Cohen v. Costello: Coming Soon to a Cable Show–and Courtroom–Near You

C-Span/YouTube Screenshot

Yesterday, I ran a column in USA Today on the unpalatable prospect of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg putting disbarred attorney Michael Cohen on the stand as his star witness in the case against former president Donald Trump. Given Cohen’s past lies and conduct, it will be a target rich environment for cross examination. As if on cue, Cohen just added another potential item for a withering cross: he denied any memory of a waiver of attorney-client privilege in a public tiff with Robert Costello.

When I heard that Robert Costello had asked to speak before the grand jury to rebut Cohen’s testimony, I was highly critical. As a criminal defense attorney, a public confrontation with a former client (particularly in claiming possible perjury on his part) is anathema. It is rare for an attorney to contradict a former client in public, let alone launch such a full frontal attack on his veracity and character. Putting aside the propriety of such a move, the violation of confidentiality in such a case could result in bar charges. However, Costello then claimed to have a signed waiver of attorney-client privilege.

Cohen then took the signature step of going on television to blast Costello. While prosecutors would likely prefer that he avoid public interviews, Cohen has been maximizing his exposure on the legal matter — a signature throughout his career.

Cohen went on the Joy Reid Show to denounce Costello. With no sense of self-awareness, he accused Costello of lacking “any sense of veracity.” But then he added that  “I didn’t know Bob Costello from a hole in the wall” and that Costello “was never my lawyer.” On the waiver, Cohen denied any recollection of waiving the privilege and said “I’d like to know when, how and where.”

Costello then went on Tucker Carlson’s Show on Fox News and held up a signed waiver that he said has Cohen’s signature on the second page.

I still find this dog fight between two lawyers to be unseemly. However, unless Costello is a forger, Cohen just added another alleged false statement on the eve of the Trump prosecution. If that is his signature, his denial can not only be used to show a spotty memory of important legal details or, equally damaging, his own lack of veracity.

For Cohen, it is nothing new, but how would you like to be a prosecutor with your star witness adding rebuttal points on national television for the defense? The confrontation only made it more likely that the defense will seek to call Costello as a rebuttal witness and Costello insists that he has hundreds of emails that contradict Cohen’s account.

The lawyer also claimed that Cohen told them that he was “suicidal” and looked like he had little sleep or self-control in the critical meeting. This was just before he effectively flipped against Trump. Costello also said that Cohen told the lawyers

“I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump. I will do whatever the ‘f’ I have to do, I will never spend one day in jail. Now what he’s saying is, I’ll lie, cheat, steal, shoot somebody. I will not spend a day in jail.”

The account of his suicidal state could be used by Cohen to explain why he did not remember the waiver. In his interview, Cohen did admit that during the meeting with Costello he was “incredibly distraught.” However, it could also say something about his motivations.

In any case, it is a mess. This goes not solely to his state of mind in making the allegations against Trump, but his continued lack of memory or veracity on key points.

That does not negate him as a witness. Disreputable witnesses are often put on the stand by prosecutors. Moreover, the prosecutors could not have a better jury pool. Trump lost New York City by 43 points. Yet, Cohen is someone who has shown remarkable agility in shifting his facts and allegiances to fit his advantage.  This latest tiff with Costello will not improve that image of this disbarred attorney before the jury.

111 thoughts on “Cohen v. Costello: Coming Soon to a Cable Show–and Courtroom–Near You”

  1. If the prosecution doesn’t call Cohen to the stand the defense should. If Cohen and Stormy are the star witnesses for the prosecution we’re in for a five star comedy show choreographed by the Director of The Democratic dance group. I hear that at intermission there will be Trans white bear dancing in a g-string that he acquired from a stolen suitcase at the Airport. You won’t want to miss it.

    1. Darren: Funny as usual, but with the discussion of Bragg’s “Frankenstein,” I can’t help but remember Abby Normal in Gene Wilder’s “Young Frankenstein.” Are you old enough to remember that hilarious movie?

        1. Thinkitthrough: ha ha ha ha ha. good one.
          In continuance, you might remember Kamala in hearings: “Just answer the question, yes or no. Answer the question!”

  2. OT; Speaking of sketchy lawyers it looks like Fox News is still in the lying business. Now it’s getting sued by a producer who claims she was coerced, intimidated and asked to give false testimony in the dominion case,

    Sounds like they are desperate. It’s not looking good for Fox News.

    “The lawsuit was filed Monday night by Abby Grossberg, who worked with Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo, against the network in New York and Delaware. Grossberg alleged that Fox News lawyers “coerced, intimidated, and misinformed” as they prepared her to testify in Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation suit.

    “Ms. Grossberg left the deposition preparation sessions without knowing that by giving such false/misleading and evasive answers like the ones Fox’s legal team reacted to positively to during the prep sessions, she not only opened herself up to civil and criminal liability for perjury, but was subtly shifting all responsibility for the alleged defamation against Dominion onto her shoulders, and by implication, those of her trusted female colleague, Ms. Bartiromo, rather than the mostly male higher ups at Fox News who endorsed the repeated coverage of the lies against the Dominion,” the lawsuit said.”

    Looks like Fox News is looking for a scapegoat. If they are doing that it means they know they are in trouble. Tucker Carlson can be counted on to be the first. Coward to start pointing fingers and lay blame on his staff.

    1. And this has what to do with Cohen, the big fat liar/ felon loser? Exactly, u are a feckless troll.

  3. LOL.

    Trump called for protests, but outside Trump Tower right now are demonstrators calling for his arrest, with a sign that reads “No one is above the law.”

    No one should be above the law. If he’s above the law, that means we’re turning into a banana republic.

    1. “No one should be above the law.”

      Since when did the Left become fans of the rule of law? Last week? And how long will they stay fair-weather fans? Two more weeks?

      1. My beliefs are not determined by “the Left.”

        Can you agree that no one in the US should be above the law?

        1. Hillary Clinton killed that concept. Bragg wants to arrest Trump for a felony, by ignores Hillary’s $Millions hidden as lawyer fees, when it wan nothing but campaign lies.

          And of course the mishandling of Classified information.

          1. NO ONE can kill that concept for ME.

            If you let Clinton kill that concept for YOU, then your commitment to our country and the rule of law is weak.

        2. The left thinks itself above the law and presently with a despotic President Biden who is corrupt, perhaps Democrats are above the law. We don’t see significant penalties for violent leftists while those no the right are jailed without bail and placed in solitary for trespass.

          You are acting as a fool and it doesn’t improve your image.

        3. You pretend to be normal and in the middle, but we know where you stand. You can’t defend the left so you defend the middle as if the left is uninvolved. You lack any sense of decency.

    2. If no one is above the law the why aren’t the Clintons and the Bidens locked up. All people are created equal, only some are more equal than others.

      1. If you know how the law works then you would recognize that they would have to first be charged with a crime and tried in court. Before…locking them up. Problem is republicans couldn’t or didn’t have evidence to charge them in the first place.

        1. I know how the law works. As I said all people are created equal, only some are more equal than others.

      2. I said no one should be above the law. Unfortunately, wealth and power helps some evade that.

        We generally don’t lock people up without a trial unless they’re considered a flight risk, are dangerous, or are too poor to pay bail. Do you not believe in trials? That would be another sign of descent into a banana republic.

        1. I agree no one should be above the law. But the law should never be used as a political weapon because one side hates the other, nor should the law be manipulated, or twisted, or bastardized to find a crime to punish/stop a potential political opponent, nor used to protect a politician or the politician’s family member(s).

          When that happens we are well past being a banana republic.

          1. Maj229,
            I would say the USA is well past a banana republic.
            When a Supreme Court Justice cannot define what a “woman” is, and declares she cannot as she is not a biologist.
            When the head of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is an admiral, a biological man, but identifies as a woman and promotes genital mutilation and chemical castration, puberty blockers.
            When the Minnesota’s Woman Of The Year Is A Biological Male.
            When the law can be tossed out to weaponize to get a single person for political reasons.
            Just to name a few.
            We are well past a banana republic and into the territory of insanity.
            Just reading the comments from the radical woke leftists is a clear example of what they will go to.
            We need to fight against them. Not for Trump, but to save the US from their totalitarian take over.

        2. A Trump trial in NYC? Same prosecutorial outcome as ‘ol Joe Stalin’s show trials in Moscow. Are you just all ok with a stacked deck jury pool Anonymous ?

          1. We don’t even know if he’ll be charged. There is no jury, nor any reason to assume that an unbiased jury can’t be found.

        3. So far we see leftists above the law. Joe Biden and his son are crooked. You lack morality.

          1. It has nothing to do with love. It has to do with Hunter, Joe and family selling influence to the Chinese, better known as bribery which is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 201(b)(2). It has to do with Hillary being above the law when she removed classified documents in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f). Didn’t you state, “Can you agree that no one in the US should be above the law?” Well it appears if you’re a Democrat you can be above the law.

            It’s also a Democrat District Attorney who ran on a promise to get Trump and is now trying to bastardize the law in an attempt to get around the Statute of Limitations. The ethical standard that a District Attorney is held to is to justice without bias. His comments during his election is proof of his bias. An honest and ethical DA would recuse himself because of that statement,

            If you support his comments, then your virtue signaling statement that “no body is above the law,” is just that virtue signaling. “No one being above the law” is a little more complex than your virtue signaling comment. It also means prosecutors are not above the law.

            That is what makes us a banana republic.

            1. Joe Biden actually said “Beau Biden was, quite simply, the finest man any of us have ever known.” You seem to have been confusing his sons in your original comment. And yes, I believe that comes from JB’s love as a father. If your opinion is different, OK, people often have different opinions.

              As for “your virtue signaling statement that “no body is above the law,” is just that,” I did NOT say “no body IS above the law,” I said no one SHOULD BE above the law, and I already pointed out that unfortunately, wealth and power helps some evade that.

              “it appears if you’re a Democrat you can be above the law.”

              And the same goes for some Republicans who’ve gotten away with breaking laws. AGAIN: unfortunately, wealth and power helps some evade the law. Those people are found on BOTH sides of the aisle. Trump is one of the Republicans who has so far evaded being held accountable for his law breaking. Will he finally be held accountable? Neither of us knows.

              I don’t agree with you that we already are a banana republic. Yet another difference of opinion.

  4. Costello is the ice berg to this Titanic sham of an indictment. Down goes Bragg! Down goes Cohen! Blacks and Jews should be outraged. Here’s two clowns exhibiting the worst in behavior and animating the usual stereotypes.

    1. What a stupid argument. Only racists and anti-Semites would make judgments about Blacks and Jews based on the actions of Bragg and Cohen.

      And you haven’t seen an indictment, so you cannot possibly judge it.

      1. What a stupid argument….

        Pass that on to Dementia Joe and and his Ultra MAGA comments. He is very fond of lumping lots of people together.
        Live with what you have invented.

        1. I didn’t invent Joe Biden, and he doesn’t determine my beliefs. If he determines YOUR beliefs, you’re weak.

          1. You didn’t invent Biden or create anything except bogus claims. Your beliefs are determined by the worst political actors, so don’t be proud.

      2. Racists Schmacists!

        And your point is?

        The Naturalization Act of 1802, in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, was illegally and unconstitutionally ignored and abrogated by “Crazy Abe” Lincoln during his wholly unconstitutional “Reign of Terror,” it must have continued as original and prevailing American immigration law to this day.

        In a society of laws, the laws must be obeyed.

        The American Founders built a very specifically articulated nation.

        Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)

        United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

        Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

  5. All we need, at this point, is for biden to appoint his horse as a member of the Senate and our comparison to a declining Rome will be complete.

    1. whimsicalmama:

      Well, if its any consolation to you, Caligula got assassinated before he could make Incitatus a consul. I do love history for the repetition.

  6. “Federal prosecutors have requested copies of communications Michael Cohen had with a New York attorney who broached the possibility of a pardon from President Donald Trump, the attorney said Wednesday. The attorney, Robert J. Costello, released a statement disputing Cohen’s claim that Trump “dangled” a presidential pardon in front of Cohen before he began cooperating with federal prosecutors and special counsel Robert Mueller.”

    Strange that JT makes no mention of this aspect of the conflicting accounts. Did Costello dangle a pardon or didn’t he?

  7. I’m still having a problem with dirt bag Cohen saying he was “doing the bidding” for Trump’s demands.
    Trump is no idiot, but I doubt he understood the nuances of how to report these expenditures.
    We might recall that Cohen ostensibly advised Trump that he (Cohen) needed to set up/create a new entity (LLC, Corp., Co., etc.) in order to transfer monies to Stormy, and then Cohen worked out the details with CFO Allan Weisselberg (sp.?)
    I really can’t fathom that this was Trump’s idea. Moreover, even if it were, Cohen had four choices:
    (1) That would be illegal, so we can’t do that, and if you demand that I do, I will file a motion to withdraw as counsel;
    (2) That would be illegal, but we can make it legal if I create a separate entity……
    (3) That would be illegal, but if I create a separate entity, we won’t get caught….
    (4) Yes, that would be legal.
    Was Cohen’s conviction for lying predicated on one of the above substantive scenarios?
    Am I missing something here? I have not been following this part of the saga…

    1. Cohen’s conviction for lying to Congress was about a totally different topic, a Moscow real estate project.

        1. Yeah, Cohen lied to Congress to protect Trump, and the defense will certainly raise that to impugn him.

          But given the public evidence so far (e.g., the audio tape of Trump and Cohen, Trump’s admission in his financial disclosure form about owing Cohen money), Cohen’s testimony clearly isn’t the only evidence.

          We don’t even know the charges. Everyone should just develop some patience and wait to see whether Trump is charged, and if so, what the charges are and what evidence is cited.

    2. Lin, Trump is an idiot. How can you not see that? Remember he’s the guy who constantly brags about hiring the best there is and how he us such an excellent judge of character.

      The vast majority of Trump’s lawyers have been ridiculously inept, incompetent, and outright stupid. The majority of his lawyers have either been censured in court, sanctioned, disbarred, and openly ridiculed by Judges. Cohen did exactly what Trump wanted him to do, which is just what Costello is doing with his attempt to discredit Cohen. It’s no mystery about why Trump hires these incompetent lawyers. They are the only ones willing to work with him. They are only ones who are willing to be loyal sycophants.

      “I really can’t fathom that this was Trump’s idea.”

      It was indeed his idea. Here’s a partial transcript of a recording of Trump discussing the stormy Daniels payment with Cohen,

      “MICHAEL COHEN: When it comes time for the financing, which will be…

      DONALD TRUMP: Listen. Why financing?

      COHEN: We’ll have to pay…

      TRUMP: We’ll pay with cash.

      COHEN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I got…

      Here’s the full transcript,

      Trump knew what he was doing. He was fully aware of what they were doing. Hopefully this will give you some context.

      1. Svelaz: Thanks for the link. I just cursorily reviewed it. I think there are plenty of equivocals there, that will be argued about for some time. But I do find interesting your (Svelaz) very own representation of what was actually said.
        THis is what YOU (Svelaz) ostensibly quoted:

        “MICHAEL COHEN: When it comes time for the financing, which will be…
        DONALD TRUMP: Listen. Why financing?
        COHEN: We’ll have to pay…
        TRUMP: We’ll pay with cash.
        COHEN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I got…”

        But what I see is this:

        COHEN: Correct. So, I`m all over that. And, I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be —
        TRUMP: Wait a sec, what financing?
        COHEN: Well, I`ll have to pay him something.
        TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE) pay with cash.
        COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got it.
        TRUMP: Check.
        (END AUDIO CLIP)

        Did you (Svelaz) alter what was said and insert the words, “TRUMP: We’ll pay with cash.” ?????
        Giuliani says that the “inaudible” part was “Don’t pay with cash…check”
        I have no opinion about what was actually said, but did you fill in the blanks with your own words…..???????

        Since I reviewed it rapidly, I might have missed it, please show me in the transcript where Trump said, ” We’ll pay with cash.”

      2. Svelaz: Thanks for the link. Why did you alter the transcript/fill in words when you were QUOTING Trump saying, “TRUMP: We’ll pay with cash.?”
        I believe the actual transcript reads,
        COHEN: Correct. So, I`m all over that. And, I spoke to Allen about it, when it comes time for the financing, which will be —
        TRUMP: Wait a sec, what financing?
        COHEN: Well, I`ll have to pay him something.
        TRUMP: (INAUDIBLE) pay with cash.
        COHEN: No, no, no, no, no. I got it.
        TRUMP: Check.
        (END AUDIO CLIP)

        I have no comment on the equivocal nuances here, but please show me in the transcript where Trump said, “TRUMP: We’ll pay with cash.”
        Giuliani said that the “inaudible” part was Trump saying, “not with cash…check.”

  8. “But then [Cohen] added that ‘I didn’t know Bob Costello from a hole in the wall’ and that Costello ‘was never my lawyer.’ On the waiver, Cohen denied any recollection of waiving the privilege and said ‘I’d like to know when, how and where.’”


    If you didn’t know him and he wasn’t your attorney, then there’s no privilege, and thus no need for a waiver.

    Pathological liars always struggle with consistency.

    1. Sam, I like the way you think. If you notice, it is the same logic that Hunter is using regarding the laptop, it isn’t mine and it is stolen information????

      Only Democrats in the land of Doublestandardstan can get away with such illogical absurdities. The media is bringing us to the end of our great republic.

      1. hb:

        Ever notice how pathological liars put themselves at war with reality — so much so that they can’t recall their own lies?

        There was such a salesman. He recorded his conversations with customers. Then when the customer returned, he would listen to the recording, to keep straight the lies he had spun.

    2. “Pathological liars always struggle with consistency.”

      He was only doing exactly what Trump does all the time. When somebody contradicts his lying he suddenly doesn’t “know who they are”. He’s famous for doing that.

        1. Anonynous, you do realize that you are agreeing that Trump is a liar too, right? Glad you recognize Trump is as big a liar as Cohen.

          1. Absolutely, Trump is a pathological liar! I’d say a much bigger liar than Cohen.

            None of which changes the fact that you were saying that Cohen is liar like Trump, which doesn’t exactly bolster your larger argument.

            1. Well, Cohen has a greater incentive to be telling the truth since Trump did backstab him when he went prison. And as you said Trump is a much bigger liar than Cohen and he is certainly lying big time trying to discredit Cohen. It seems that out of both liars Cohen would be the more credible one since you deem Trump the bigger liar. right?

              1. One could just as easily argue that Cohen has incentive to lie here, as pay back.

                It’s irrelevant whether I consider Cohen more credible in general. What matters here is his testimony and the grand jury’s assessment of his credibility, which neither of us knows, and what other evidence there is, and if the case goes to trial, it’ll be the jury’s opinion about his testimony there that will matter, not mine.

              2. Two dweebs trying their hardest to attack Trump and making a mess of it. There are easier ways but these guys are inept.

      1. When your say Trump lies all the time, that comment is a conclusion and speculation without providing any of the foundational facts.

        Since this is a legal blog, and you’re so “knowledgeable about the law” we’ll apply the rules of evidence here. The objection that your comment is a conclusion, speculation is sustained. The motion to strike the comment is granted. That’s how it works in court.

        Now, if you want to avoid the objection, then provide all the times Trump has lied, verifiable lies, not your opinions they are lies.

        1. Here’s a good starting point for Trump’s many false statements:
          It doesn’t include all of Trump’s false statements while President, because the fact-checker, Daniel Dale, moved from the Toronto Star to CNN, so the Star stopped adding to its database. Among the lies it doesn’t include are Trump’s many lies during Covid, such as all the times he said Covid would go away, that the numbers would soon be going down to zero (many examples here:, or his lie in March of 2020 that “Anybody that wants a test [for Covid] can get a test.”

          1. ATS, this isn’t the first time this stupidity was presented to the blog. It was debunked yet you repeat it. If it was debunked and therefore something stupid to repeat, what does that make you?

  9. All politicians are liars to some extent, as are journalists (these days), and multiple other groups of people. Attorneys I can’t say much about that because even in malpractice cases or work related disability I have been involved with, every single Attorney I worked with were highly professional and truly competent. Even the opposing side. Some incredibly so. So my personal experience with attorneys (both as patients and representatives) and judges (patients) were all exceptional people. So much so that I could actually admire one opposing attorney’s skill even as he tried to skewer me in a deposition.
    It can be fun working with a group of attorneys who were fighting you in one case and then on your side in another. That is a whole new perspective.
    Families of patients and patients are a whole different manner. Some will lie without remorse even when caught in the act. Friends of patients are the same. The worst advice I ever got in medical school was from a professor who said, “Always believe your patients, they will never lie”. The best thing is always the written record, which obviously Mr Costello has. You can be a liar but if you have the written record in your favor, you can still be right and win. Seems some in DC and NYC don’t pay attention to the written record much, like the law.
    Lawyers fighting, well that is not that unseemly to me, having seen patients walk into clinics and shoot people that were trying to save them or their family, or doctors fighting (drop in on a medical meeting some time and watch the blood flow), or family reunions, or family members manipulating and stealing from each other sometimes leading to gunshots in the nite, or worst of all seeing university professors going after each other. I thought Doctors ego’s were high but University Faculty could power their whole system entirely with the power of their egos.
    It’s not a bad idea to fight but to fight at the right time, with proper documentation, the right tools, and a cool head. In an ICU, you fight death every day. You lose that argument and a soul, and all that they were, is lost. Any other argument is just so much more minor.

  10. Costello on Tucker was very creditable and he has an excellent reputation. Cohen losses this fight. Bragg is stuck with Cohen and now Costello information and documents and reputation will cause Bragg to reconsider but Bragg and Soros are so radical they just will go thru and will lose in the end, but it may go to a higher court on appeal but Bragg loses and Trump wins and the radical left DEMS give Trump a BOOST

    1. Soros has nothing to do with this. Many of those who keep trying to make him part of it are anti-Semitic. Are you in that group?

      1. You should ask yourself that question. Soros collaborated with the Nazis to the disadvantages of the Jewish people. You are using his religion he was born to but didn’t practice to make wild accusations. In this case that makes you the anti-Semite. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize.

        Are you the ATS often talked about on the blog?

      2. “Soros has nothing to do with this.”

        Except, of course, for the some $1 million he donated to Bragg’s campaign, via his pop-up PAC. And then there’s the Bragg donations from Soros’ son and wife.

        In your constant efforts to whitewash Soros, you attempt to intimidate his opponents into silence, by using the smear “anti-Semitic.”

        You are a manipulator and an intellectual bully.

        1. What makes it “his pop-up PAC”? That he donated money to it? Are all PACs that he donates to his? How much of the $1M that the PAC donated to Bragg came from Soros?

          I have no problem with people making valid criticisms of Soros. Calling DA’s “Soros DA’s” when they’re not his DA’s isn’t a valid criticism, and if someone is “a manipulator and an intellectual bully” here, it’s not me.

          1. ATS, you have plenty of problems. You will protect those who enjoyed taking the property of Jews, many of whom ended up in the gas chambers.

            That puts you in the same sick world as the world of Soros.

  11. I thank all the players in this soap opera, including Bragg, are being paid by a syndicate of media, NBC, CBS, NYT, etc. in order to boost ratings/ad revenue.

  12. I disagree with Turley that a dogfight between two lawyers should be viewed as “unseemly.” As officers of the court, all lawyers are obligated by their code of ethics to tell the truth. Furthermore, while they can represent clients they know to be guilty of the crimes charged and plead them not guilty as the law allows, they cannot assist their clients – or anyone – in the commission of a crime. Costello rightfully sought and obtained a waiver of client-attorney privilege from Cohen and, as a result, is exposing Cohen as fabricating evidence – a crime – in a current criminal case being investigated by a New York grand jury. Yes, Jonathan, it is unusual and appears unseemly in some regards, but it also is a revelation made necessary by Cohen’s false testimony. Kudos to Costello for exposing yet another fraudulent claim by Cohen used by an unprincipled district attorney in New York to construct a bogus charge against a political foe. I predict sanity will surface here and the DA will recognize he and his party have more to lose than gain by pursuing this fraud.

    1. All good points JJC.
      To me the unseemly, germinated in the mechanization of Bragg’s mind. The decision to create this circus, drew all the clowns to it.
      In short the Democrat Party is the

    2. While Cohen signed a waiver of attorney-client privilege, Costello says that he, Costello, did not ask for it.

      1. Hullbobby,

        “Massland, unfortunately Trump is also cursed with the incompetence of his own hired staff.”

        That’s a reflection of Trump. He’s the one who constantly brags about being the best. Trump is just as incompetent as those he hires. It’s the rare smart ones he does end up hiring that, for a short period succeed in keeping him out of trouble, but it doesn’t last.

        1. Svelaz, I somewhat agree with you, THIS ONE TIME, but as bad as Trump’s appointments were I think Biden’s are worse. Think about Myorkas, Yellen, Mayor Pete, Garland, the Energy Secretary Granholm, Blinken, etc etc.

          1. HullBobby,
            Biden’s appointments “achievements”:
            Myorkas – open southern border, deluge of drugs, human trafficking.
            Yellen – “inflation is transitionary.” “No bailout.” = bail out.
            Mayor Pete – East Palestine.
            Garland – too many to list.
            Energy Secretary Granholm – No real experience in the energy sector at all.

          2. Hullbobby, wow, a rare moment indeed.

            Biden’s appointments? I will have to disagree. They may seem incompetent or inept. But that is due to Trump’s claims. Trump is in no position to be judging who Biden picks for his cabinet.

  13. I still find this dog fight between two lawyers to be unseemly.

    I get it. It’s not much different with how I would feel when someone in the Navy did something to embarrass the Navy. The tighter the connection the greater the embarrassment.

    In Costello’s case, he’s not some TV legal personality just blathering about threats to the rule of law and becoming a banana republic. He’s taking direct, positive steps to end Bragg’s (Soros) quest to tear this country apart.

Leave a Reply