The Return of Michael Cohen: A Disbarred Attorney Takes Center Stage in a Dubious Prosecution

C-Span/YouTube Screenshot

Below is my column in USA Today on the expected indictment of former President Donald Trump and the prospect of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg putting Michael Cohen on the stand as his star witness. Yesterday, I wrote about the early skirmish between Cohen and his former counsel. That is only a taste of what is to come in the target rich environment of a Cohen cross examination.

Here is the column:

If former President Donald Trump is indicted, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg would be prosecuting a case that has been widely criticized as long on politics and short on the law.

The courts would have to address a controversial case in which a city prosecutor attempts to prove a federal crime long ago declined by the U.S. Department of Justice. They also would have to deal with a charge brought seven years after the alleged offense, despite a two-year statute of limitations for the underlying misdemeanors (or a five-year period for a felony).

And Bragg would have an even more unpalatable prospect in putting two key witnesses on the stand embodying a case that borders on the legally indecent: a former porn star and a disbarred lawyer.

Michael Cohen worked for Trump

The star witness is one of the most repellent figures in New York. It is only the latest reinvention of Michael Cohen – this time from legal heavy to redemptive sinner. Cohen spent much of his time when he worked for Trump threatening critics, journalists and even students.

In 2015, students writing for The Harvard Lampoon played a harmless prank on Trump by having him sit in the stolen “president’s chair” from the Harvard Crimson for a photo. In response, Cohen used his signature bludgeoning style against the students. He was quoted by a student on the Lampoon staff as saying: “I’m gonna come up to Harvard. You’re all gonna get expelled. If this photo gets out, you’ll be outta that school faster than you know it. I can be up there tomorrow.”

On another occasion, when a journalist pursued a story he did not like, Cohen told the reporter that he should “tread very f—ing lightly because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f—ing disgusting. Do you understand me?”

After he was arrested and Trump refused to pardon him, Cohen proved that when you scratch a lawyer, you can find a foe.

Cohen may be joined on the stand by Stormy Daniels, who agreed to a $130,000 payment to hush up an alleged affair with then businessman Trump. Bragg would have to show that Trump made the payment only with the election in mind, which would have made the money an undeclared campaign donation to himself. But there are a host of other reasons why a married celebrity would want to hush up a one-night stand with a porn star.

Case is similar to failed prosecution of John Edwards

In John Edwards’ prosecution in 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate after a disclosure that he not only had an affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter but also sired a child with her. Edwards denied the affair, and it was later revealed that Fred Baron, Edwards’ campaign finance chairman, gave money to Hunter.  Andrew Young, an Edwards campaign aide, also obtained funds from heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon to pay to Hunter.

The Justice Department spent a king’s ransom on the case to show that the third-party payments were a circumvention of campaign finance laws, because the payments were designed to bury an election scandal. Edwards was ultimately found not guilty on one count while the jury deadlocked on the other five.

The jury clearly believed there were ample reasons to hush up the affair beyond the election itself.

Despite legal flaws in the case, Bragg is counting on favorable judges and jurors in New York City. Win or lose, he would reap a huge political reward in being the first to charge Trump.

Ironically, Trump also could come out ahead politically. Of all the possible charges he could face, this is the one he would likely invite. Bragg would give Trump strong evidence that Democrats have politically weaponized the criminal justice system against him.

However, it’s Cohen who might profit the most. He already has tried to cash in on the burgeoning market of liberals obsessed with Trump, even hawking a T-shirt with the image of a jailed Trump as a way to “celebrate the fall of the Mango Mussolini.”

Cohen’s cross examination will be the most target rich environment since the Battle of Thermopylae. Of course, prosecutors often put dubious figures on the stand, but Cohen is someone who has shredded legal ethics and the criminal code in pursuit of his own interests.

Cohen’s primary talent has been an impressive moral and ethical flexibility. He gladly did the dirty work for Trump until it became more beneficial to turn against him.

One could say that Trump and Cohen deserve each other, but the legal system does not deserve what may soon unfold in a New York courtroom.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley


301 thoughts on “The Return of Michael Cohen: A Disbarred Attorney Takes Center Stage in a Dubious Prosecution”

  1. … This week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and other top Republicans sent a letter to Bragg demanding documents and testimony related to expectations that Bragg might charge Trump over a hush-money payment to a porn actress in 2016. The letter declared this an “unprecedented abuse of prosecutorial authority,” even though no charges have been filed. But it’s not clear that Jordan, the Judiciary Committee chair, has thought this through. The course of action signaled by the letter — also signed by Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) — could go sideways for Republicans in unforeseen ways. …
    “This is an extreme move to use the resources of Congress to interfere with a criminal investigation at the state and local level and block an indictment,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told me. He likened the aggressive GOP enforcement of absolute “impunity” for Trump to “the kind of political culture you find in authoritarian dictatorships.” … And if Republicans hold hearings on any such prosecution, Raskin said, this could also allow Democrats to illuminate the charges in a high-profile venue. “If and when there is an indictment, we will be able to reconstruct all the facts of this case in a way that makes sense to the American public,” Raskin said. The aim, he noted, would be to “show the justice process is working, and there is no call for extraordinary intervention by the U.S. Congress.” …

    1. “This is an extreme move to use the resources of Congress to interfere with a criminal investigation at the state and local level and block an indictment,” Rep. Jamie Raskin,

      As extreme as a local prosecutor using federal law to enhance local charges? Congress asking a local prosecutor why he is working outside his jurisdiction would be within the power of Congressional oversight.

      1. You have zero evidence that Bragg is “using federal law to enhance local charges.” Trump hasn’t even been indicted so far, and if he is you don’t know what the charges will be.

  2. Today’s post is especially rich. Turley says: “The courts would have to address a controversial case in which a city prosecutor attempts to prove a federal crime long ago declined by the U.S. Department of Justice.” Uh, Turley, why not explain that the REASON that the DOJ “declined” the case is because of your pal, Billy Barr, and the marching orders he followed from Trump to drop the matter, instead of trying to imply that there’s no merit?

    Turley also says: “And Bragg would have an even more unpalatable prospect in putting two key witnesses on the stand embodying a case that borders on the legally indecent: a former porn star and a disbarred lawyer.” “Legally indecent”? Really? Whatever this means, consider this: it was Trump who went after Stormy Daniels, asking her to come to his hotel room to meet, prior to dinner, to discuss financing her to produce a non-porn film. He showed up at the door wearing nothing but a bathrobe. She went along with it because she still believed that he might finance her as a producer—but that was just a lie to get her to his room. And, the pathetic effort by Trump’s latest attorney to claim that the payment had nothing to do with the election won’t fly either because he reported it to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign expense. That alone proves it was not a personal expense or that Trump was unaware that Cohen, somehow, decided on his own, without consulting Trump, to bribe Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet. Stormy was a victim here–she really is trying to go legitimate and believed him when he said that he would consider financing her as a producer.

    It was conduct on behalf of Trump that got Michael Cohen disbarred, just like Rudy Giuliani has gotten suspended and is facing disbarment over lying for Trump. Turley regales us with descriptions of Michael Cohen’s obnoxious behavior, his profane threats, etc.–but on whose behalf did he behave in this manner? Turley wants to talk about indecency–books have literally been written about Trump and his indecent, deceitful, profane and general obnoxiousness–to wit: “Everything Trump Touches Dies”. When you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

    Turley desperately attempts to draw a comparison between the Stormy Daniels matter and John Edwards, who was acquitted on one charge, but the jury deadlocked on multiple others. First of all, the case didn’t get dismissed on the grounds of being frivolous, so Turley’s criticism of the legal foundations for charges against Trump is just BS. If there is precedence here, it favors the prosecution. Secondly, Rielle Hunter wasn’t a porn actress, and John Edwards isn’t an obnoxious pig like Trump with a reputation for being a chronic, habitual liar, either . He did have a child with her and has supported her.

    Turley also says: “However, it’s Cohen who might profit the most. He already has tried to cash in on the burgeoning market of liberals obsessed with Trump, even hawking a T-shirt with the image of a jailed Trump as a way to “celebrate the fall of the Mango Mussolini.”” Uh, Turley, didn’t your handlers explain to you that it’s TRUMP who has been fundraising over his impending arrest, as well as trying to start another violent “protest”? When you claim that those opposed to Trump are “liberals obsessed with Trump”, you are really showing your axx. The majority of Americans are repulsed with Trump–including lots of Republicans and especially real conservatives, who even formed the Lincoln Project for the purpose of opposing Trump. You are just trying to feed into the TDS argument pushed by Fox hosts by labeling those of us Americans that want this pig to just go away and shut up as “obsessed liberals”. You don’t have to be a “liberal”, much less an obsessed one, to find Trump obnoxious and repulsive personally, and to be able to clearly see that he is virtually incompetent, even in handling his own affairs. Likewise, seeing him from the braggadocious attention-seeking narcissist that he is.

    1. More of Gigi’s BS. Gigi is a known liar, a narcissist, a bloviating fat pig, who projects all of her/him/it/WTF imperfections onto Donald…

      Pro tip: it would be far more useful for Gigi to copy and paste the names, addresses and phone number of residents in Manhattan, instead of the excrement she consumes and flings on here,


    2. Elmer Fudd, Alvin Bragg, better have all his
      ducks in a row. Otherwise that waskally wabbit, Trump will be more emboldened than ever.

    3. There are multiple reasons that DOJ declined – and as Turley noted even the FEC refused to claim a minor technical violation of campaign finance laws.

      Why – there are so many reasons.

      Edwards was paying off a currently pregnant paramour in the midst of his campaign with campaign donations, and a wife dying of cancer.

      There could not possibly have been a better case to go to court on and DOJ LOST.

      The Daniels claim is about an even 10 years before, Daniels appears to have initiated the request for money,
      NDA’s are perfectly legal.
      Daniels was not payed from the campaign.
      Candidates are allow infinite personal contributions to their own campaign.

      The last time someone went after Trump on this precise matter – they ended up paying him legal fees and the lawyer ended up in jail.

      Adultery is no longer a crime in the US.
      Lying about adultery has never been a crime.
      Unlike Clinton – Trump has never testified about this under oath,
      and likely never will. You can not force a criminal defendant to testify.

      So you have absolutely no underlying crime.
      Fraud requires actual harm to others – nearly always an underlying crime – such as theft.

      At the very best the tax evasion claim will suffer the same problem as the more recent case against Trump
      i.e. you can get the Trump organization – but NOT Trump, because Trump does not make the decisions
      how to catagorize expenses when filing his taxes.
      And that presumes you can prove tax fraud – error, even missrep-resentation is not sufficient.
      It must be deliberate, and it must result in a tax reduction.
      As has been demonstrated by the dump of Trump’s taxes – like most real-estate businesses Trump LOST
      money most years and paid no taxes. It is highly unlikely the reclassification of the Daniels payment will change that.
      Again Someone must be HARMED to have Fraud.

    4. Gigi,
      for reasons I cited earlier, the Edwards case is the BEST possible case for a criminal campaign finance violation.
      And you are not even close to the egregious facts in that.
      Edwards was not convicted.

      You say Trump is a Pig.

      Was he having an affair with a young staffer who he got pregnant while his wife was in the hospital being treated for cancer ?
      Was Trump using almost a million in campaign donor funds to keep all this quiet ?

      Edwards was a typical pretty boy democrat who turned out to be a PIG in real life.

    5. Of course Edwards supported his child – the courts made him.
      Just as they did Hunter Biden.
      Edwards sought to get a fake DNA test to prove the child was not his.

      Elizabeth Divorced Edwards – shows how much of a Pig she thinks he was, and died shortly after Edwards finally admitted this.

      Hunter also left Edwards – he was such a decent man.

      At the Time Republicans criticised the trial as a stupid waste.

    6. The majority of americans are not happy with Biden either and he remains behind in head to head polls.

      We would all appreciate better candidates,
      The only decent democratic presidential candidate from 2020 has left the party.

    7. You are free to want Trump to “go away and shut up.”

      You are not free to try and accomplish that by FORCE – which is what you keep trying to do.

      If as you claim – Trump is a pig that everyone hates,
      then defeat him in a free and fair election.

      No Zuckerbucks paying to take over local election administration,
      No changes the election rules at the last minute
      No massive and illegal ballot harvesting.

      Vote at the polls on election day, count the votes at the polls within a few hours of the close of pols, under public scrutiny.

      Conduct the election lawfully and transparently – and everyone will accept the result.

      But all you have done is repeatedly prove you do not think you can win in a fair election.
      To win in 2020 you had to impeach Trump for …… wait for it, seeking an investigation of the Political corruption of the Biden crime syndicate.

      You actually impeached a president for asking for an investigation that is NOW being conducted by a special counsel, the FBI and Congress.
      And you are busy trying to do to him what you CLAIM he was trying to do – use the law to knock a competitor out of the race.

      But that was not enough – you used Covid – “do not let an emergency go to waste” to turn US elections into a banana republic with a mess we still have not recovered from.

      Then you had to use the FBI and Alphabet agencies to censor people who would speak the truth about the Biden’s or Covid,

      Again if Trump is such a Pig – you can easily beat him in a free fair transparent election.

      No games, no ballot harvesting. no lies, no supression of the truth, no censorship, no legal gamesmanship.

    8. Gigi – you are not a liberal.

      Turley is a liberal. Derschowitz is a liberal.

      You are a left wing nut progressive.

  3. Like uncontrolled, explosive diarrhea, the messy stench is now trickling out of Biden’s orifices to the point that news agencies outside of the US are reporting it. That the foreign news agencies are Israeli makes it that much more delicious. or is it Ambrosia? The trilogy “Godfather” film series doesn’t come close to depict the corrupt Biden Mafia handlers. Does Hunter Biden sleep in satin sheets and own any horses at his taxpayer provided estates?

    “Israeli professor arrested on arms trafficking charges claims Biden vendetta. Prof. Gal Luft wanted by U.S. for charges tied to illegal export of arms to Libya, China; defense expert claims arrest part of plot to silence him for cooperating with feds on Hunter Biden’s business dealings”

    “Gal Luft’s distressing predicament: Israel should seek a full investigation of the charges that have been leveled against its national. But it also has a responsibility to him as an Israeli citizen and a senior IDF officer to ensure that his arrest warrant isn’t politically motivated.”

    1. “Think Tank Executive Provided ‘Explosive’ Info to FBI About Hunter Biden’s Chinese Deals, Lawyer Claims”

      “His lawyer, former U.S. assistant attorney Robert Henoch, said in filings to the Justice Department under penalty of perjury that he accompanied Luft during his 2019 meeting with FBI and Justice Department officials. Henoch has called Luft a “whistleblower” and said he planned to submit letters to Congress with details of Luft’s case and his meeting with investigators.”

  4. Dear Professor Turley: You are a very handsome man. It may be an issue on my computer’s part, but I just noticed today that the photograph of you appearing at the top of the blog article shows a red blob at the right side of your head (left side in photograph). It appears that you have very few gray/grey hairs, but if that were an attempt to mute them, talk to your wife.

  5. Do you remember the days when the cabal running our government, and the media that carried their propaganda message, were busy working to turn some foreign country into a banana republic? Who would have thought that ending the endless wars would result in the cabal focusing all their attention on our own country? Before: nudge, nudge, nudge. Now: shove, shove, shove.

    1. Olly, I don’t know who coined the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome”, but the copy-cat “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has become so severely understated there doesn’t seem to be an accurate synonym to describe the anguish and madness these souls are perpetually self-suffering.

      1. Good point JAFO. Yuri Bezmenov used the term “Demoralized” when describing those changed forever by the KGB’s “active measures.” They are now the BDS, or TDS or perhaps DDS in 2024. These are the useful idiots actively, but mindlessly, deployed to destroy this country. They might even have the appearance of intellectual competence, like Svelaz. But most are like the anonymous idiot trolls we see on here daily. Either way, they are not here to debate. They are here to distract. And it works.

        1. Agreed. Others have described BDS/TDS (and the due-any-minute-now, strengthening of DDS) as an untreatable mass psychosis. This thought actually has some merit considering the official government reaction to the CoVid-19 outbreak. The denial of applying 200+ years of medical knowledge, experience, and practice in the field of virology to what was (and still is) classified as another strain in the coronavirus family – has all the trademarks of a psy-ops program that, as you say, is working…well at least on far too many outspoken people, like Gospel Svelaz and Dennis M.

          1. Others have described BDS/TDS (and the due-any-minute-now, strengthening of DDS) as an untreatable mass psychosis.

            Oh boy JAFO, after listening to Professor Mattias Desmet explain the phenomenon of Mass Formation a few months back, I came to the same conclusion as you stated very well. My eyes were first opened to this when I watched that now famous interview with Yuri Bezmenov done in 1984. Then more recently, Desmet came to my attention by an interview with Dr. Robert Malone on the Joe Rogan podcast. He was discussing how the Covid pandemic expanded the ranks of those now fully “hypnotized” in this mass formation psychosis. He went on to discuss Desmet’s work and his book titled The Psychology of Totalitarianism.

            Tucker Carlson did an interview with Desmet (link below) and it brings into sharp focus an understanding of everything we see happening today. It completely changed the way I follow JT’s blog. For me, I went from debating about the trees, to seeing the destruction of this forest and every other forest. I no longer felt compelled to engage Svelaz, or Nutgigi, or any of the other trolls on this blog. They are part of the collective in this mass formation movement and will never be released from it. I then have questioned why would anyone continue to debate them as well. S. Meyer and I have discussed that and I didn’t fully appreciate his answer…until I watched Tucker’s interview. Desmet doesn’t say “stop feeding the trolls”. He doesn’t say debate them. He states that about 30% will be consumed by mass formation; that while not under this mass psychosis, up to 65% will effectively be observers, and that a mere 5% will get in the fight against the totalitarian regime. I’m am convinced now that this blog and the group of people we have on here everyday making arguments against the regime are Desmet’s 5%.

            So to feed, or not to feed, is not the question. It’s how should this 5% make the best use of this blog to get to 6% and more?


  6. It is striking how often our resident trolls use the word “liar” in association with Donald Trump. It is almost like they have a script they are required to follow. Meanwhile they say nothing about the current President, who has erased the boundary between fact and fiction.

      1. Edwardmahl is assuming Joe Biden can distinguish between fact and fiction. .. I’m no so sure.

        *’remember it’s not a lie if you believe it.’ ~ George Costanza, Seinfeld, episode 37

    1. Edward, that’s because Trump IS a liar. He lied about going to be arrested yesterday. His own spokesperson contradicted him in public. Even Fox News has privately called him a liar.

      You don’t really are about lying. You only use lying as a means to complain about the other party only. You’re ok with lying. Don’t pretend that you have issues with lying when you accept it coming out of Trump’s mouth.

      1. Svelaz, the biggest liar in these parts is you.

        BTW inaccurate predictions are never lies.

        I have no idea if Trump is actually going to be arrested – nor do you.
        Bragg could change his mind – either way.

        I have suspected that it was possible that Trump is trolling everyone.

        If so – that is a power YOU have given Trump by doing so many stupid things.

        It is possible that Trump sought to mount public pressure to get Bragg to change his mind.

        Many things are possible.

        The only thing that matters is whether Bragg stupidly goes forward.

        That is Bragg’s problem.

        Trump is free to say what he pleases.

        Just as you are free to make a fool of yourself.

        1. “ Svelaz, the biggest liar in these parts is you.

          BTW inaccurate predictions are never lies.”

          John, it wasn’t an “inaccurate prediction”. It was a lie. What is ironic is that you are willing to lie for him while calling other’s liars.

          Trump clearly stated that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday according to leaks. His own lawyers and staff contradicted his own claims meaning he was lying.

          Trump wasn’t trolling, he was rallying up his supporters and crying victimhood and persecution by nasty “soros funded DA’s”

          Trump is free to say whatever he pleases, sure, so is Biden and so are you. That doesn’t stop you, Turely of anyone else from calling them liars either. You seem more invested in defending Trump’s lying than acknowledge the fact that he is lying. You whine about Biden lying, even Turley whines about Biden lying. It’s a very self serving selective memory.

          1. “John, it wasn’t an “inaccurate prediction”. It was a lie.”
            And this is a LIE by you.
            An OBVIOUS one.
            It is a LIE by DEFINITION.

            “What is ironic is that you are willing to lie for him while calling other’s liars.”
            Falsely accusing others of lying – is by Definition LYING.

            BTW Trump’s statement was “I EXPECT to be arrested Tuesday” that is NOT “Trump clearly stated that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday ”
            So AGAIN you are LYING.


            1). To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of.
            2). To consider likely

            Probable, Likely. predictive.

            “His own lawyers and staff contradicted his own claims”
            Irrelevant asserttion without evidence.

            If Trump had said “I WILL be arrested on Tuesday” – you still would be lying – because the statement is STILL predictive.
            Regardless, you did not even accurately represent Trump’s actual statement – why should anyone Trust your claims regarding what his lawyers or others said.

            I IGNORE your claims that “X contradicted Trump” or anyone – unless you provide what X actually said
            Because long ago you BURNED your credibility.

            “Trump wasn’t trolling, he was rallying up his supporters and crying victimhood and persecution by nasty “soros funded DA’s””
            You may be correct, you may not.

            “You seem more invested in defending Trump’s lying than acknowledge the fact that he is lying. ”

            I am actually not defending.
            I am ATTACKING – your idiotic and constant misrepresentations.

            I do not expect perfection from you – this is a legal blog, not a court brief, and you are not under oath.

            But I do expect that you will use words consistantly –

            That if you misuse the term LIE, that you will misuse it in the same way whether speaking of Trump or Biden.
            But you do not.

            I also expect you not to significantly misrepresent what others have said.

            The definition of opinion is a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

            Statements about the future are opinions. They can prove wrong, they can not be lies.
            This is why YOU are lying about Trump’s tuesday arrest statement.
            Statements about things that are not currently known facts are opinions they can prove wrong, they can not be lies.
            This is why you are lying about Fox in the DVS case.

            Even TODAY most statements about election fraud are opinions. They may have evidence, but not proof, and they have STILL not been disproven.

            “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said.

            That is NOT an “opinion” Joe Biden knows what he talked to his son about – even if We did not know at the time.

            “Number one, no more subsidies for fossil fuel industry. No more drilling on federal lands. No more drilling, including offshore. No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one.” “No more — no new fracking.” “no more drilling on federal lands.”
            Biden From Democratic Debate.

            “Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that he “never said I oppose fracking” when pressed by President Donald Trump on the issue during Thursday night’s presidential debate.”

            Biden LIED, not only does he oppose fracking , he opposed all oil drilling.

            These are actual examples of LIES.

            “A survey taken after the 2020 election of Biden voters in seven “swing” states, all but one of which were certified for Biden, showed the laptop was one of eight issues with which they were unfamiliar but which would have swayed them away from Biden had they known.

            According to the report from the Media Research Center (MRC), a sufficient number of voters in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan said they would have voted differently had they been aware of one or more of the issues. “In 6 of the 7 states surveyed, enough voters would have not voted for Joe Biden that those states would have gone to President Trump, giving Trump 311 electoral votes and re-electing him,” the report concludes.”

            “Even more Biden voters (45.1%) said they were unaware of the financial scandal enveloping Biden and his son, Hunter (a story infamously censored by Twitter and Facebook, as well as ignored by the liberal media). According to our poll, full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes.”

            “Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is ‘a Russian plant.’ They have said that this has all the char — Five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except his [sic] and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani.”

            Technically the above is not a LIE – Biden did not himself say the Laptop was a russian Plant.
            But it is absolutely a deceptive statement.

            “Giuliani supplied a copy of the laptop’s contents to The Post as well as to the New Castle County, DE police, he said. In December 2019, the FBI took possession of the laptop from repair-shop owner John Paul Mac Isaac and was aware of a second missing computer which Hunter Biden believed could leave him open to “blackmail,” The Federalist reported over a year ago.

            The New York Times and The Washington Post have since admitted that the emails gleaned from the laptop are “real.””

    2. According to Margot Cleveland the statute of limitations issues are not real. Firstly, Cuomo extended them for a year because of Covid. And secondly, they are tolled when the defendant is not continually resident in the state. I don’t know enough to say whether she is correct, but I suspect she is.

      The issues of Cohen’s credibility and alternative personal rationales for the alleged payments are likely to be of far greater moment.

      1. There is another aspect to the tolling and that is that the target was unnable to be located. Everyone knows where Trump was. You conveniently left that part of Prof Clevelands comments out.

        1. Maybe that’s true about the statute of limitations but it was not in Margot Cleveland’s article. Her conclusion is clearly that for either or both of these reasons the SOLs should not be an issue. Maybe she is wrong, but you are certainly wrong about what she says in her article.

        1. Trump was no longer a NY resident in 2021 despite having property there (he changed his state of residency to FL), and the argument is that the SoL tolls for the period he’s outside NY.

          1. Trump was no longer a NY resident in 2021

            You can’t control your pedantry. Legal Residency is not part of the debate. It is irrelevant.

      2. Cleveland is both incorrect and that is NOT what she said.

        There is a difference Between Bragg MIGHT be able to thread the needle on Statues of limitations.

        Statutes of limitations are LAW, not executive edict – it is trivialy arguable that Cuomo had no power to extend them.

        There is nothing about Covid that changes the basis by which statues of limitations exist in the first place – which is because memories, recollections evidence fades over time. Because nothing that you can not prosecute at the time, gets better with age. Because it is often easier to convict innocent people if you wait long enough. Because not only does the evidence of the prosecution weaken with time – but so does that of the defense.

        Further the continuously absent claim is equally weak.
        Tolling statutes of limitations is typically only constitutional when the defendant has deliberately removed themselves for the purposes of evading prosecution.
        Further until recently Trump maintained residence in NY. He was not hiding and maintained a legal presence in NY.

        Regardless this case has about 10,000 problems with this case – not the least of which is the absence of a crime.

        In the Edwards case it was the FACT that the funds were paid by political donations that gave prosecutors a toe hold in a claim that a crime MAY have been committed. The Jury rejected. that Edwards conduct was reprehensible. It was not illegal.
        Braggs case rest on the idiotic claim that Trump SHOULD have paid for this out of his political campaign and failure to do so was a crime.

        This is absurd, a legal act is legal PERIOD. Murder for hire is illegal whether you pay for it from political donations or not.
        Conversely renting a bus is legal – whether you pay for it from political donations or not.

        O what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive.
        Sir Walter Scott.

          1. She is wrong – I linked to Dershowitz on that and other points.
            But it is also NOT what she said.

            “This inside-the-law analysis reveals an exceedingly weak case, but that is only a fraction of what the public will care about. On top of the questionable charges, the general public will see a man hounded for seven years with false claims of Russia collusion and other supposed crimes. They will see a statute of limitations that on its face appears to have run. And they will see a local prosecutor pushing charges previously rejected by a federal U.S. attorney.”

            Cleveland presented a best case scenario for prosecutors and found the MIGHT overcome the statute of limitations issues.

            There is a single NY Supreme court case that MIGHT support the broad claims regarding the stature of limitations.
            I am not familiar with the specific case – and my guess is few are right now. Regardless we do not know whether it is Dicta or the holding being relied on,
            or and how close the facts are.

            Trump has a residence in NYC. that alone likely overcomes the continuously absent, nonsense.

            As a rule of thumb past tolling of Statute of limitations federally and state have required an ongoing case – often an outstanding warrant,
            and deliberate efforts by the defendant to be unavailable. The statute is tolled because the defendant has chose to make themselves difficult to question or arrest.

            That is not a time since 2015 that NYC did not know where Trump was. The Paula Jones case makes clear that presidencts remain subject to state laws.
            If the NY State supreme courts rule is overly broad – then it is unconstitutional.

            I would note that the constitution guarantees us the right to a speedy trial – that is a US constitutional right that is atleast part of the basis for statutes of limitation.
            That means even an NY supreme court decision in this case cane be appealed tot he US supreme court.

            What should be noted about ALL these cases is they have multiple factual logical and legal weaknesses.
            They ALL seek to apply the law in ways that has never been done before.

            All it takes is one juror, one judge, one justice and this all dies.

            When prosecutors are acting far outside of norms, that is when it is far more likely that someone will be willing to say “stop, this is wrong”.

    3. C’mon now.
      Is it really a lie when Joe who clearly told tall tales in the past now can’t separate fact from fiction?
      Its a sign of dementia and you really don’t want to kick a man when he’s down on his health.

      *Do I really need the sarcasm tags?


  7. “The star witness is one of the most repellent figures in New York.”

    It’s funny that the examples JT cites are all from when Cohen was working for Trump. Why would Trump choose to have such a “repellent figure” working for him? Oh wait, Trump himself is even more repellent, and he liked what Cohen did for him.

    “In John Edwards’ prosecution in 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate”

    We don’t actually know what Trump would be charged with or how close the charges are to Edwards, but assuming that it’s the same, then it clearly isn’t a political charge, since it would have been used against people in both parties, contrary to JT’s claim that is would be a “politically weaponized” charge.

    “Of all the possible charges he could face, this is the one he would likely invite.”

    Only a fool invites indictments.

    1. “Why would Trump choose to have such a “repellent figure” working for him?”

      Why would the Democrat Party and supporters consider Avenatti as a candidate for the presidency. ATS, don’t you feel foolish?

      This claim is a Democrat political attack on America’s government, not just Trump. Such abuse of power is typical of the despotic left.

    2. You say:

      What kinda illogic is this…
      A politically weaponized charge, no matter how evenly retaliated, is still a politically weaponized charge…
      According to your proposition, if both sides commit the same war crimes, the same larceny, the same arsons, the same murders, the same offenses, this somehow negates their culpability. That is a bastardized argument, making your proposition a prostitution… 😎

    3. “Why would Trump choose to have such a “repellent figure” working for him? ”

      Good question – relevant to whether you vote for Trump.
      Not relevant regarding Trump allegedly conspiring with Cohen to committ a non-crime.

      What is relevant regarding Cohen is NOT that he is repellent – though he is.
      But that he is an admitted perjurer.
      The jury will be instructed to essentially presume he is lying.
      He may not even be allowed to testify.

      “Oh wait, Trump himself is even more repellent, and he liked what Cohen did for him.”
      You are free to judge Trump as you will.

      I find Biden and Clinton 1000 times more repugnant than Trump.
      My distate does not make them criminals.

      ““In John Edwards’ prosecution in 2012, the Justice Department used the same theory to charge the former Democratic presidential candidate”
      We don’t actually know what Trump would be charged with or how close the charges are to Edwards, but assuming that it’s the same, then it clearly isn’t a political charge, since it would have been used against people in both parties, contrary to JT’s claim that is would be a “politically weaponized” charge.”
      What do your remarks even mean ? Edwards was not prosecuted by Republicans. Nor was he prosecuted during the campaign, but after we withdrew.
      The Edwards prosecution was error that the jury corrected.

      In the event that we get that far – which is doubtful. It is unlikely that a NYC Jury would be so wise.

      It is self evident that your own hatred for TRump would result in conviction – regardless of the fact.

      “Only a fool invites indictments.”

      So you say, and probably normally good advice.

      But Trump benefited greatly from the MAL raid.
      This makes those on the left look bad much more than Trump.

      People like an underdog. They like someone fighting persecution and injustice.

      You are playing right into Trump’s hands.

      And lets just say that by some miracle you take Trump out.

      DeSantis is waiting in the wings.

      He would be really happy to seem the Democratic party – and Trump destroy each other.

      This is stupid legally – and it is stupid legally.

  8. “The star witness is one of the most repellent figures in New York.”

    A witness against the most repellent figure in Florida.

    1. “A witness against the most repellent figure in Florida.”

      Do you consider this a meaningful statement, ATS? It proves you to be a hack.

  9. So many columns about a possible indictment, the details of which JT is guessing about. All because he’s too impatient to just wait to see whether Trump is indicted and if so, what the charges are and what the evidence is for them.

    He complains about “the age of rage” but likes to feed it.

    1. Perhaps in the future when the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office unethically leaks things to the media they should provide more details.

      1. Trump’s attorneys said that no one “leaked” the false story that Trump planted about being arrested yesterday. Trump lies about things all the time. You can choose not to buy his BS.

        1. ATS, prove Trump leaked the story. You can’t. First, you have to understand the story, which you don’t. Then you have to have proof liars of your type seldom can provide.

          1. Anonymous, Trump didn’t “leak” the story. He made up the story which is the point. There was no story leaked. He was lying. His own spokesperson contradicted Trump on his claim that was going to be arrested. Everyone already knows Trump lied. Except you. Keep up man.

            1. Boy, are you stupid Svelaz. The story is not made up and is proven by all the attempts to convict Trump. The only thing in question is the unimportant date. Your lack of understanding makes you unimportant as well.

              1. “Boy, are you stupid Svelaz. The story is not made up and is proven by all the attempts to convict Trump. ”

                Trump made up the story that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday. He claimed he got a heads up from a leak. His own spokesperson contradicted him on that.

                YOU have not provided anything to back up your assertion. Trump lied to everyone and everyone knows he made it up.

                You can look it up for yourself, you’re perfectly capable. But you won’t because you WANT to believe Trump’s lie. It’s easier for you.

                1. You mist the forrest through the trees. “The story is not made up and is proven by all the attempts to convict Trump. The only thing in question is the unimportant date. Your lack of understanding makes you unimportant as well.”

                  One has to repeat things several times before your brain can understand simple concepts.

                2. Trump made up the story that he was going to be arrested on Tuesday. He claimed he got a heads up from a leak

                  It was reported the Grand Jury was going to meet today. But it did not. I guess all the media lied.

                  1. Yes, clearly if one false statement is a mistake rather than a lie, it means that no false statements are ever lies, they’re all only mistakes. (sarc)

            2. Svelaz: “He made up the story which is the point. There was no story leaked. He was lying. His own spokesperson contradicted….

              From one of your own regular sources (and the part about DA/DOJ leaks from internal sources that you failed to mention):
              “Trump did not say whether he had been informed by law enforcement of a coming indictment.” [Trump had said, in his original tweet, that “leaks” were the source for his conclusion.]
              “A spokesperson for Trump later clarified in a statement that there “has been no notification, other than illegal leaks from the Justice Dept. and the DA’s office, to NBC” and other news outlets.”

              Another article in Business Insider reports that Trump’s lead defense counsel Susan Necheles, accused the DA of leaking things to the press and that the defense team had received no official information on a specific arrest. She said Trump’s tweet was based on leaked press reports from internal sources.

              Again, your non-lawyer side is showing up. What if, arguendo, indictment was intentionally delayed to make Trump look like a “liar?” What if, as multiple sources backlashed with issues of SOL, Braggs decided to delay arrest and spend more time developing more factual evidence to defeat a SOL defense? What if, after a reported meeting with local law enforcement, Braggs decided to delay this? You do not know, do you?

              You, my friend Svelaz, are truly your own victim of confirmation bias, as you continually seek out certain press releases that you can cut-and-paste (using others’ phrase for you) to buoy your opinion and lead you to a safe harbor of selective information.

              Your only excuse is that you are being paid to do this?

              1. Lin, you’re making distinctions without a difference. Trump said “leaks” and claimed he was going to be arrested on Tuesday.

                His lawyers only said that no notifications were sent to them, so where are these leaks he is talking about? Don’t you think it’s pretty convenient that he didn’t show any proof of what he claimed?

                Trump’s lawyer accuse the DA of leaking things without pointing out exactly zero proof of what that leak said or who reported it. The only person who “reported” the leak was Trump. Surely you are not THAT gullible.

                Don’t you think it’s strange that if there was a leak that trump would have published it to back up his claim? If it was a leak he should have been able to publish it. It’s pretty obvious he was lying.

                He was making it up to rile up his supporters.

                1. Svelaz: Do CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NPR, or FOX report where they got their info, other than to use the terms, “insider,” “internal source,” “source close to the investigation,” and “anonymous” ???? Why do expect more from Trump than you do from your own sources that you repeat?

                  1. Lin, Trump is not a journalist and he is a well known liar. Furthermore those “anonymous sources” journalists often cite are corroborated by other stories. Trump offered none of that.

                    You have to be very gullible believe what Trump was saying after his own lawyers said there was no information given about any arrest. His lawyers would have been the first to know.

              1. John Say,
                He is irrelevant trying desperately to make himself relevant.
                And failing utterly by the epic take downs from you, Lin, HullBobby, S. Meyer, Maj229 and others.

              2. JohnB: No nonsense. We just want to contain the disinformation/misinformation for the benefit of other readers who might be taken in by pseudo-authoritative statements……
                What is “irrelevant” about Svelaz’s conclusive statements that Trump “lied” and “made up” news about a pending indictment? Or that “his own spokesperson contradicted him on that?” or that he conspired with Cohen to engage in illegal activity?

                1. “What is “irrelevant” about Svelaz’s conclusive statements that Trump “lied” and “made up” news about a pending indictment? ”
                  Svelaz’s statement is not irrelevant – it is a LIE.
                  That should be obvious. Statements about the future are opinions. they can not be lies.

                  Svelaz constantly conflates:
                  What he beleives with known facts.
                  Predictions with lies.
                  Opinions with lies.
                  Statements that are not knowingly false with lies.

                  Basically any statement hie does not like is a lie.

                  The one type of statement that is the most easily proven to be a LIE,
                  is a false accusation of a LIE.

                  “Or that “his own spokesperson contradicted him on that?””
                  Whether Relevant, that is a typical Svelaz unsuported – and typically false statement.

                  You can generally tell that Svelaz (as well as the press) is engaged in misrepresentation – when they Tell you what someone said – rather than quote them.

                  Did a spokesman contradict Trump ? We do not know, We do not know what the spokesman actually said. We only know Svelaz’s conclusion.
                  And Svelaz’s logical abilities are poor beyond belief.

                  “or that he conspired with Cohen to engage in illegal activity?”
                  Again a conclusion without evidence.
                  What illegal activity ?

                  There is virtually no one saying that it was illegal to get an NDA from Daniels.
                  What has been reported so far is that Bragg is trying to make the payment into a crime.
                  In the Edwards case the government claimed paying to hide an ongoing affair with campaign funds was illegal.
                  Bragg is now trying to argue that NOT paying for it with campaign funds is illegal.

                  He is also making the incredibly stupid legal argument that when you pay someone to not disclose something,
                  you MUST disclose that in your business records or they are fraudulent.

                  If the NDA is legal – which should be self evident, NDA’s are upheld all over the place all the time,
                  ]Then you are not obligated to otherwise disclose what you paid to keep quite.

                  Take this out of the context of Daniels and consider ordinary Business NDA’s – as there is no legal difference.
                  I would note that businesses also get NDA’s to avoid discolsures of embarrassing information about key people.
                  That too is legal.
                  But the most common NDA is you will not discluse the proprietary processes of this company.
                  If a business pays a departing employee for such an NDA, must they list their proprietary processes in their financial records ?

                  Of course not.

                  The left is completely bat $hit crazy and constantly trying to re-imagine hundreds of years of law.

                2. Svelaz says lots and lots of things.

                  He is not specific about any of them.

                  Trump lied,
                  Someone contradicted him.

                  What is your basis for accepting these or any other statements from Svelaz ?

                  There is not enough information to evaluate what is being claimed.

                  Trump lied – about what ? What is it that Trump actually said, and why is that a lie ?
                  Svelaz is constantly claiming that statements that Can not be lies – they are predictions or statements where the facts were not known at the time, and often where they STILL are not know. You need not believe those statements – but your disbelief does not make the opinions of others into lies.

                  “A staffer contradicted Trump”
                  Which staffer, what did they say. why is that a contradiction ?

                  Svelaz can be SLIGHTLY excused as he is just parroting what purports to be the standards of reporting today.

                  You should NEVER trust anyone – media or otherwise, that TELLS you what someone else said, without quoting them.
                  When the media seeks to lie the rarely quote their victim, and never in context,

                  That is likely where Svelaz learned this nonsense.

                  My suggestion to you – is it is not wise to try to defend the reprehensible.
                  The stink might wear off on you.

                  Svelaz claims I defend Trump. Mostly that is not true.
                  I attack those like Svelaz who MISREPRESENT others.

                  It is THAT nonsense – that cognitive dissonance that is dividing the country.

                  More recently I have been pointing out the multi source evidence regarding the skyrocketing rates of depression and anxiety in the country.
                  Anxiety and depression link HEAVILY to
                  drug use
                  confusion about gender dysphoria

                  and most importantly from the perspective of my arguments here – a dark and distorted perception of reality

                  In fact the latter is a vicious cycle – anxiety and depression cause a dark and inaccurate view of reality, and a dark and inaccurate view of reality causes anxiety and depression.

                  So who is suffering from increasing cognitive dissonance ?

                  left, young, women
                  The results are dramatic.
                  Anxiety and depression decline with age – for all sexes, and ideologies.
                  Are higher for women – for all ages and ideologies.
                  Are dramatically higher for the left – for all sexes and ages.

                  The average rate of anxiety and depression is about 20% – 16% for men.
                  It is as much as 70% in you left women, and 40% for young left men.

                  This is what 2-3 decades of telling our children everything is going to hell has wrought.

    2. The potential for indictment has existed in the Democrat AG’s office continuously, or are you so blinded by your leftism that you don’t see it? Such actions are contrary to what our Republic stands for, but I forget you favor Nazis, fascists, and communists.

      Enough of you, ATS. You are destructive to all and hateful.

    3. “the details of which JT is guessing about. All because he’s too impatient to just wait”

      Is this fool attacking JT because he doesn’t have the proof to attack anyone else? The ignorance shown by the left is astounding.

  10. Seems a reasonable time to demand a change of venue like somewhere in upstate New York, not named Albany.

    1. Both Cohen and Trump are serial liars in public, and Cohen has admitted to lying on Trump’s behalf in public and even under oath. The question is what they say under oath to the jury, what other evidence exists to confirm or refute their claims under oath, and what the jury concludes about whose statements and other evidence are trustworthy. Other evidence includes checks to Cohen signed by Trump and Trump’s statement on his financial disclosure form that he owed Cohen money.

      1. “Both Cohen and Trump are serial liars in public.”

        ATS, you are known as the Liar King on this blog. You can’t defend the lies you claim Trump made. Instead, you cowardly link to other sources that have been proven bogus.

        Cohen’s statements and use of a loan prove that Trump is not guilty of anything. You fabricate stories about everything, including Soros, who dealt with the Nazis.

        1. Anonymous,

          “Cohen’s statements and use of a loan prove that Trump is not guilty of anything.”

          Actually Cohen provided evidence that Trump was lying. That is why there is a criminal investigation. You seem to be more clueless than usual.

          1. First – no one sane would trust something – just because you claim it.

            But more importantly there remains NO UNDERLYING CRIME.

            Without that it is irrelevant whether Trump lied or didn’t, or what he and Cohen said or didn’t.

            If Trump discussed hiring a hit man to take out Daniels but nothing was ever done about it, that would be a damning phone call and no one would ever vote for Trump again. But it would NOT be a crime.

            What you say is never a crime unless it is part of a conspiracy to commit an ACTUAL crime that is either completed or atleast substantial efforts are made to complete only thwarted by law enforcement.

            If I conspire with someone to robb a bank and the FBI records those commincations. And they arrest me outside the bank with guns and a mask on – the fact that I did not actually entre the bank and announce a robery does not preclude charging me with conpsiracy to commit a bank robbery.

            But if the robbery never occurs, or the police do not stop the attempt WHILE steps are being taken to effectuate it – there is no crime.

            If I plan a robbery, buy a gun and the police arrest me leaving the gun shop – they can probably convict.
            But if they wait a year and I have done nothing more – they can not even arrest.

            There is no such thing as criminal intent to commit a non-crime.

    2. “Trump says he didn’t know Stormy Daniels was paid by Cohen”

      That’s from an article written in 2018. That was before Cohen released tapes of his conversation proving Trump was paying for it. Not Cohen. Cohen was only setting up a shell company to setup the payment.

      1. The idiocy this blog has to put up with.

        We have testimony from Cohen, Costello and others. Don’t forget the loan.

        You should start life all over in kindergarten.

      2. All irrelevant.
        Assuming you are correct – and that is a gigantic and highly unlikely assumption.

        Lying about legal acts is not a crime.

  11. Wasn’t the lawyer who negotiated the deal on behalf of the hooker Michael Avagnetti (sp?), the now imprisoned former lawyer? If he makes an appearance for the prosecution, this side show is going to be hilarious!

  12. Last night I witnessed how Trump Derangement Syndrome– that mindless hatred that skewers all– has extended to Elon Musk. I listened as long-standing Democrats used the same condemnation language on him as they have used on Trump. He’s evil, he only cares about himself, etc., etc. Ironically, these same Democrats have not a word of praise for the remarkable things Musk has done, nor a word of condemnation for Biden or his son and family and their self-dealing, and not a word of condemnation for those who are doing so much to run our country into the ground such as imposing transgender propaganda on our children and using it to destroy women’s sports, among many other things. Democrats of old fought viciously for segregation and used the KKK and Jim Crow laws to instill fear in those who opposed them. Democrats today viciously are fighting for power and control and are using BLM, Antifa and the cancel culture to instill fear in those who oppose them and support people like Musk and Trump. It really is the same song, just another verse.

    1. honestlawyermostly,
      Well said.
      We see it hear nearly everyday.
      Fortunately people like you, TiT, Lin, James, Iowan2, OLLY, Diogenes, JJC, Maj229, S. Meyer, Karen S. and at least another dozen, make sound, logical comments without the vitriol.

  13. Why do I feel like this is going to be like watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, where the prosecutions “star” witness is more helpful to the defense?

    According to the good professor, and other lawyers on this blog whom have chimed in (h/t Maj229), Bragg may be in a heck of a time to prove his case.

  14. I’m of the opinion that there’s a good possibility that this case never gets filed in the first place. All of Bragg’s “trial balloons” have been shot down before they even got off the ground. He may be evil but he’s not stupid. He knows, for example, that, should he bring charges, Trump’s legal team will file scores of pre-trial motions seeking to get the case dismissed for various well-grounded reasons, e.g., lack of jurisdiction, tolling of the relevant statutes, absence of law violation, etc. Either a trial judge or an appellate judge very well and likely could issue an Order to dismiss on any one of these as well as on other grounds. Such an Order would include detailed reasoning and likely conform to the Trump’s team’s legal premise that Bragg’s action to begin with was arbitrary and capricious and intended not to enforce the law but, instead, to selectively prosecute a political foe. Portions of such a ruling could be used in future similar vindictive prosecutions to bolster the claim of improper motive. Bragg would become an instant pariah in the legal field for bringing a meritless case and that, coupled with a well-prepared Order dismissing the action would act as an official sanction and accrue to the benefit of Trump and his future prospects. Just as Bragg up to now has followed the bad advice of George Soros, his patron and supporter, Bragg now may be forced to reverse field in accordance with the sudden realization by Soros and others who see this gambit boomeranging. They probably convinced themselves that they would start a fire – and they did – but it was not against Trump – but in favor of Trump who in beginning to look like a sympathetic victim of their legal chicanery and misuse of authority.

    1. If Turley is stooping that low then he knows there is at least a very good chance that Trump will certainly be indicted. He’s not focusing on the crime. He’s focusing on the witness in a case that has not presented charges yet which is odd because Costello doesn’t have a lot of credibility either.

      1. Svelaz: What are your grounds for saying “Costello doesn’t have a lot of credibility”? Bob Costello was a seasoned assistant United States attorney in the SDNY for a number of years and rose to become deputy chief of the criminal division. Today, he is a partner in a prestigious law firm and he personally has been rated one of America’s “Super Lawyers” several years in a row (2020-2022). It is worth noting that on Monday, when Costello testified before Bragg’s grand jury in New York, the speeding train barreling forward toward an indictment seemed to get derailed and we missed the Tuesday date when some, including Trump, believed an indictment was forthcoming and today we are discussing not when, but if, an indictment will be handed down. I think Costello’s testimony against his old client, Michael Cohen, may have fried Cohen and his usefulness as Bragg’s star witness against Trump.

        1. Trump invented the Tuesday date to convince people like you that it meant something.

          It’s odd that you “think Costello’s testimony against his old client, Michael Cohen, may have fried Cohen” when you do not know word 1 of what Costello said in his GJ testimony, much less how it combines with the testimony from all of the other witnesses. For all we know, all Costello’s testimony did was give the DA a preview of Trump’s defense, the better to plan against it. Why come to conclusions about things that we can only guess about?

          We do not know if there will be charges, and if there are, we don’t know what they’ll be, or the strength of the evidence for them.

          1. Anonymous: What do you mean by the expression “people like you”? Are we debating facts and issues or the merit of “people like you” or me? If the latter, I need to know a lot more about you as I now know nothing about you other than your nom de plume, anonymous. As for what Costello told the grand jury, he appeared on TV Monday evening and for about ten minutes recounted in detail what he told the grand jury. He also displayed a signed waiver of client-attorney privilege received from Cohen releasing him, Costello, from the confidential nature of his former client’s representation. Let’s try to stick to facts rather than speculative fantasies. I know it’s disappointing to see what you and others may have believed was the final curtain for Trump dissipate into thin air but, realistically, your “side” has been bad and you’ve relied on evil people and their improper motives. Trump may be far from perfect but at least he stands for the right things that most of the rest of us want and appreciate in a leader.

            1. “What do you mean by the expression “people like you”? ”

              I mean all of the people who were taken in by Trump’s invention of a Tuesday arrest.

              “[Costello] appeared on TV Monday evening and for about ten minutes recounted in detail what he told the grand jury.”

              And we have no independent way of knowing whether he was telling the truth on TV, much less do we have a way of knowing what the other grand jury witnesses have said.

              “Let’s try to stick to facts rather than speculative fantasies.”

              I absolutely agree. So don’t speculate by saying things like “the speeding train barreling forward toward an indictment seemed to get derailed” and “I think Costello’s testimony against his old client, Michael Cohen, may have fried Cohen.” We do not know these things; they’re speculation. And if people would simply develop more patience and wait to see whether he’s charged and if so, what the charges and evidence are, we’d all be better off.

              1. “And we have no independent way of knowing whether he was telling the truth on TV, “

                Just like we have no independent way of knowing the laptop was Hunters. ATS, you are a fool that repeats drivel in different forms.

                “So don’t speculate “

                Isn’t that what ATS does when inaccurate news reports try to be first despite not having proof? ATS figures everyone will forget what he said in the past. They don’t and that is why ATS is known as a trickster and a liar.

              2. Anonymous: You are getting better but still seem given to hyperbole. Suggesting an attorney of Costello’s high standing in the profession would tell a grand jury one thing and then appear on live TV to say something else is, well, a meritless speculative fantacy and little else. You are making progress but still need to stay closer to facts.

          2. “Trump invented the Tuesday date to convince people like you that it meant something.”

            Once again, ATS doesn’t have the facts or proof. Presently, there is no evidence to support any of the various theories. Does that prevent ATS, the liar, from stating his alternate facts? No. That is why he is known as a deceptive person and a liar.

            I’m waiting for ATS to stop with his diarrhea from the mouth and, in his own words, state what Trump is guilty of while providing proof.

            Cohen proves Trump is innocent, and the loan is confirmation. I wonder if, at this point, Bragg will consider bringing this case to trial. It’s difficult to say because lefties do not care about the rule of law.

        2. Costello is the one who dangled a pardon from Trump in front according to Cohen. Also Costello represented Rudy Giuliani and he was also contacted by Costello after during the Mueller investigation. Presumably to also offer a pardon from Trump.

          Trump has a well documented history of hiring lawyers that can lie with impunity. Costello despite his credentials, just as Rudy was once an admired lawyer, could easily ruin his credibility. Cohen and Giuliani and now possibility Corcoran have all lost credibility as lawyers. Costello is not immune from that pattern when it comes with working for Trump.

          1. Svelaz: You’re on shaky grounds visiting the sins of a client on the person who represents her or him. Hillary Clinton represented a child rapist but I never thought less of her for doing so. There were other reasons not to like her. It’s not wrong and certainly not illegal to seek a pardon for a client. You may not like the people that Costello represented but it was their right under our Constitution to have counsel of their choosing and it was Costello’s right under the same Constitution to provide it. Can you get over your hatred and stick to facts or should I just ignore you like most of the contributors seem to be doing?

            1. JJC, it’s not hatred it’s mere observation. Trump has a very clear pattern of lying and making things up and telling his lawyers to lie for him. There’s a clear pattern of Trump lawyers getting sanctioned, censured, disbarred, and going to prison. Two more may end up in prison Corcoran and Babb in the classified documents case. Costello is just another lawyer hired by Trump who is risking his credibility given the clear pattern of what happens to Trump lawyers when they choose to work for him.

              1. The only clear pattern of lying – is from those like you.

                While it shows most prominently in the “Get Trump” nonsense.

                It figures in absolutely everything you post. Nor is it limited to a few posters like you.
                The MSM is drowning in idiots spraying nonsense and hatred and lies.

                Trump is not the posterboy anyone would pick for truthfulness
                But YOUR efforts to “get Trump” have made him look like a saint in comparison.

                Can you name any claim about Trump you have made that has actually been PROVEN true ?

                You are a clueless idiot that should have to live under the nonsensical schemes you wish to impose on others.
                So long as the rest of us do not have to join you in the dystopian hell you wish to create for yourself.

                1. “ Trump is not the posterboy anyone would pick for truthfulness
                  But YOUR efforts to “get Trump” have made him look like a saint in comparison.”

                  No, he’s certainly not. How is that any different than those accusing Biden of being a liar in their efforts to “get Biden”? Clearly YOU engage in such behavior and have made it very clear to everyone. That kind of hypocrisy doesn’t lend you any credibility to be criticizing those who point out Trump’s incessant lying.

                  Trump has a clear patter of lying and deceit and it looks like it may have actually caught up to him in the classified documents case.

                  “ Can you name any claim about Trump you have made that has actually been PROVEN true ?”

                  Sure, Trump claimed he was going to be arrested on Tuesday based on “leaks” from the DA. His own lawyers contradicted this and he never provided any proof of said leaks. Clearly he wasn’t arrested on Tuesday because the grand jury still hadn’t heard from the last witness and still hadn’t voted on charges. He was lying. That has been proven to be true.

                  His supporters on this blog are twisting themselves into pretzels trying avoid the obvious fact that he lied. Even you admit dismissively that he’s a liar. He’s a compulsive liar.

                  1. It is not hypocrisy to hold Trump and Biden to the same standards,
                    As well as to the same standards as others.

                    It is not hypocrisy to demand that we do not prosecute people who have not committed actual crimes.

                    It is not hypocrisy to call an investigation without reasonable suspicion of a crime – a witch hunt.
                    It is not hypocrisy to require an investigation when it is more likely than not that a crime has been committed.

                    It is not hypocrisy to refuse to agree with your nebulous and unsupported claims.
                    It is not hypocrisy to callout ACTUAL documented lies as lies.

                    It is not proven that Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels.
                    It is not proven that DVS did not rig the 2020 election.
                    It is likely Trump had sex with Daniels and likely that DVS did not rig the 2020 election.
                    Either Daniels or Trump are lying about their relationship – my bet is that Trump is lying.
                    But he has not done so under oath repeatedly as Clinton did.
                    And his actions to bury the story were perfectly legal.
                    Daniels was not coerced to accept money – and in fact appears to have extorted it.
                    Trying to manufacture a crime out of legal acts is CORRUPT.
                    It is no different than the Steel Dossier Hoax or the Apha Bank hoax.
                    Bending the law is no different from bending the facts.

                    So where is the hypocracy ?

                  2. It is not hypocrisy to note the FACT that Hunter Biden has committed numerous crimes.
                    It is not hypocrisy to note YOUR hypocrisy regarding the Trump and Biden families.

                    By all appearances Beau Biden was a son that Joe could be proud of – He is unfortunately dead.
                    It is easy to glorify the dead, but the likelihood is that Beau Biden was far more moral than his father and likely would have made a better Senator and President. – He is unfortunately dead.

                    There is not a single Trump that is comparable to Hunter Biden.

                    But Ultimately Hunter is not the issue.

                    Joe is. Hunter was not Vice President – Joe was. Hunter is not President – Joe is.

                    You claim Trump lies constantly – but offer no proof. Not even specific claims any more.

                    You do not even know what a lie actually is.

                    In fact you apply unusual and variable meanings to words all the time.
                    While making false equivalences.

                    Fraud requires actual harm to others – nearly always an underlying crime – such as theft.
                    Fraud is most commonly theft by deception.
                    No underlying crime, no fraud.

                    Lying is a knowingly false statement about a known fact.
                    Lying is nearly always immoral, but very rarely illegal.
                    Lying destroys trust.

                    False statements are not lies unless they are knowingly false and the fact is known to be true.

                    It is nearly impossible to lie about the future.
                    It is impossible to lie about things that are not known to a high degree of certainty.

                    Trump PROBABLY lied about Stormy Daniels. But even that is not certain.

                    Neither Fox, nor Powell, nor Guilliani, nor Trump have lied about the 2020 election.
                    Even today very very few claims have been PROVEN false – though had democrats allowed sunlight in that COULD have occured.
                    None were known false at the time. Almost none are know false now.

                    Biden LIED about not being involved in his Son’s business dealings.
                    We Did not know whether that was true when he said it – But HE Did,
                    And we NOW Know that was False – that Biden WAS involved – and frankly pretty deeply involved.

                    I am had pressed to think of anything Trump has ever said that approaches as clear a lie as that.

                    Biden LIED about Hunter’s laptop – and even now, many of those lies continue.
                    Even from YOU.

                    Biden LIED about Fracking.
                    Biden LIED about Covid.

                    Biden LIED about the state of the economy in his SOTU.
                    Frankly he has been lying in some form about the economy from the start.

                    Is the Biden syndicate corrupt conduct also a crime ?
                    I think that is likely, but not proven.
                    The McDonald standard is quite hard to meet.

                    Hillary seeking Clinton Foundation donations to advance to the head of the Queue
                    is Criminal even under McDonald – what is being sold is public power, even if it is just queue jumping.

                    But taking money to speak at an event is legal.

                    One of the claims regarding the Biden-Chinese connection is that Ho was paying for private introductions.
                    If that proves true – that is corrupt but legal. And the money involved seems a lot for a mere introduction.
                    Menendez was acquitted for being paid to lobby government agencies while Senator. That is a crime.
                    Menendez was acquitted because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the gifts and payments were
                    for the lobbying – no clear quid pro quo. Menendez was a long time friend of the Doctor, and the doctor was a constitutent.
                    Congressmen lobby government agencies as a legitimate service, and friends give each other gifts and go on vacation together.

                    So far the Biden’s have received an enormous amount of money for no apparent reason – and that is highly suspicious.
                    Again it is certainly corrupt. The question is whether it is criminal.

                    That is why we investigate.

                  3. ” Trump claimed he was going to be arrested on Tuesday based on “leaks” from the DA. ”
                    Predictions about the future are almost NEVER lies.
                    Even you should be smart enough to grasp that.

                    The moment Trump announced he would likely be arrested Tuesday, it was near certain that Bragg would NOT arrest him Tuesday.

                    “He was lying. That has been proven to be true.”
                    The fact that you believe that is why no one trusts you.

                    You are either absent the cognitive ability to distinguish between a lie and an incorrect prediction
                    or you do not care.

                    Regardless, you have proved my case – you can not name an actual lie by Trump.

                  4. “His supporters on this blog are twisting themselves into pretzels trying avoid the obvious fact that he lied. Even you admit dismissively that he’s a liar. He’s a compulsive liar.”

                    Again – how so ? Where is your example ?

                    You failed so far. Proving nothing more than than you do not know what a Lie actually is.

                    This is a blog not a legal brief, the degree of precision required is lower.

                    Still it is expected that you will use words somewhat close to their natural meaning – and more importantly that you will do so consistently with respect tot he left or the right.

                    If predictions about the future are lies – Democrats are massive liars.

                    When I say YOU lie it is because what you say is False AND you Knew or should have known that at the time.

                    When you say Trump LIED about being arrested Tuesday – that is a LIE from you.
                    You KNEW Trump was making a prediction about the future.
                    You can be wrong about the future, you can not lie about it.
                    I can PROVE you lied – simply – because you KNEW Trump’s statement was a prediction.
                    Calling a prediction a lie is always a lie.

              2. All you are proving regarding Trump’s lawyers is that the left has weaponized the courts and the barr.

                There is not a ;lawyer that has been sanctioned legitimately that has made the news in the past decade.

                As A rule the bar and courts do not sanction lawyers that steal, or lie in court.

                I have seen lawyers get away with egregious conduct – plifering half of an estate, and lying repeatedly in pleadings, when mandated feees are a fraction of what they paid themselves.

                I have seen judges behave egergiously – with no consequences at all.

                The Courts and the bar have a long term reputation of failing to police themselves.

                That has not changed – With ONE exception – if you have a left wing nut state bar – they will sanction lawyers merely for being conservative. If you have left wing nut judges they will sanction lawyers merely for taking cases that disfavor the left.

                You provide lots of examples – but fail to grasp the examples are merely proof of the destruction of the rule of law you have inflicted on the nation.

                At the Top of my list of requirements for 2024 – Just below – Absolutely anyone but Biden, and not a vote for ANY Democrat that has not proven themselves sane,

                Is CLEANING HOUSE. with respect tot he weaponization of our government and justice system.

                This is an absolute disaster and will end extremely badly.

                So far Republicans have mostly resisted the urge to deal a tit for a tat. But that is coming if this does not get fixed.

                You want to jail Trump and his lawyers – What happens as Republican jurisdictions start applying YOUR bent standards to law and politics ?

                I have already pointed out that it is TRivial to convict Biden of what you are going after Trump for.

                Biden conspired using campaign funds to quash politically and personally embarrassing news stories.

                YOU have declared that is a crime. The trial is over. Time to impose the sentence.

                You are claiming Trump is guilty of legal acts because of alleged Bad intentions ?

                Why should anyone have any problems presuming Biden’s intentions and convicting him for acts that probably are not legal.

                His entire extended family is taking millions from countries that are our enemies, from Countries that Biden was making and implimenting policy decisions regarding. By YOUR standards – that is far more than enough.

                Texas and Florida can disbar half the FBI and DOJ and we can see how effectively they manage after that.

                You keep heading further down the road to lawlessness and tryany and are clueless as to how this end.

                It does not matter if the right tor the left prevail – if we do not restore the rule of law – soon,
                no one will like living in the dystopia you are bringing.

                Much of it you have already wrought.

          2. Costello is the one who dangled a pardon from Trump in front according to Cohen

            I looked up ‘dangled’ in Blacks Law Dictionary. I needed to know what point of law you were addressing. Blacks has nothing. Help me out here.

        3. JJC – Thank you on behalf of all Ethical people everywhere for calling out the Ridiculous BS that always comes from the ‘Svelaz’ fountain….

          1. What is the most absurd is not how stupid his arguments are, but that he can do a complete 180 when the same arguments are used against those he favors

            That is the surest sign of massive cognitive dissonance.

            Braggs case against Trump is non-existent.
            But if it were – Clinton and Biden would be similary guilty for similar or more egregious acts.

      2. He’s not focusing on the crime. He’s focusing on the witness
        Such a liar. You have commented on Turleys posts concerning the law surrounding Braggs Grand Jury.

        But please, I dare you, Svelaz focus on the crime for us, to display your superior legal insight.

  15. Professor Turley: “After he was arrested and Trump refused to pardon him, Cohen proved that when you scratch a lawyer, you can find a foe.”

    I wonder if it isn’t more convoluted than that. Faced with the dilemma of betraying the most famous legal client in America or seeing his own wife prosecuted, Cohen decided to cooperate with authorities in return for their not prosecuting his wife.

    But maybe Cohen squared the circle by impeaching himself as a witness with his over-the-top testimony and behavior. Of course, I’m speculating, but it might also be true that if anybody can beat the system as state’s evidence, a lawyer can.

    As for Stormy, she took money for an NDA and proceeded to troll Trump by violating the NDA anyway. If I were a prosecutor, I would expect every woman in the jury box to utterly despise that trainwreck of a witness.

    Case closed. Can the Democrats actually serve the public for a change?

    1. Can the Republicans? Oh forgive me I realize we are all spending too much time trying to decide which of our private planes we will use today.

    2. “Can the Democrats actually serve the public for a change?”

      No. If Democrats could, many would never have left the party. In fact, the Democrat Party of today has more similarity to despotic politicians elsewhere than to the party of JFK.

  16. It’s 4th and long……. DA Alvin Bragg would put the Devil on the stand if it got a conviction. Anyone. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.

  17. Turley is sure exploiting the case to discredit Cohen and Bragg. So much hyperbole and speculation. This case is not similar to the Edwards case. There’s one particular distinction that separates it from the Edwards case. This involves falsification of documents and create it shell companies to hide the source of the money used to pay off a porn star.

    Making Cohen look as bad as possible neglects the fact that Cohen is just a reflection of Trump’s own behavior. Furthermore this case is small potatoes compared to what is coming down the pipeline. The documents case is has had a very serious revelation that required a 3 judge panel to issue a midnight deadline for Trump lawyers to file a response.. These usually take months. The fact that they are requiring a response within hours is unheard of. Reports say that the DOJ presented very compelling evidence that Trump committed a crime and used his lawyer for it.

    “A Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. set Trump’s lawyers a midnight deadline on Tuesday to provide information and arguments related to the case, with the Department of Justice also given a 6 a.m. Wednesday deadline—a particularly rapid turnaround request for legal filings.

    The move came after a judge ruled that one of Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran, could be forced to testify in the classified documents investigation by voiding the usually absolute attorney-client privilege over claims the former president used his services to commit a crime.”

    It’s serious enough that it compelled three judges to issue the order. Trump’s lawyer will have to turn in confidential communications between Corcoran and Trump. This is much more serious than the New York case and Turley seems to be really wanting to draw attention to the NY case because the other ones are more likely to produce evidence of a crime.

    1. This involves falsification of documents and create it shell companies to hide the source of the money used to pay off a porn star.

      None of that is true. No evidence exists to make the claim

      1. Iowan2, it’s literally what Cohen told Trump. We know because there is a recording of them discussing how to handle the money. It’s part of the evidence in the case.

          1. Iowan2, They discussed how to conceal the source of the money by disbursing it through a shell company. That qualifies as intent to falsify. Bragg likely has more evidence that have not yet seen. The fact that there is a very real possibility that Trump will indeed be indicted and Trump panicking by lying about getting arrested on Tuesday points out that there may be a lot more than we don’t know. And clearly Trump doesn’t either.

            1. That qualifies as intent to falsify.

              No. I talk to my attorney we talk about options. The attorney suggest options he thing fill my needs. That some spitball takes place is meaningless. That’s why there is Attorney Client Privilege.
              The only thing in play is what actually happened. nothing else is relevant.

              1. Iowan2, Cohen went to prison for that. He was charged with campaign funding violations. Those “options” were illegal. That’s why Cohen went to prison. That’s what actually happened.

                1. “That’s why Cohen went to prison. That’s what actually happened.”

                  Actually not, but you are too stupid to know.

                  Probably his most serious crimes involved the taxi commission of NYC. One day, Svelaz, you will realize what a fool you make of yourself daily. At that point go to a psychiatrist and let him figure out how to make a man out of you.

                  1. “Actually not, but you are too stupid to know.

                    Probably his most serious crimes involved the taxi commission of NYC. ”

                    LOL!! Seems you don’t know at all. What is interesting is that you have the capability to do your own research, but somehow you can’t seem to do it to show you are correct. You’re a very lonely sycophant. That much is clear.

                2. your anonymous partner said that Cohen was charged and imprisoned for lying about Moscow. Which is it, Swelaz?

                3. What he was charged with is irrelevant.

                  He plead guilty to a number of things and received a sentence that was lenient and reflected only a small portion of what he was changed for.

                  He Plead Guilty because he was guilty of a tax evasions scheme involving NYC Taxi Cab medallions.

                  None of the rest matters.

                  Almost universally the clients my wife represents on appeal turned down a plea deal – like Cohens, that including a number of offenses they were not guilty of, but minimal time compared to what they were pleading guilty of.
                  Almost universally they are only convicted of a small portion of the offenses in the guilty plea and universally they end up with about double the time they were offered if the plead guilty to charges they were acquitted of.

                  Put simply – Cohen pleading guilty does nto mean he committed ANY of the crimes he plead to.

                  It just means that he was aware that if he went to court he was unlikely to win against all charges and would be worse off.

                  Further in Cohen’s case he had SMALL leverage that pleading guilty to anything that implicated Trump would allow him to get a lighter sentence and better conditions.

                  Plea deals are a major problem in the US – whether it is Cohen or the poor drug addict.

                  A very common tactic is for a police officer to find a drug addict and pay them money to get Dope that they will share.
                  That makes the addict guilty of drug dealing rather than just using.

              2. Excellent concise comment.

                This is a constant theme with Svelaz.

                There are no thought crimes.
                There are very few speech crimes.

                There is virtually nothing that you can discuss that is a crime – whether you discuss it with a lawyer or anyone else.

                What you have SAID is only relevant as evidence of motive in what you have DONE.

                I have talked – atleast a little on this Blog about how I could easily flood an election with a million bogus votes without getting caught.

                That would absolutely be evidence against me if I was caught stuffing 10,000 bogus ballots into a ballot box.

                It is meaningless without any actual crime ever occurring.

                There is no underlying crime here.

                Even the bogus claims of falsifying documents – requires criminal intent – that is intent to commit an actual crime – What crime is that ?

                It is generally immoral to lie. It is almost never a crime.

                Worse the claim here is that Trump called regular payments to Cohen – it appears these were fixed monthly payments over about 18 months and provided the money that Cohen used to pay daniels, Trump called these legal fees – because they are. Seeking an NDA getting it and funding it is a legal fee.

                But lets say that They weren’t – Lets say Trump was paying Cohen to do gardening or plumbing – and called it legal fees – deliberately or by accident.

                Still not a crime – there is no criminal intent. All bad intent is not criminal intent.
                Juries are allowed to transmute bad intent into criminal intent WHEN THERE IS A CRIME.

                A statement “I really want to do something bad to X” followed by Beating X up – is criminal intent. Bad intent is criminal intent – When there is a crime.

                But “I really want to do something bad to X” followed by NOTHING is not a crime.

            2. No Svelaz, it does not. Again – I do not beleive any claim about facts – just because you make it.
              You have lied about facts so many times.
              It is rare that there is a vague resmblance between actual facts and what you claims.

              Regardless, Paying Daniels is LEGAL, Disccusing how to pay Daniels is LEGAL. Hiding how Daniels is paid is LEGAL.

              Dershowitz addresses this quite well early on below.

              You can not say It is legal for a person to pay another person not to disclose something, nd at the same time claim it is illegal to not disclose what you paid to keep quiet in your business records.
              Derschowitz repeatrs what I have said repeatedly – your can not create a crime of false records keeping without an underlying crime – and you have none.
              The closest you have is that there appears to be evidence that Daniels attempted to extort Trump.

              Separately Derschowitz does an excellent job of demolishing the Statute of limitations argument.

              And Finally Dershowitz is just about the best practicing constitutional lawyer in the country – and contra your claims – He Represented Trump.

              Derschowitz Voted for Biden, does not like Trump’s policies and does not like some of Trump’s conduct.
              But unlike idiots like you – he is more concerned about the damage to the rule of law by YOUR Conduct than by Trump’s

              So much so that he has written a Book “Get Trump” about the idiotic efforts to “get Trump” – apparently it will need a second printing with new chapters.


            3. On a topic onlyu related by the fact it is something YOU and the left constantly lie about

              Here is an actual historian efficiently demolishing the claims that the west is somehow uniquely evil regarding minorities, and
              proving that in fact even the “victims” of western oppression benefited from it.

              That while slavery is unforgivable, it was the norm for most of human existance and still common outside the west,.

              And that it is Western colonialism that raised much of the world to conditions far batter than they were in prior.

              To Sum up – YOUR view of the world is WRONG.
              You are amazingly WRONG about nearly everything.
              There is not a topic From Trump to social media that you can get right.

              I noted before the explosion of anxiety and depression on the left – I do not know that YOU are depressed and anxious – I am not your shrink.
              But I do KNOW that you are suffering from the dark world view and the cognitively distorted thinking that exemplifies those with anxiety and depression.
              And exmplifies the modern left – which unsurprisingly has epidemic levels of anxiety and depression.

              I honestly hope you are suffering from anxiety and depression – Cognitive therapy is Very effective against Anxiety and Depression.
              So there is hope if you seek it.

              At the same time – even if you are not currently suffering from anxiety and depression – if you continue to own this dark and false view of the world you are likely to suffer from anxiety and depression.

              In the end YOUR life is YOUR responsibility – no one else has ruined it. And no one else can fix it.
              You will not be happy if you get all the things you claim you want.
              If anything you will be worse off in many ways that today.

              But even if somehow you manage to get everything you want.
              It is likely that I will be as happy as I already am.
              I am not afflicted with your false dark view of the world.
              You can destroy, but you can not create.

            4. Here is an attorney reviewing the Proud Boys trial in DC.

              Where there have been explosive developments – that the Judge is now carrying water transparently for the DOJ and that can not get before the jury

              There are so many legal errors here, some of which the Law Vlogger raises.

              Regardl;ess Credibility and BIAS evidence is ALWAYS admissible.
              The DOJ claim that some of the hidden evince exposes sources and methods is also nonsense.
              Sources and methods are ALWAYS Brady material.

              Further, The Judges dealing with Defense attorney’s is a MAJOR problem.
              It is error that can result in a new trial for a defense attorney to Fail to object when they beleive the court has made an error.

              It is the Absolute Right of the defense to create a record regarding their objections.
              It is reversable error by the court to bar that.

              But this is just the tip of the problems.

              There are so many. Classified evidence is dealt with all the time.
              There is no “the defense can not have it” rule.
              If iformation is classified and there is not a lawyer on the defense team with the clearance to review it – klikely impossible with DC lawyers,
              they can hire a lawyer to review that evidence, or the court can appoint a special master.

              The judge is also allowed to review it in chambers, but it is usually wiser to appoint a special master as if the Judge reviews something that is actually inadmissible, but predjudicial they are then obligated to recuse – that is the primary reason we have special masters.

              Regardless, this judges is falling all over himself for the DOJ,
              and that is improper. In court the Judge is supposed to be impartial.
              He is not allowed to “trust” either the defense or the prosecution.
              If there is the tiniest question at all – the issue must be resolved in court under oath with cross, preferably in front of a jury.

              The Judge is Never allowed to say – I trust DOJ (or defense) therefore something is not admissible.
              An argument by a Lawyer in court is NOT under oath. That is Why we have testimony and jurors.

              It is near certain that eventually atleast some of what the defense is being denied with get out.
              And should it proove different that DOJ has represented – not only can this case fall, but potentially the entire J6 prosecutions.

              The price for a judge being wrong about “I Trust DOJ” is reversal with prejudice.
              Again why questions are answered in court with testimony under oath preferably before the jury.

            5. No, No, No there was no government effort to censor social media.

              I found it interesting that FB was claiming there was something special about the early pandemic when the truth was purportedly not widely know – a claim we ALSO know is false,. but the examples provided were for censorship driven By the Biden administration more than a year after the start of the pandemic by which time the failure of all these polices was self evident and FB etc, were trying to hide well know TRUTH from people.

              I am hard pressed to think of a better example of why free speech is so important and why censorship especially government censorship is so evil than Covid.

              There is virtually nothing that these NGO’s and government health experts were right about.
              Further we increasing learn they KNEW they were lying at the time.

              I do not have a problem with those in government ADVOCATING for VOLUNTARY measures based on their best judgement.
              I have no problem with their being Wrong.
              People are wrong all the time.
              One of the problems with those like you on the left is you do not grasp how incredibly common being WRONG is.
              But these people were not mostly just WRONG – they were lying and knew it.
              They were in meany instances lying for PERSONAL Benefit. Fauxi is well paid, he is also very wealthy – more so than Biden.
              He did not become wealthy on his govenrment salary. He became wealthy by his ability to control the distribution of public health funds. And he and many of those involved in Covid we LYING because the truth revealed their involvement in scientific research that likely lead to the Pandemic. In most of the world we call this a conflict of interests.

              Where you personally benefit, you must recuse yourself from decisions in government.
              Where your own involvement might come to light – you must recuse yourself in government.
              Whatever you advocate for – MUST be voluntary.
              Whatever government advocates for – private counter arguments can not be censored and in fact should be encouraged.

              AS John Stuart Mill tried to teach use almost 200 years ago – the surest way to be WRONG, is to suppress the voices of the opposition.

              The voices that ultimately proved correct, that were present from the start telling us that lock-downs were a mistake, that masks do not work, that closing schools was a mistake, that closing businesses was a mistake, that preventing Doctors from exploring a variety of treatments was a mistake. All these voices proved right.

              That should not be surprising.

              Under the very best of circumstances – censorship will lead to bad decision making.

              It is not Trump that Killed people and wrecked peoples lives – it is “the expertts” and those shilling for them – like YOU and Biden.

            6. A J6 update for you. chansley has become a really big deal
              The left has made him the face of the insurrection. and Carlson has done an exquisite job of proving that the Left’s Archetypal insurrectionist was peaceful.

              But You echoing the left win Media claimed that Chansley did NOT walk through an open door into the capital.
              That he crawled through a broken window – that he broke in.

              If true that would be a minor crime. Worse if he broke the window.

              MSNBC purported to air video showing Chansley entering through a window broken by others.
              Except it never actually shows that.
              Only that someone dressed like Chansley that appears like Chansley from several hundred feet away was in the general area where Windows were broken. IKt is likely that is Chansley – but it is not certain. Regardless this person is not shown breaking the window or going through it.

              Yesterday Tucker aired Video of Chansley entering the capitol Rotunda from the front door, which was being held open by Capitol Police.

              So once again the Press has LIED, and You have parroted that lie.

              There are people who broke windows at the capital. They should be prosecuted and sentenced – much in the same way as those who broke windows at the 527 different BLM riots in the summer of 2020. Almost 1000 people have been prosecuted so far – and DOJ has announced they are working on 700-1200 more. There are likely less people who engaged in violence on J6 than did at the Kavanaugh protests. Certainly less than at the BLM riots, where only a tiny number of people have been prosecuted, where Arsonist lawyers have received sentences of probation.

              Absent evidence of destruction of property or ACTUAL unprovoked Violence everyone else should be released and their convictions overturn NOW!

              The Chansley video is about more than Chansely.

              It goes to the HEART of your argument. Whatever Chansleys antics in the Senate Chamber – they were NOT violent, they were NOT an insurrection.

              If YOU or AOC or members of Congress are terrified of Chansley – your are spinelss idiots who should not have responsibility for anything – and OH BTW Where are Bragg’s charges against AOC for falsified reocrds and campaign finance violations associated with hiring her boyfriend as part of her political campaign and later congressional staff ? I though that was taboo ?

              Regardless what We see with Chansley in the Senate chambers – what should be the epicenter of violence – this is the target of the protesters is at worst slightly comical.

              In point of fact throughotu protestors are MOSTLY in awe of the capitol and the government YOU claim they seek to destroy.

              It is clear to all but morons, that what they wanted was to be heard.

              I recently heard Bits of Carlson’s J6 segment, and as you denied, he did show some of the scenes of violence – though the scenes of violence are looking so much less violent without the Rischstag liting and theatrics done by the J6 committee and when you realize that the “smoke” is not from Arson, but from the CP accidentally teargassing themselves and then protestors that were peaceful and legitimately protesting at the time they were teargassed – the Crowd did not move on the Capital until AFTER they were teargassed.
              There is all this talk about incitement to violence – teargassing innocent people is “incitement to violence”

              I mean if you can not put you knee on the back of an arrested drug addict, and counterfeiter, you certainly can not teargass a peaceful crowd 100 yards away from the capitol engaged in legal protests.

              Regardless, Carlson made a very important point regarding the eleciton that I missed.

              Hundreds of millions of americans went to bed on Election night beleiving that Trump had been re-elected in a landslide.
              That was the evidence presented to them by the media. The woke up the next morning and everything had changed.

              You can rant all you want, that alone is sufficient that they are ENTITLED to Doubt the results of the election.

              And most of them do not know the US history of late night election fraud.

              One of the reasons for all the rules regarding elections and chain of custody is that we have had many US fruadulent elections over the past 250 years in which after the voting was done, after the polls closed after it looked like the winner was known, the results slowly changed. One of the reasons we have in the past required elections to be counted as quickly as possible, is that when the opportunity to inject ballots late into the election allows those committing Fraud to inject the smallest number necescary to assure victory. That is the safest means to commit Fraud. No matter how much fraud you have to committ – dramatically overshooting increases your odds of getting caught.

              I addressed the statistical improbability of Bidens 2020 victory with you before. SOME of the election fraud claims have fallen apart – not so many as you think. Some have weakened with time. The Benford numbers claim that was floated very early – Benford numbers are a common way of detecting financial fraud, Because humans never construct fraudulent financial records that do not wildly diverge from natural random distributiuons. The problem is that precinct vote counts and distributions are not truly random.
              Though still not disproven the DVS rigged the election claim was always week.

              But the statistical odds against Biden winning in the specific way he did are astronomical – that is not proof.
              But it is EVIDENCE.

              The dramatic change from Midnight to 4am is not proof – but it is evidence.
              The 2020 election has every hallmark of large scale fraud. highly unusual voting patterns in only a few places,
              Radical shifts in outcome overnight. Complete lack of transparency.

              None of that was refuted or even investigated prior to J6.

              The protestors had the right to protest, the right to be suspicious.

              Had they ultimately been proven wrong – they STILL would have been justified.

              But they have not to this day been proven wrong.

              What has happened – starting before Jan 6 2021, is that alot of our federal courts as well as critical state courts, the DOJ, the FBI and Democrat prosecutors have proven massive political bias.

              And we see that over and over again.

              Arsonists getting off lightly while some guy in a bearskin cape who is nothing more than a symbol gets slammed.
              Guys who take axes to senators doors left unpunished, while walking respectfully through the capitol lands you in a DC jail for over a year in solitary.

              In issue after issue – those of you on the left see crimes where there are not, and fail to see anything when the same or worse is true of your own.

              I have CORRECTLY a very high standard – beyond a reasonable doubt, for who should go to jail.
              And a low standard for who should not receive my vote.

              I have not voted for Trump – Or Biden or Clinton. They do not meet that standard.

              You have no such discernment.

            7. I am going to make a suggestion regarding restoring the integrity of the courts.

              Justice Roberts should prepare a Judicial test, He should find seminal supreme court decisions that remain current law but are older than a decade and were atleast 6-3 decisions. He should change enough details and names to prevent memorizing fact pattenrs and he should put these into a judicial test.

              Any federal Judge that does not get atleast 80% of the decisions correct, should be removed from case assignments and returned to “baby judges” school – yes they have such a thing. Until such time as they can get atleast 80% right.
              They should be removed from cases for atleast 6 months before they can retake the test.
              Further every judge in every court at any level that decides a case that SCOTUS reverse on should be required to take this test before being assigned further cases. And lower court that wrongly decides a case that is reversed by SCOTUS for failing to follow existing precedent should be suspended for 6 months. Lower court judges can get it wrong on new matters,
              But when an issue is decided law – only SCOTUS can change that.

              Federal Judges are constitutionally appointed for life and we are obligated to honor that.
              But we are NOT obligated to allow judges to decide cases that are unwilling to follow the law and constitution.

    2. I followed the msn link. It is as devoid of facts, and full of raw speculation and qualifying language, it is totally meaningless. My guess, this is something akin to legal housekeeping and happens all the time. Its a ‘t’ crossing exercise, common to legal filings.
      A device msn used to pack full of propaganda. Propaganda for its mindless followers.

      1. Iowan2, you’re missing the point. The appeals court issued an order that is unheard of. The judges ordered Trump lawyers to present their agument by midnight and the DOJ by 6am. These filings usually take months. They were requiring an answer for both parties within hours of being presented evidence by the DOJ. It means something really serious must have been found in order for those judges to require arguments within hours.
        if the court agrees with the DOJ Trump’s lawyer will not have attorney client privilege protections regarding certain communications. That is not good news for Trump at all.

        1. Iowan2, you’re missing the point. The appeals court issued an order that is unheard of.
          Says…somebody, that gave you talking points. I have no idea if its common or not. I do know such a short timeline if any importance, would be ripe to appeal the outcome of the case. Judges don’t open themselves up to appeal on a whim.
          To repeat, msn article has zero facts concerning the content of the judges request. It is filler/clickbait, to get your eyeballs infront of the paid advertisers.

          1. Iowan2: Svelaz has copy and pasted information from a few of several articles (Newsweek, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc.)

        2. It’s rare, but not unheard of. Don’t make it out to be more extreme than it is. It also doesn’t “mean something really serious must have been found,” only that they have some reason for a tight timeline.

      2. There’s nothing common about an appeals court requiring filings within hours. The evidence they were presented with must have been overwhelming enough to require an answer from both parties in less than a day.

      3. No, it’s not “a ‘t’ crossing exercise.”

        Kyle Cheney is a better reporter about these issues:

        He also notes in tweets that “For those saying they’ve never seen the appeal court move this fast: Yes, but… they came pretty close in October when Trump tried to block Marc Short and Greg Jacob from testifying. He lost the emergency appeal and Short testified the next day. … Presumably the appeals court will rule pretty quickly…”

        “It is as devoid of facts”

        That’s false. The MSN reporting is mediocre, but there were plenty of facts, such as “A Circuit Court of Appeals in D.C. set Trump’s lawyers a midnight deadline on Tuesday to provide information and arguments related to the case, with the Department of Justice also given a 6 a.m. Wednesday deadline—a particularly rapid turnaround request for legal filings.” All of those claims are true: the DCCA set a midnight deadline for Trump, set a 6am deadline for the DOJ’s response, and that’s an extremely rapid turnaround compared to most court filings.

        It’s also a fact that “The move came after a judge ruled that one of Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran, could be forced to testify in the classified documents investigation by voiding the usually absolute attorney-client privilege over claims the former president used his services to commit a crime.” Judge Howell partially unsealed her ruling about Corcoran and the crime-fraud exception last week.

        Perhaps you simply don’t understand the case enough to be able to discern which aspects of the reporting were factual.

        1. “The move came after a judge ruled that one of Trump’s lawyers, Evan Corcoran, could be forced to testify

          “Could” and appeals would flow freely. Correlation is not causation. You’re reaching.

          But again, the short timeline cannot be asking for a legal brief. Those take time to research and write. Forcing the Defense into such a box would make appeal of a ruling a sure thing.

          msn is looking to attract eyeballs to justify their advertising rates. Ther is literally nothing news worthy here.

          It like reporting DJT got on his airplane, then assigning a juicy meaning to it. ‘it is evidence he on his way to talk to Stormy.”

          1. Judge Howells crime fraud exception reasoning is complete garbage.

            The crime fraud exception REQUIRES the attorney to be in on the crime – in the know.

            SC Smith’s claim is that Trump lied to his attorney.

            That is NOT an exception to attorney client privilege.

            People lie to their attorney’s all the time – it is NOT admissible in court.

            This is just more left wing nuts trying to destroy the rule of law.

            Svelaz sprays this nonsense about Trump losing attorney’s – but here we have an example of those on the left – with the backing of the court violating the cannons of law.

            It is likely that left wingnut have already drive Cochrane off the case.

            This is one of the reasons for attorney client privilege – is to preclude prosecutors from trying to deprive someone of the legal representation they choose.

            Regardless, if Cochrane complies with the order of the court he will never be able to represent Trump again.
            If he complies he faces possible disbarrment.
            And if he does not he faces a stupid angry judge threatening him with contempt.

            What is True here is it is time for Howell to go, and for Smith to be sanctioned.

            The crime fraud exception is Narrow, and nothing described here falls under it.

    3. John Edwards paid off his mistress with three-quarters of a million dollars in campaign funds, and the federal government failed to convict him of violating any law.

    4. You’d think that after 7 years, they could at least bag Trump for something. How about J walking.

      1. If he were a poor person, he would have been charged with voter registration fraud when he put false information on his FL voter registration form.

        1. You would think.after 7 years they could bad Trump on something. He’s been impeached twice, couldn’t convict him. This has to be the longest witch hunt in history.

          1. ATS is a nutcase. They charged Trump with everything, so now he is complaining Trump wasn’t charged with voter registration fraud. Trump did nothing fraudulent, but ATS is rabid so we expect a bit of lunacy.

    5. New this pm: The DC appeals court has denied trump’s motion for a stay, and directed Corcoran to produce documents per Judge Howell’s Friday order. No order on the Corcoran’s yet.

        1. Update: Corcoran is scheduled to testify before the Grand Jury on Friday unless Trump asks the DCCA for a rehearing en banc or appeals to SCOTUS.

Leave a Reply