Below is my column on the completion of the testimony of Stormy Daniels and the start of the testimony of Michael Cohen. With a dubious legal theory, the testimony has only magnified the criticism of the prosecution as parading sensational rather than material evidence before the jury and the public. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is losing even CNN hosts and legal analysts. Fareed Zakaria noted “I doubt the New York indictment would have been brought against a defendant whose name was not Donald Trump” Elie Honig has observed that, if brought in a less Democratic district, “I would say there’s no chance of a conviction.” The Bragg case was never “normal” but last week it seemed to go paranormal.
Here is the column:
“I see dead people.” Before this week, that claim was most associated with the nine-year-old character Cole Sear from the 1999 film “The Sixth Sense.” But now it is one of the talents claimed by former adult film actress Stormy Daniels in her bizarre testimony in Manhattan during former President Donald Trump’s trial.
It turns out that speaking to the dead was one of the few relevant things Daniels had to offer in the case, which is now on a collision course with a motion for acquittal before the case even goes to the jury.
The Daniels testimony will live in infamy in the annals of criminal justice. For two days, she offered lurid and completely irrelevant details whose only possible purpose was to humiliate Trump. Admitting that she was coached by the prosecution in her testimony, it was clear that she was there not to win a case but to win an election. Judge Juan Merchan allowed this legal burlesque to unfold in his courtroom, later blaming defense counsel who had vociferously objected to her appearance and the scope of the examination.
The cross examination was devastating. It shattered her laughable claim that she had not really been seeking money in shaking Trump down for a non-disclosure agreement, a claim contradicted by her own former lawyer. Daniels also revealed that she had spoken with the dead, and that a ghost had once held her boyfriend under water in a bathtub. She also said that she lived in a haunted house, only to discover later that the spirit haunting it was actually a large possum.
In a case based on a dead misdemeanor and a rapidly falling heart rate on the manufactured felony, one can understand the appeal of witnesses who can speak for the dead. Indeed, Daniels’s graphic testimony may prove the moral high point of this trial, since serial perjurer and disbarred attorney Michael Cohen is scheduled to testify Monday.
Cohen recently broke his pledge, midway through the trial, to stop attacking and taunting Trump. Cohen has insisted that he deserves the protection of the gag order by Judge Merchan as a witness, despite serious constitutional concerns. Merchan continues to threaten Trump with jail if he responds to Cohen’s unrelenting attacks. Merchan waited for the weekend before his testimony to suggest that the prosecutors tell Cohen to stop the public antics.
But it remains unclear what the order is protecting Cohen from. Not only is he trolling for money on social media with reference to the trial, but he is also widely being attacked by others. It is only Trump who cannot address his attacks, including political opposition to his campaign.
Cohen’s testimony will be the culmination of this travesty of a trial. But Bragg already jumped the shark with Daniels. After three weeks, legal experts are still debating what the crime was that Trump was seeking to conceal by recording payments for a standard non-disclosure agreement as a legal expense. (That is the same characterization used by Hillary Clinton’s campaign for its funding for the infamous Steele dossier.)
It is still unclear that Trump even knew how the payments were characterized, and the alleged false record was not even created until after the election was over. Yet he stands accused of using the “false business records” to somehow steal or rig an election that was already over.
After this circus with Cohen is complete, Trump will be allowed to testify. He would be insane to do so. Merchan has already said that he will allow a broad scope to cross-examination, making any appearance unlikely.
That is when Merchan will face a key test of judicial ethics. He has failed to protect the rights of the defendant from a baseless, politically motivated prosecution. He could insist that he simply felt Bragg had a right to present his case. He will soon be done and, as expected, it is entirely based on Cohen, a disbarred perjurer who will ask for his former client to be sent to prison for following his own legal advice.
After Bragg closes the prosecution’s case, the defense will make a standard motion for dismissal. Merchan should grant that motion.
There has been no showing of an actual crime, let alone a clear record tying Trump to key decisions or actions.
Merchan will then have to decide whether he has the courage that Bragg lacked. Bragg knew that this case was ridiculous. The Justice Department had declined any prosecution for a federal campaign finance violation, the theory referenced in the case. Indeed, it did not even seek a civil fine over the payments. Bragg’s predecessor had also rejected the prosecution.
When Bragg took over, he similarly balked and stopped the move toward an indictment. But two prosecutors in his office, Carey R. Dunne and Mark F. Pomerantz, then resigned and started a public pressure campaign to get New Yorkers to demand prosecution.
Pomerantz went even further and took an action that some of us viewed as deeply unethical and unprofessional. Over the objections of his own former office and colleagues, he published a book on the case against Trump — then still under investigation and not charged, let alone convicted. It was a pressure campaign directed at Bragg. In New York, Bragg knew that he would either have to indict Trump or forget about reelection.
Merchan will now have to make the same choice in yielding to politics or principle…or to the paranormal. He has already allowed every effort to bring this dead misdemeanor back to life. But even Stormy Daniels may not be able to serve as Merchan’s medium in reaching back eight years.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Surprised someone hasn’t also
accused Trump of trying to
grab ’em by the possum.
😂 have to admit… That was a good one.
Jonathan: It was Mother’s Day yesterday. There was a celebration at Mar-a-Lago. DJT showed up in the dining room–ALL ALONE. Melania was no where to be seen. Not unexpected– after Stormy Daniels testified this week. Very embarrassing for Melania. No wonder she doesn’t want to be seen in public with her husband. Alina Habba and Laura Trump were there partying it up. Alina was seen sporting her $10-$15K Hermes Berkin bag–courtesy of all the mom and pop Magadonians. DJT gave no Mother’s Day wishes to Melania at the party. He was busy hawking his “golden sneakers” on Truth Social.
Melania did send out a separate Mother’s Day message by herself: “As Mothers we are inclined to honor our mothers and mother figures…but we must be mindful of ourselves. It may be difficult to imagine, but when mothers prioritize self-care, our families and children enjoy greater stability”. Melania knows how to “prioritize self-care” and Mother’s Day by hawking tacky necklaces at $245 a pop–that sell for about $20 in most stores.
One comment on Twitter sums up Melania in a nutshell: “Merry a rich guy for citizenship, crank out an anchor baby to seal the deal and leverage a renegotiated prenup, then live at a separate residence for the next 17 years because your husband had sex with a porn star right after you gave birth?”
And now we know where little Dennis McIntyre lives: in the sewer.
Dennis: thanks. I DO give Melania credit for one thing–refusing to allow Barron to be used as a prop for Trump’s campaign. She protected him from the glare of the cameras and attention he seems to want to avoid, despite Lara Trump touting his first public appearance on MAGA media as the “tallest Trump”. Another thing some people may not have heard about: I read (not sure where because I’ve read so many things on Trump) that when Trump proposed to Melania, he said “no children”. She mulled it over and decided she wasn’t going through life without a child to call her own–and said “no”. She wouldn’t budge, so it was agreed that there would only be one, and that she would do everything possible to return her body to pre-pregnancy condition. I can’t help but think that Melania would be a much happier person if she’d stayed in Slovenia, married some nice Slovenian man and had as many children as she wanted to, instead of having to negotiate to have just one who essentially grew up as an only child. She may live in a palace by the sea or golden tower, but she’s been thoroughly demeaned by her husband who clearly doesn’t care one whit about her. Protecting that one and only child is her mission. It has been reported that if he goes off to college somewhere, she’ll move to that city to be there for him.
Just think, if this case doesn’t get a conviction (which it shouldn’t)
what kinds of other new lows in rule bending and etc.
they will feel compelled to sink to next.
This case is a joke. A bad one at that with the paranormal addition.
Ever notice how Gigi and Annoyingus post right in line w Dumbass? Golly, it’s almost as if on cue…
If there was a Jew in the mix Robert Browning would hate his way in, or maybe Fishwind after Gigi crash and burns…pathetic!
Sorry to speak personally, but when I went to law school, the majority of students did so because the profession was an honorable one, in which students were taught, –and indeed hoped-, to create homeostasis in understanding and appreciating the rule of law, and use it to right the wrongs in the world. Now we have Jerry Springer judges facilitating the wronging of rights.
My God man, you must be very old (j/k).
Thank you for giving us hope in returning to the principles a of a prior century. I do hope that there is such an awakening and across all professions.
@lin,
Only judges? What about lawyers? Trump has hired a lot of jerry springer type lawyers to argue his cases before a judge. Rudy Giulini, Alina Habba, etc, etc, etc. Let’s not forget the “release the Kraken” lawyer. There’s a reason why the best lawyers and firms won’t do business with Trump. He loves the jerry springer atmosphere he relishes it.
We will soon see if the citizens of New York, as represented in the jury, have more legal and ethical sense that either Judge Juan Merchan or Alvin Bragg. These two clowns are attempting to drag you further into the gutter New York. Are you willing to follow?
Alvin Bragg, the Harvard product that expands the horizons of absolute disgrace.
OT (but only slightly). If there were any doubts whatsoever about how thoroughly broken our legal system is, this should dispell them:
‘Unusually Aggressive’ Anti-Trump Grand Jury In Arizona Went Rogue With Indictments
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/unusually-aggressive-anti-trump-grand-jury-arizona-went-rogue-indictments
I see Dead People to – a lot of Dead Careers come November 5th 2024.
All because of Their love for Hillary Clinton.
Michael Avenatti, Keith Davidson, Michael Cohen, and Stephanie A. Gregory (a.k.a. Stormy Daniels)
Are the Grifters that took Donald Trump to the Bank and brought the DNC along to nail the Grift shut.
It’s Not about the Payment Stupid!, It’s about the Grift.
Stormy Daniels settles suit against Michael Cohen in hush-money scandal
By: Michael Finnegan – Staff Writer ~ May 17, 2019
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-stormy-daniels-cohen-avenatti-davidson-20190517-story.html
Biden is busy today helping Hamas avoid detection while blackmailing Israel into helping him win MI.
Democrats will do ANYTHING to win an election and with the help of the media they never get into trouble doing so. Where is the Vindman? Where is the Ciaremarella (SP)? Where is the Schiff? We have Biden offering to tell Israel where the leader of Hamas is as long as they do Biden’s bidding. Imagine if a nation knew where Bin Laden was and they held back until we did them a favor?
hullbobby: You are so right. And while Ilhan Omar said, “It’s all about the Benjamins,” Biden desperately says, “It’s all about the votes…”
“She also said that she lived in a haunted house, only to discover later that the spirit haunting it was actually a large possum.”
Was that reported correctly? In Daniels’ case, is it not more plausible that the term she used to describe the large object by which her house was haunted, was a slang term for female genitalia (that alliterates with “possum”)? Sorry, the presentation of this preposterous case by Bragg in general, and, in particular, Daniels’, and her testimony, and Cohen, and his testimony, doesn’t deserve any higher class comment than that. :-[
Well said professor. This case, legally, is as dead as a flat possum on a Georgia 2 lane blacktop. But this is New York and that means pigs fly and dead possums can be whirled around in court in hopes that they may stick on someone, possibly even the defendant but more likely the prosecutor, eventually. Don’t think we’ll see a movie about this one any time soon but you never know. Hollywood of late has tried to place movies about their preferred candidates or villains during election years but Tinseltown is so flattened by movie bombs, failing streaming services (especially if you carry CNN), worries about AI decimating the live human actors and other various worries don’t affect normal people that I doubt we will see a Trump Trial movie this year.
If this trial is eventually thrown out, I wonder if New York law would allow Trump to sue for criminal harassment, illegal abuse of the justice system and misappropriation of funds by the state prosecutor. Maybe he should also sue the prosecutors who quit and wrote the book. I mean if they want to wage war and create a desert then return the favor. It’s the only way to be sure.
I don’t see dead people but I do see a state and city that is trying to die by it’s own hand.
Well, professor, I think you’re right and as a DC dweller you’re displaying quite a bit of courage to take the position you’re taking. Of course, Judge Merchan is not going to grant a TOD, if for no other reason than that TOD’s are never granted, even though they are always made.
One quibble: Bragg has no “right” to present his case. The government does not have rights. It doesn’t need them. It has power. It is only individuals who have rights, and for the most part those are rights against the government.
A lot of Trump supporters and apologists are understandably worried about Cohen’s testimony and how damaging it will be. That’s why professor Turley has been spending so much time attacking Cohen’s credibility. Cohen may be liar and a convicted criminal. But he was convicted of a crime Trump also is accuse of committing. Falsifying business records. That is the crime. In NY it’s a crime and this has been explained in detail multiple times here by knowledgeable individuals who understand the NY statute and the logic behind it.
The professor, as a lawyer, should be aware of what the crime is, but he’s not acting in his capacity as a lawyer. He’s acting in his capacity as a Fox News pundit obligated to maintain the Fox News narrative of obfuscation and mischaracterization. What will matter today is Cohen’s testimony and how it will affect the jury. Trump is getting a fair trail and he is being given all the due process the law affords him. Blaming the judge or the jury because they are a NY jury is pointless. Trump has only himself to blame. He chose to falsify documents to avoid scrutiny. It’s the falsification that did him in. Not the affair, not where the money came from, or what it was for. It’s the falsifying of the documents that is the crime.
Haha, Cohen was NOT accused of falsifying business records. Look it up.
@JLM,
Tax evasion involves falsifying documents. It’s essentially lying on a document.
That’s why professor Turley has been spending so much time attacking Cohen’s credibility.
An accurate recounting of Cohens convictions and past testimony that has been adjudicated as lies, is not an attack.
It is when his intent it to undermine his credibility. He’s still attacking Cohen’s credibility on behalf of Trump. That’s why he spends so much time emphasizing it and focusing on it. It’s an attack on his credibility.
Regardless of his conviction and perjury, he’s still a relevant witness to the prosecution. Cohen still has sensitive knowledge about Trump’s deal making and how he operates. He can still provide a deeper look into who Trump really is to the jury. Trump had him as his lawyer for a long time for a very good reason. Because he was good at lying for Trump and he values people who are willing to lie for him to protect him. That’s why Cohen poses a serious problem for Trump in court. Trump is afraid of being exposed as a horrible businessman who relies on a facade of success and being a smart decision maker. Obviously that’s not the case.
We will see soon enough if Cohen really makes a difference or if he will just add to the narrative that Trump is a bad businessman that relies on cheating and falsifying records to imitate success.
“. . . undermine [Cohen’s] credibility.”
How do you “undermine” that which doesn’t exist?
@sam,
It still exists, as Trump’s former lawyer for nearly 12 years he has credible insight onto Trump’s methods of operation. Because Trump threw him under the bus Cohen has no reason to lie about Trump’s dealings to seek revenge. He can use the truth as a means to exact revenge on trump in a court of law. That’’s why so may Trump apologists are spending a lot of effort attacking Cohen’s credibility. He can inflict real damage to Trump regardless of how they portray him.
George: You are mostly correct in describing the NY falsifying business records law but that’s not the problem here. The NY law is a misdemeanor that has a two-year statute of limitations. This tolled years ago. To try to apply it, Bragg has had to tie it to another crime but so far has not told anyone what that other crime might be. He has alluded to a federal “crime” that federal authorities decided a long time ago was not cognizable. There is no state law equivalent, meaning that Bragg is bluffing his way to an invalid conviction and betting that the judge is as biased as he is and will allow this debacle to reach a jury.
JJC,
Well said.
This entire thing is a farce.
The way this is being handled by Bragg, is that the falsifying of the records while a misdemeanor changes to a felony when it involves a conspiracy to hide that crime for the purpose getting elected. The FEC deals with federal elections. But NY law still applies to Trump because he was subject to NY election laws that also apply. He was running as a NY resident at the time. That’s why the election law applies even though the FEC may not deem the crime cognizable it’s still a NY election. That’s where he ties it as a felony.
Trump filed as a NY resident to run for president and NY election laws apply to him. The charges amount to felonies only if prosecutors can prove the mislabeling of the payments was intended to cover-up another crime, in this instance, a violation of either campaign finance laws or tax laws.
§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The falsifying of the documents to conceal something that prevents an election as in getting elected makes the falsifying of the documents a felony. Because it’s’ a crime to conspire to promote or prevent election, not AN election, but election of any person to A public office. That is not limited to local office, it’s A public office. Which means even running for president. Because it’s “a” public office not specifically only a NY state public office.
Bragg is portraying the falsification of the business records is used in conspiracy to avoid affecting the election to office. That makes it a felony according to NY law.
“But NY law still applies to Trump . . .”
Where in the *indictment” is that law cited and that charge clearly stated?
@sam,
Have you already read the indictment?
“Have you already read the indictment?”
That shop-worn deflection, again?
Translating that fallacy into honest English: That charge is not in the indictment. I wish to evade that fact, so I’ll point to the squirrels.
Trump may be his own worst enemy, but to say he is getting a fair trial is absurd. Most judges want to preserve their verdicts on appeal. This judge is obviously going for a conviction. Any relief on appeal will be after the election. The damage, if any, will have been done. The legal gymnastics that his Court has countenanced to allow this to go forward are impressive. I challenge you to find a case where anyone else has been tried on a theory involving covering up a crime where that crime is not specified in the indictment, much less three weeks into the trial. This is a joke.
David: Your description is correct but your conclusion is in doubt. The three main prosecutors against Trump – Smith, Willis, and Bragg – are not considered very highly by their contemporaries or their profession. Each has shown weaknesses and flaws in their prior cases as well as in the current group of cases against Trump. The public is pretty smart when it comes to what is going on and Trump’s polls continue to rise inversely to his legal “problems.” Just as the biased media overexposed him in 2016 resulting in his win, the legal lawfare campaign will do the same for 2024. The public has discounted Trump’s character for his ability to run the country and make America strong again. He proved this the first time and now, as a result of the feebleness of his opponent, he will prove it again.
Because you don’t like that your team is losing doesn’t automatically mean there’s something wrong with the refereeing.
Our trolls have a serious lack of imagination. If they could not denounce Donald Trump or Fox News, they would have nothing to say.
There are a hundred billion dead people to see.
Merchan, a so called Judge?, is running a Kangroos Court along with Bragg and his assocaites from Biden Admin. This trial is a moclery of the US Courts/Legal system and the Constitution and the history of the US legal system. Next they will introduce min readers, forgot about Stormy, now we will have a Lnown Liar, as declared by a Federal Judge, Michael Ponochio Cohen.
correct spelling Mockery vs Moclery – Kangroo vs Kangroos – sorry for my mistypes
No problem. I have the same problem with my smell chucker.
I’m amazed at how the legal pundits on both sides of this case seem to miss the prosecutor’s strategy. They ask, why did Daniels testify? What did she add to this case? To answer this, one must be an expert on NY legal stratagems. Her testimony ensures that DJT does not testify. You see, most people believe that there was something between DJT and the porn star because you don’t pay $130 grand for nothing. Most understand DJT’s denials as being protective of his wife and family and their feelings. After Daniels’s testimony, DJT cannot take the stand because he would be fair game for questions about Daniels and his testimony might be less than credible. The NY stratagem is to turn this case into a sequence of lies and then the jury gets to select which lies it believes. Make no mistake, this is not being done for Justice’s sake or to right a wrong. The goal here is a conviction that may have political usefulness to the Democrats. But it may backfire because DJT lured Bragg into having to waste time on this strategy while DJT knew all along that he was not going to testify in this phony-baloney case. Stunning.
Interesting take, but I think you have it backwards. I think that Trump has directed this case from the defense side to be more about the denial of having sex with stormy Daniels than focusing on the business records. Had trumps defense merely started the case by saying, “Yeah, so what, our client had sex with Miss Daniels. That’s why he paid her off, because he didn’t want his wife to find out.” Because Trump insists that he didn’t have sex with stormy, he throws that argument out the window. And that suddenly leaves open a big question. If Trump didn’t have sex with Miss Daniels, then why did he pay her? Was it because the idea of it in the news, though false, could sink his campaign? If 12 jury members answer that question with ‘yes’ then Trump is toast.
Trump would walk if he had admitted the affair.
We’ve reached a new threshold. Not only can dead Democrats vote, but they are also attempting to interfere with an election.
NYC has finally and completely proven they are unfit to rule over anybody anywhere. I pity Upstate NY.
Yesterdays post was littered with the leftist trolls that posted anything, but the law and the facts of this trial.
More of the same today is comming
They posted a LOT about the law and state statutes. It was the usual Trump apologists who are in full denial. Facts and the law have no relevance to Trump apologists because it’s an uncomfortable and inconvenient reality. That’s why the professor spends so much time attacking Daniels and Cohen. They pose the biggest risk to Trump. Cohen is being labeled “serial perjurer” and liar to undermine his credibility. The problem is Cohen is still Trump’s long time attorney who is very knowledgeable about Trumps ulterior motives and the inner workings of the Trump organization.
He can paint a very clear and precise picture about what goes on in Trumps deals and what he has done to cheat others. Trump apologists are mad and bewildered by the idea of Cohen testifying. Trump can testify and explain his side, but we all know he’s highly likely to perjure himself and/or admit to the crime during one of his rants. He can’t be trusted to be aware of the risk he poses to himself if he testifies.
Cohen will definitely taunt Trump from the stand by exposing his business tactics and call him out as a liar and a cheat. It’s guaranteed Trump will be incensed and furious and not be able to do much about it in court.
“. . . Daniels and Cohen. They pose the biggest risk to Trump.”
Here’s what astounding:
To sate its lust for power, the Left lionizes a rogues’ gallery. At least for the nonce.
In that gallery: George Floyd, Cohen, Daniels, Elias, Weissman, Hamas/Iranian Mullahs, terrorist sympathizers, BLM, Antifa, Bragg, Willis, Jack Smith, Engoron, . . .
Sam, don’t forget Avenatti, Blasey-Ford, Adam Kinzinger and any other so-called Republican that needs a big NBCNBC/CNN paycheck.
They posted a LOT about the law and state statutes.
The only state law is an allegation of paying a lawyer is somehow misdemeanor accounting fraud. Still waiting the the required GAAP category to use.
He can paint a very clear and precise picture about what goes on in Trumps deals and what he has done to cheat others.
George, the only thing the rules of evidence will allow is testimony concerning the accounting entries listed on the indictment.
Earth to George. ONLY the charges on the indictment are germain.
Stick to the facts.
@Iowan2,
No, the payments are not the issue. It’s the falsification of the documents that is at issue. Intentionally falsifying documents is a misdemeanor according to NY law but, it’s a felony if it’s to hide another crime which is conspiring to promote or interfere with election to office.
Cohen will testify to all the details pertaining to the falsification of the records and Trump’s intent. It will be a testimony of not only the charges but of Trump’s character which will be used to put the allegations into context.
You don’t seem to understand. Yes, Cohen may tell all sorts of stories about Trump, but will they be truthful? An honest process to ascertain the truth would have to take into account Cohen’s propensity to bully and lie and his wheeling and dealing — I.e. his usefulness to the prosecution as Trump enemy. It is not a pretty sight for fair-minded people.
What you are hoping for is Trump getting on the witness stand to tell a story different from Cohen’s or Daniels’s and have the court then declare Trump a perjurer. When you don’t actually have a case it the best a person can do — construct one on the fly.
Of course Merchan will let the case go to the jury and, of course, the jury will convict.
Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.
Well said sir, as usual. Any comments on the Biden Niger blunder?
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/niger-bidens-second-military-extraction