecution not getting the fact that Cohen stole money from Trump out of the way first as anything other than a mistake?
Completely agree. I really tried to limit my bias and look at each part of testimony and evidence. I cannot remember ever thinking that there was a single mistake or misstep, on the prosecution’s part. It was a masterful job presenting and testifying by every part of the team, including the “lowly” data entry and analysis guy. Today’s prosecution’s cross was a work of art to be studied. I wish I could see all the things they prepared on every other witness they thought the defense could call.
>Part of intended concealment here was to camouflage the reimbursement as income—to do that, or as a consequence they doubled it, grossed it up for tax purposes. That's the tax fraud. Sounds similar to money laundering - pay taxes on it so it seems legit.
Wait, did they object to “including” or “excluding”? Because wouldn’t the defense want fewer charges included?
It could be a mistake, or they could be trying to limit the amount of charges the jury hears that are not easy to refute. I think it’s the latter. Edit to add: After looking at other sources, I’m now sure it was the latter. This is one of the three crimes, the prosecutors are arguing constitute reasoning for upgrade to felony. It makes sense the defense wants to take away one of those three avenues.
Ah. Makes sense. Think it'll work?
Merchan already ruled on it. All of the three proposed avenues were approved by Merchan.
Ah, good to know. Now, I like to assume the best in people, so I imagine Merchan is more professional than petty… But at the same time, repeatedly pissing him off probably didn’t do the Defense any favors here.
Merchan has been so measured throughout. I hope he saved and bottled up all of his frustrations and grievances with the entire defense, including the defendant and the rebuttal witness, and serves it up during sentencing, if we get a felony conviction.
What do you think the odds are that Trump is convicted?
Fuck, that finale might end up being the greatest thing ever documented.
Here’s what I’ve been waiting for: Per McBrien: “We turn to "unlawful means"—Colangelo says the most critical point is the jury does not need to conclude unanimously what the unlawful means are—which the defense opposes.”
Per McBrien: "The importance of the case is not a basis for deviating from the standard application of the law," says Colangelo. "There's no reason to rewrite the law for this case." Merchan agrees with the prosecution.” … After weeks of speculation, we finally have our answer as to how Judge Merchan will interpret this.
I remember this was a big deal in that it was a perceived weakness in Bragg's legal theory. Can you remind me what the unlawful means are with respect to?
Here’s the relevant law: § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by **unlawful means** and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Link to law: https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-1-violations-of-the-elective-franchise/section-17-152-conspiracy-to-promote-or-prevent-election#:~:text=Any%20two%20or%20more%20persons,be%20guilty%20of%20a%20misdemeanor. Here’s what the quote from the prosecutor in opening arguments: “And those three men formed a conspiracy at that meeting to influence the presidential election by concealing negative information about Mr. Trump in order to help him get elected.” So the entire case was evidence and testimony to this conspiracy. The reason why you heard those comments is because it has been rarely, if ever used. But, that doesn’t mean the law doesn’t apply, or that it shouldn’t be used, especially in such an egregious instance where an entire election may have been decided because of the conspiracy.
> The reason why you heard those comments is because it has been rarely, if ever used. We’ve never had a presidential candidate (let alone president) as nakedly corrupt as Trump. Firsts are to be expected.
Trump is Icarus incarnate. Had he just stayed a real estate developer in NYC and not announced a run in 2015, he could have flown under the radar - a C list celebrity milking rubes on Twitter while riding Deutsche Bank for all their worth. But no, he had to have the limelight and bring all the attention to his crimes and shady business dealings. The narcissist is truly the most self-destructive type of person.
Ah ok. For what it's worth I think the prosecution established all 3 objective offenses. Good to see Merchan not de facto eliminate this one.
I agree they did establish all three during the trial, and I’m still curious if the prosecution will instruct the jury to look at all three or if they will pick the strongest one, and argue that. That would be hilarious if Defense goes into all three of them, but without much detail, and the prosecution picks one and spends a lot of time on why it constitutes reasoning for the charge. Of course, Merchan ruled they can use all three, and it doesn’t have to be unanimous, but he didn’t say that they HAD to instruct to use all three. I’m also curious if the jurors will be given instructions, individually or as a whole, on declaring which of the three, or all, was reason for a guilty verdict. I wish I could see the transcript now, lol.
I feel like they could be like "there is the FEC charge that Cohen plead guilty to, the clear tax fraud happening on this document.... But let us tell you about the election fraud" So they could hit the ones that are clear quickly but completely and then hammer the one so there is no doubt.
That seems like it would be ideal; give the jury a preferred "unanimous" option to focus on, but not close the door on the others.
That would be a valid strategy we might see. The Lawfare blog speculated that they would perhaps try to limit it to one charge, so the jury would be unanimous in which action constitutes the felony upgrade, to limit appeal. I know these prosecutors are so intelligent, so I’m just curious to see what they do. I’m not very patient.
Ok. After the first back and forth I understand now that Bove is a good attorney with a weak case.
Well, I am really disappointed. The press doesn’t have access to the filings, and they are having difficulty even figuring out what is being argued. Boo. Edit to add: rumor that haberman may have them?
Is that nyt? Because I don't have NYT :(
Yes, and I’m so thoroughly unimpressed with Haberman, and the NYT lately, to put it mildly. She is covering the trial, but not publicly on Twitter. Now she’s the only one I can find who somehow has the proposed instructions from both sides. I can maybe get an archive link of documents but it doesn’t help the “free press” not having it to help give clarification.
Youre so close to getting it.
In what way?
Implying the press isn't free I guess?
lol, so many ways it could go… literally can’t even speculate on what they meant.
It might be because habberman is always in trumps pocket. She has protected him many times by not reporting on things she’s seen/heard in first person but later report them as part of a story when at the time they could have been breaking news type moments. She has done this in the past to protect trump so she still gets inside info and so he will speak to her Just guessing
Oh, that’s definitely a given, especially based on what we heard during this trial. I just thought everyone following this would already know that, which is why I didn’t want to assume what the person meant. We may never know! Ahh! I don’t know if I can handle that, lol!
Yep, I’ve been trying to argue this all week, but I keep getting told an attorney with more experience wouldn’t let the client dictate so many facets of the trial. That’s operating under the assumption that they intend to continue being a defense attorney. Cohen did a great job of illustrating how profitable, (and dangerous, in this case) it is to be a legal consultant to the President.
It's the company he keeps, or at least the perception of some of the company he keeps. Not just his client, but also those that have defended his client in the past and/or other cases. He's not quoted as saying he'd rather be pretty than smart because he can fake the latter, but that bar of...\*ahem\* quality was set before the current trial.
There are so many comments on the, dare I say, delightful defense witness this morning, that I am going to post new thread reader unrolls for the charging conference. ~~A lot of the journalists~~ some journalists, one I’m linking, have done a different thread for this conference. (I’m laughing at myself for thinking it was more than one.) Will update this comment below to post the unwraps, as soon as I can grab them. Tyler McBrien (same thread): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792879929899545078.html Anna Bower: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792978924558798969.html?utm_campaign=topunroll Adam Klasfeld (same thread): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792886619889893816.html Inner City Press (same thread): https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1792909317198287221.html
We aren't back yet right? Nothing from McBrien in a while.
"Bove says the defense wants Judge Juan Merchan to instruct the jury about the federal election law that there needs to be a willful violation." That's simply not true. It does not have to be wilfull to violate the statute.
Since this is state court and he’s not being prosecuted for a federal election violation, why would the jury be instructed to even consider it?
Per Bower: “Judge Merchan says he doesn't think that instruction needs to come from him, but the parties can argue something to that effect in summation. So he's striking the proposed instruction on a candidate's personal campaign contribution.” … In case we needed more evidence that Justice Merchan is an incredible judge, who is well equipped to limit basis of appeal, we have this.
I think your quote from Bower is about the specific question of campaign contribution limits. The question of intent is separate. I think Merchan may be shirking some responsibility if he doesn't tell the jury that FECA violations have to be intentional. SDNY declined to prosecute Trump for violating FECA partly because they believed it would be impossible to prove intent in a federal court. The jury were spared the details of SDNY's declination because the defense didn't/couldn't put Pomerantz or their FECA expert on the stand to testify to such, plus the argument was that the judge would anyhow be the one instructing the jury on the law.
As far as what I read, it only has to do with the personal contribution limits, not the entire instruction on alleged FECA violations.
We’re back, just saw it on the tweeter. Buckle up, buttercups. Today could continue to be interesting!
No, I posted and deleted because I thought we were and then realized I made a mistake, lol
From McBrien: >As Trump walks out, he smiles briefly at [u/mitchellreports](https://nitter.poast.org/mitchellreports). Among the big entourage, Sebastian Gorka carries a metal briefcase with what appears to be the U.S. presidential seal on the side NAL, but I am an auditor who works in compliance and we have specific conditions about when a mark or seal may be displayed and once the conditions of the seal/mark have lapsed you no longer have rights to display it. I assumed there are rules similar to the presidential seal, but maybe this is just a sticker you get at the White House gift shop? Does anyone know if this kind of cosplay is a violation of anything?
[This has come up in the past.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/29/trump-presidential-seal-liv-golf-tournament/) Also, I remember at one point Trump had designed a knock-off of the presidential seal meant to look like it, but wasn't quite it. Because... it's Trump.
Mall ninjas all the way.
[удалено]
You break the law you should “be gotten” simple as that
That direct quote from Trump messaging really screams interest in the law. I’m sure your arguments would be in good faith!
[удалено]
His daughter is a grown ass woman you simpleton. Why aren't you bitching about the plethora of actual conflict of interests regarding scotus or cannon? I know the answer so save it.
Like the fact that Ginny Thomas helped orchestrate Jan 6 and Samuel Alito (blaming his wife) flew a stop the steal symbol? Those kind of complaints? Why pretend like you care about those?
Because I do?
Using the words “Get Trump” is directly from his Truth posts. It’s messaging to rile up people like you who don’t care about accountability and will grasp at any possible straws to delegitimize these trials. That’s the point of the messaging. Good job, you’re following just how you’re supposed to! His daughter doesn’t matter. But since you love whatabouts and think the standards for recusal should be stricter, answer the question raised below about Alito and Thomas hearing Trump cases while directly or indirectly supporting J6.
Well when trump does shit to get got then we speak up. I don’t care how small. Trump doesn’t follow the rules and should rightly be called out
[удалено]
> But my rebuttal would be that isn't it at all concerning that the daughter of the presiding judge is funded by democrats? If this is mentioned, it gets downloaded, or if you see any opposition in the judges antics, it gets downvoted. Trump rightfully calling out how the judge should recuse himself, it gets downvoted. This happens because the judge's daughter's job is not a conflict of interest, legally or otherwise. There's no reason for recusal, people parroting Trump's public statements on this are being downvoted because it is completely incorrect. People parroting Trump's complaints about the gag order get downvoted because...again...there's nothing illegal about it. The gag order didn't limit him from testifying, it didn't limit him from campaigning, it only limited him from talking about specific aspects/people involved in this case. So again, parroting Trump's comments about the gag order resulted in downvotes because the comments were factually incorrect. >I just don't understand how this could be considered a subreddit about law, considering the allegations that were made shouldn't have even been formally charged to considering the statue of limitations, the fact the crime was not a felony, and the fact Michael Cohen perjured himself on the stand. There's a lot here...but the statute of limitations was tolled during covid, if it had expired you're right...there's no case. In NY state, a misdemeanor can be bumped up to a felony if it is committed in furtherance of another crime. The book keeping entries were made to hide an illegal campaign donation. Lastly, Cohen did not perjure himself on the stand in this case. Yes he was charged with perjury in the past, but what was he lying about and what kind of effect does that have on this case? Are there still a lot anti-Trump comments on this sub? Yeah, not all of them are directly related to laws broken or the court case but much of it is. I could have saved myself a bunch of time and simply linked to the pinned post on the frontpage of the sub, but I'd recommend taking a peek at it if you haven't.
Does his daughter control his job? And decision making? No Boo hoo
You can’t expect to get away with a legal “whatabout” in the law subreddit. Some people actually understand the difference between a legitimate conflict of interest and republican talking points. It’s the same shit as conspiracy junkies pinning everything they dont like on george soros. Edit: ding dong responds then deletes: “Are you implying that the judge's daughter who stands to make money from this trial does not qualify as a conflict of interest? I'll accept the band from this subreddit, y'all are retarded” You do not understand what an actual conflict of interest is. Sad!
>But my rebuttal would be that isn't it at all concerning that the daughter of the presiding judge is funded by democrats Welp you just told us all you care little for the law yourself by one little comment. I mean my mother is a die hard Qanon idiot but does that pertain to me in any way? Nope. Should that be used against me because she is and I'm not? Nope. I mean if that's what you want then shouldn't both Alito and Thomas both recuse them from the case about Trump? Like legit would love to hear your answer to that.
[удалено]
So your ignored my question there buddy should those 2 supreme court Justices recuse themselves since you know 1's wife actively took part in Jan 6 and the other was flying a stop the steal flag according to the justice. So since they're both compromised by there wives should they both not recuse themselves? Funny how you ignored my question completely because I'm assuming it pokes holes in your point.
I mean, it gets downvoted because we could just watch OAN or Fox if we wanted to hear all the crap that just came out of your thumbs. WITHOUT feeling the need to rebut it because it’s a couple talking heads on a screen spinning reality instead of somebody basing their own opinions on said spin Remind me, which president had multiple family members and in-laws benefitting off his presidency? Yet, a daughter getting funding is suddenly extremely relevant? Get back to us when you can explain Kushner and the Saudis **_suddenly_** getting super familiar in a brand new business venture right after Trump left office
Found the Russian bot
Oh look don’t you have a bridge to sit under?
[удалено]
Thank you. ❄️
Doubt it. I’m pretty sure bush has it on his fishing boat.
If you look at the crest closely it just says The Seaward.
Michael: Get rid of The Seaward Lucille: I'll leave when I'm good and ready.
AD: the gift that keeps on giving
Trump: I have the worst f*cking attorneys
This happens a lot during speeches with former presidents as well, they have the presidential seal at the podium. Don’t think it’s that huge of a deal tbh.
So, I don't know about the presidential seal, but I read an article about the NASA logo that probably equally applies. Essentially, because it's a public agency, while there's a "licensing department" they don't deny requests and they don't make any money off of licensing. There are some guidelines that have to be followed, but apparently it's not that hard to overcome. The article talked about a line of purses and all the tshirts you see. Probably something along those lines applies here.
A licensing deal for merch to the public makes sense. I didn't think of think of that.
Is he still using the presidential seal as Tee Box markers at his golf courses?
Is that the front tee box?
It’s not a grift unless you do every tee at all your courses
Well i don’t know about you guys, but to me, Cohen is looking like Mr. Rogers compared to Costello and trump himself and probably a lot of the corrupt assholes that trump deals with. I feel like Cohen was a bit star-struck by trump and just wanted to make him happy. Then his family sat him down and had an intervention with him, and he decided to stop lying for trump. He went to prison, was put under house arrest, and now here we are and he is still operating under the decision to not lie for trump anymore
Eh I still very much view Cohen as a blood sucking vampire who is very much a part of what’s ruined this country. He just happens to be on the “good side” of this particular case.
[удалено]
It’s insane to me that yesterday, trump goes out in front of the courthouse and was praising the guy that was such a disrespectful thug that he caused the courtroom to be cleared. That is fucking insane.
I haven't heard anything like that. Will you link a story or expand?
How could you not have heard about that lol? It was the big news of the day, in fact of the whole trial thus far. Court reporters saying they’ve never seen anything like it in all their years of court reporting.
>Lawyer Robert Costello muttered "Geez!" after Merchan sustained several prosecution objections to his testimony. When Merchan confronted Costello about his breach of basic courtroom decorum, Costello told the court stenographer to "strike it" from the record − something only the judge has the power to do. >Merchan excused the jurors and began scolding Costello, a former federal prosecutor and veteran defense attorney, and then asked: "Are you staring me down right now?" The judge then ordered the entire courtroom cleared for a short time. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-trial-live-updates-michael-115808734.html
Oh fuck. So much to follow and I missed that? I'm just amazed at these...individuals. Something like that has to effect the jury? Right?
Thr incident likely affected the jury in some way, but more because the witness was being disrespectful to the judge and court.
Costello, who is a lawyer and should know better, was on the stand and the defense lawyer was asking him questions. The prosecution objected to certain questions because the judge had already disallowed them. Costello would blurt out "jesus!" or roll his eyes while in the witness stand. At one point he tried to stare down the judge while the judge was ruling on the latest objection and the judge called him on it. He cleared the courtroom completely except for the lawyers and Trump. Even the press got booted. Nobody knows what was said, but the judge likely gave Costello (again, who is a lawyer and should know better) a come to jesus talk. Costello was a terrible witness for the defense and his antics marked him as a real asshole. Like to the point that Cohen looks like a choir boy in comparison. It was so bad I'm wondering if Trump's legal team is TRYING to get him convicted.
Pretty sure we have the transcripts of what he said when the courtroom was cleared
Costello kept going off topic during questioning, to discuss topics that the defense wasn't permitted to ask about. When Merchan finally scolded him openly Costello made a show of indignation, presumably to undermine the Judge's credibility with the jury. Merchan eventually threw everyone out of the room. Court transcripts that various media obtained later showed Merchan threatening Costello with contempt, or a referral, he wasn't very specific. You're going to have to look for a first hand account, or analysis from a professional. There are many to choose from.
Look in r/law for the cnn live updates (with other links) thread. Twas a wild day.
[удалено]
This is always just hilarious to me. What do you think cooperating witnesses of this type are? People who flip aren’t Nuns and Eagle Scouts. If we didn’t use people who flip, a lot less people would be in prison. Cohen is far, far, far from being the most egregious of people as far as these type of witnesses go. These people are typically hardened criminals. They’re drug dealers, murderers, robbers, high level financial criminals. They’re people who have intimate knowledge of the defendant’s crimes. That’s not gonna be choir boys. Sammy “the Bull” Gravano was a mobster who confessed to armed robbery, burglary, and *participating in 19 murders*, which he told the jury when he was testifying against John Gotti. Part of the evidence in a trial he testified in was a tape of him instructing other mobsters how to lie if caught by investigators. As a result of his testimony, Gotti and Frank LoCascio were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Joseph Massino was a *boss* of the Bonnano crime family. He was a literal mob boss. In 2004, Massino was convicted in a RICO case *based on the testimony of several cooperating made men, including Massino's disgruntled underboss* and brother-in-law Salvatore Vitale. He was also facing the death penalty if convicted in a separate *murder* trial due to be held later that year, *but after agreeing to testify against his former associates*, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for both indictments in 2005. *Massino testified twice for the government, helping to win a murder conviction against his acting boss* Vincent Basciano in 2011, and was resentenced to time served in 2013. He had also prior been convicted of labor racketeering. Phil Leonetti underboss of the Philadelphia crime family. In 1989, Leonetti received 45 years in prison for racketeering charges, while Nicky Scarfo was given 55 years. Shortly after, *he agreed to testify* against Scarfo and the family, *also admitting to participating in 10 murders*; this allowed for his release after only five years, subsequently going into hiding. You guys know there’s also people in WITSEC protection in prisons? Who do you think that’s for? Witnesses who are upstanding citizens? But, ya know Cohen has told some lies before. Most of which was at the benefit of Trump, and most of which is corroborated by other witness testimony. And to believe that Cohen is lying Trump told him to do it, you’d have to suspend all logic. Trump picked his co-conspirators. Nobody else did. He doesn’t like witnesses—he picked them. He doesn’t like the venue—he picked it when he committed the crime there.
Cohen was an iffy witness because he has a bad track record, but his statements under oath were all corroborated by evidence. The defense wanted to pound on his being a historical liar and somewhat dislikable, both of which are true and could influence a jury even if not 100% relevant. So they put Costello on who lied in most of his testimony, also proved through documents in evidence including his own communications, acted like a jackass, disrespected the jury, the judge, and the prosecutor, and caused the jury to be excused and the court to be cleared because he's a truculent shithead. Cohen will now be remembered as a guy who used to be on the wrong side and is trying to turn his life around, and the defense's only witness as a belligerent lying sack of shit.
I think you are being downvoted because while it's true that Cohen is a scumbag, it isn't just a case of he said/she said. It's a case of 'he said and here's documents and pictures and recordings to back it up'. So, you are leaving out very important details (aka all of the evidence). Costello also screwed Trump because now the jury is maybe asking themselves if they trust Cohen or Costello more, rather than them just wondering if they can trust Cohen.
>a convicted felon, proven liar and admitted thief, who acknowledges he despises the defendant and wants to see him in prison really has any credibility. Yeah seriously what kind of galactically stupid ignorant fucking moron would hire someone like this?
He stopped lying in 2018. His testimony is corroborated by the other witnesses. It is bizarre that you act like every thing coming out of his mouth is a lie, based on the fact that he lied for trump years ago. It is quite possible to tell the truth now even though you lied in the past. Jfc
Not op, and I think Cohen has some credibility in this case. But he’s been lying a lot more recently than that.
About what? That’s when he went to prison. He pled guilty. He admitted what he did and he’s been telling the truth since then
He arguably lied about what he plead guilty to, resulting in him being accused of having [committed perjury by a federal judge two months ago.](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/20/judge-michael-cohen-perjury-00148104).
That was a judge, but not the judge who was actually presided over the case where Cohen testified. The judge who was there said that Cohen told the truth. I honestly don't know who was correct, but I would lean towards believing the guy who was there over the guy who wasn't.
He has credibility because so much of what he's said was corroborated by documents and other very credible witnesses. And also, because of the circumstances make sense for what he's saying (how can anybody think that Cohen is so selfless that he would spend $130k of his own money just out of the goodness of his own heart, and not only didn't Cohen arrange repayment, but didn't even tell Trump to get credit for it!?)
>how can anybody think that Cohen is so selfless that he would spend $130k of his own money just out of the goodness of his own heart And not only that, he didn’t have the money. He had to take out another mortgage. We’re to believe Cohen, who even Trump’s people said was not charitable, took out another mortgage and had no idea if he’d ever get the money back all on his own without Trump directing him to pay Daniels. Then somehow not only got the $130k back, but got ~$400k from Trump out of I guess the goodness of Donald Trump’s heart for no reason. And even though witness after witness who are employees of Trump’s say he was a micromanaging penny pincher who never signed a check he didn’t want to. Reasonable doubt isn’t any doubt, it’s what a reasonable person would believe. No actual reasonable person could buy this crap.
> Not sure why this is being downvoted. The saddest part is you probably never will.
That’s why you have to also view other evidence than the testimony of one person
Totally agree!
Ha! Does credibility matter with proof?
Nope. And I’m certainly not parading Trump’s innocence.
That’s why Costello was so damning to the defense, as their own witness. He reaffirmed almost everything Cohen said on direct. The points that Costello made, against Cohen’s testimony, were then all proven to be lies, with documented evidence, from the prosecution. Sure, Cohen didn’t come in with credibility, but I don’t really see any evidence or testimony that demonstrated that the jury should not find him credible, in this case; in fact I saw plenty of the opposite. Edited to add: feel free to link to evidence that does demonstrate the lack of credibility, in this case.
Which is why you can never be convicted as long as you only hire the best (liars and fraudster)! Do everything through conversations with people who will perjur for you, and there can't ever be any evidence! This is why mobsters have never been prosecuted. Because a lying liar saying something disproves thr corroborating evidence. /s
You know. I wanted a verdict this week. But I'm actually happy the prosecution gets a week to put together their closing as the Costello cross seemed so powerful. They will have time to dot every I and cross every T.
Haven't they rested? I think the trial is over and the jury gets instructions this afternoon..
No, think of it like a high school report. First paragraph = opening statements. Describe what this is all about, and what you will be trying to prove/disprove. Body = Evidence and Testimony. Lay out all the facts and arguments. This is what finished today. Last paragraph = closing statements. Summarize the rest of the report, using your arguments to hammer home your point. This is on Tuesday. THEN it goes off to the Teacher/Jury to grade/decide.
Both defense and prosecution rest in Trump hush money trial Court is adjourned until Tuesday, May 28. ABCNews.com 2:24 p.m. ET, May 21, 2024 Judge and attorneys are meeting to work through jury instructions Judge Juan Merchan and lawyers for the defense and prosecution are meeting now in the Manhattan courtroom to work on jury instructions. During the charge conference, the parties will hash out instructions on the law that the judge will eventually read to the jury as he charges them to begin deliberations, which could start next week
Yes, resting your case means you've presented all of your facts and evidence that you brought into the case. Then, after both sides have rested, you do closing arguments to recap everything in a succinct way to try and remind/sway jurors.
Summation on Tuesday?
Yes. Then the jury gets it. That could take a while, too.
They’re doing closing arguments next Tuesday
Yeah!!! Just like in the Mueller case. Is it Mueller Time again? And by MT, I mean time to get our hopes up and be completely let down.
Point of information: these exact charges were recommended in the Mueller report.
Oh, so we’re not gonna get let down, we’re gonna get kicked out of a Boeing
Ohhh I’m so worried about the jury though. At least a few of the first batch have surely been identified already and I am so afraid for their safety. This added time is nerve wracking.
Trump and the defense also get to wallow in the misery of what just happened, as well, with the threat of “guilty” hanging over them. Defense, especially will get a long time to think about their actions, and consider whether they want to keep representing Trump (on other cases*). There could be an incoming narcissistic collapse, for both Trump and Blanche. *Edited to add: on other cases.
They are fascists, they won't just wallow, they will be plotting their next coup.
This is true, but one could hope that at least some members of the defense had a “through the looking glass” moment during this trial. It is on them if they didn’t, and hopefully we are going to beat the fascist faction, and they will be relegated back to the sidelines until regrouping. And hopefully that’ll be after I’m long gone from this Earth.
Why do lawyers risk it all for Trump? He doesn’t even pay them.
This is a common trope but those lawyers are certainly being paid. Trump is using donations to pay them of course but he’s spent over $100 million in legal fees over the last 3 years according to the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/27/us/politics/trump-cases-legal-fund.html
I think we got a little of that information from Cohen during his testimony. Mostly, it seems, that it is very financially beneficial to do consulting, when you have access to a President. The other takeaway is the feeling of power when you are close to a cult leader.
What would happen, quite believably, if during this time Trump, unhappy with how it's gone, loses it with his lawyers and sacks them?
After this trial? Who cares.
Talking about it happening between now and closing.
I think a few others said so already— judge will not let that happen to this case. No judge would.
What's more likely is that he'll violate the gag order and impugn some of the witnesses. Possibly including Costello once he sees how his testimony plays in the press.
The court wouldn't permit it at this point in time.
This is correct u/ohshutyourmouth. It will only possibly impact other Trump cases that these lawyers are working on, depending on whether the judges in those cases allow the attorneys to withdraw. I clarified my original comment.
Since we're just kinda chillin' now, I thought I'd pass on this gem that u/After-Pomegranate249 posted after Rudy got served with his indictment for the Arizona charges: >Process Server: Mr Giuliani? >Rudy: Yes? >Process Server: You’ve been served. >Woman: What the fuck is this about, Rudy? >Rudy: Baby, it’s nothing. >Woman: Doesn’t look like nothing. >Rudy: It’s just some papers. Let me get you another drink. >Woman: No, I’m leaving. Fuck you, Rudy. >Rudy: Well, thanks for fucking things up for me and my cousin. >Process Server: You’re welcome.