Below is an expanded version of my New York Post column on the appearance of Michael Cohen Monday in the Manhattan prosecution of former President Donald Trump. His testimony will not be for the intestinally weak or ethically strong viewers. It has all the draw of a Nascar race on a rainy day.
Here is the column:
Michael Cohen is to criminal justice what car crashes are to Nascar: few want to admit it, but he is the perverse draw for the wreck-obsessed. The difference is that Cohen was already a rolling smoking wreck when he pulled up to the track.
Even for those of us who have long been critics of this case and its dubious legal theory, it has been surprising to see that the prosecutors had no more evidence than what we previously knew about. The assumption was that no rational prosecutor would base a major criminal case virtually entirely on the testimony of Michael Cohen who was just recently denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer peddling “perverse” theories in court.
The calculus of Alvin Bragg is now obvious. He is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence. He believes that all he needs is to check the boxes on the elements of the crime, no matter how unbelievable the vehicle.
The reason is that Bragg likely fears a directed verdict more than a jury verdict. After the government closes its evidence, the defense will move for a directed verdict on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
In other words, when the prosecution rests this week, Trump’s counsel will stand and ask Merchan to end the case before it is even given to the jury. Many of us agree with that assessment. After three weeks of testimony, there is still confusion on what crime Trump was allegedly seeking to cover up.
Bragg has vaguely referred to using the denotation of payments to Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraud committed to steal the election. However, the election was over when those denotations were made. Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement was accurate. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate).
Judge Juan Merchan, in my view, has failed repeatedly to protect the rights of the accused in this case. However, he can claim that there was enough alleged to give Bragg the chance to make his case. Thus far he has not done so and, if he is truly neutral, Merchan should grant the motion.
Bragg is counting on not only a motivated jury but a motivated judge to keep this anemic case alive. All he hopes that he needs to do is get this to a Trump-loathing jury to set aside any reasonable doubt. To do that, he found the ultimate motivated witness with a record of saying whatever serves his interests and those of his sponsors.
Even with a New York jury, however, you cannot assume that every juror will jettison doubt when it comes to the unpopular defendant. Yet, Bragg first has to show Merchan that someone claimed to have evidence directly tying Trump to an intentional fraudulent scheme to conceal a crime.
Thus far, Bragg is not even close. Indeed, many of his witnesses helped Trump more than they hurt him on the actual charges.
Bragg started with testimony on the killing of a story by David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, on an uncharged transaction to kill a story of a Trump affair with a different woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model.
The relevancy was marginal but the testimony backfired in that Pecker admitted that Trump told him that he knew nothing about any reimbursement to Cohen for any hush money. He further said that he had killed or raised such stories with Trump for decades before he ever announced for president. He also said that he had killed stories for other celebrities and politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, Rahm Emanuel and Mark Wahlberg.
For good measure, Pecker noted that Cohen often exaggerates and became loud and argumentative.
Witnesses said that Trump likely had a mix of motivations including sparing his family from embarrassment. Daniels’ own counsel contradicted the prosecution’s reference to the payment as “hush money.”
Prosecutors now need Cohen to check virtually every box on his own. It is not enough to say that Trump wanted to hush up the alleged affair. That is no crime and NDAs are common and legal.
Cohen has to say that Trump specifically knew and approved of the characterization of the payments as “legal expenses.” He further has to establish that Trump intended the denotation to conceal the payments for the purposes of election violations or fraud.
That could make this a “he said, he said” case, but only if Trump were to actually testify. However, Merchan’s earlier rulings make such testimony highly unlikely. The court approved a sweeping scope for cross examination if Trump dares to take the stand. No competent lawyer would advise him to do so after Merchan’s rulings.
That is exactly where Bragg wants to be: with a “he said” not a “he said, he said” case. With Trump effectively silenced, Bragg will argue that that is enough to get this to the jury and he can then allow the New York jury to jettison any notion of reasonable doubt when it comes to Donald Trump.
For most people, this cynical calculation will be immaterial when Cohen is called. Calling a convicted, disbarred, serial perjurer to any court is a spectacle in itself. Cohen seems like he has never met an oath that he does not want to break.
Indeed, he appears eager to expand his collection by announcing in the midst of the trial coverage that he is running for Congress. Given the blind rage of many New Yorkers, he could well succeed with single-issue, anti-Trump voters. If so, we will all be back just to see if a vortex to the netherworld opens up when Cohen stands on the House floor and swears that he is taking the oath “without . . . purpose of evasion.”
But before he becomes Rep. Michael Cohen, he will have to appear for his Nascar moment, though he will be the first wreck in search of a race.
At one time Michael Cohen was to be estimated to be worth $100 million in New York City Taxi Medallions,
however that may be less now since the advent of Uber and Lyft, but none the less at current value his holdings are worth millions.
The fact that he is involved in the ‘Legitimate’ business of NYC’s Taxi & Limousine Department as an agent should not preclude you from thinking the Cab Driver on the Street see this as a ‘racket’ for medallions. It’s a thin veil, Who controls the Streets – The Bosses (Medallion Agent/Brokers).
So one could say that, the shady dealings of this buiness is right up Michael Cohen’s ally. At his very best – a Barzini’ Caporegime (the term is borrowed from the Godfather Movie).
So it’s fair to say that the Government (FBI|DOJ ect.) has leverage over him and his wife. And Bragg is using it to push what they want outta Cohen,
forcing the testimony that fits the Agenda (sideline Trump, so Hillary or Nancy can swoop in Convention time and steal the Show away).
The Convention will be ‘magical’ alright, Presto-Changeo.
Michael Cohen and the absolutely amazing history of the once-coveted New York City taxi medallion
By: Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large ~ April 11, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/michael-cohen-taxi-medallion-donald-trump/index.html
FBI raid targeted records of payments to porn star, ex-Playmate
Gloria Borger Pamela Brown Eli Watkins
By: Gloria Borger, Pamela Brown and Eli Watkins, CNN ~ April 10, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/michael-cohen-search-warrant/index.html
What is a NYC taxi medallion worth today?
Since last year, the values of taxi medallions have inched upward for the first time in eight years. Based on sales data from the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), the average medallion value has climbed from its low point at $79,106 in May 2021 to $137,330 in May 2022.Aug 10, 2022
[Link] chauffeurdriven.com/news-features/in-this-issue/3408-in-depth-with-daus-rising-medallions-could-be-good-news-for-all-nyc-transportation.html
The EQUALIZER gets her NYC Medallion
Precedent For Charging Brotha “Fat Alvin” Bragg:
Mike Nifong
Michael Byron Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is an American former attorney and convicted criminal.[2] He served as the Durham County District Attorney until he was removed, disbarred, and very briefly jailed following court findings concerning his conduct in the Duke lacrosse case, primarily his conspiring with the DNA lab director to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence that could have acquitted the defendants.[3]
– Wiki
Ha ha ha ha ha… you’re unhinged from reality.
George is correct – Bragg, Willis, and “Jack Smith” are all on track to face charges for their highly illegal prosecutions of Trump.
Nope. Prosecutors have absolute immunity. Even Nifong couldn’t be charged or sued for knowingly prosecuting a false case. The only thing they got him on was conspiring with the DNA lab; had he not done that he would have got away scot free. Nobody has alleged that Bragg or Smith have done anything comparable to that.
Malicious prosecution and evidence tampering are accusations, with more to follow.
Bragg and James are in serious trouble. So is Jack Smith.
Evidence tampering is a crime, and if someone can prove Smith did so he can be prosecuted for it. But malicious prosecution is a tort, and prosecutors have absolute immunity from all torts. Malicious prosecution suits can only be brought against policemen, not against prosecutors.
Cannon is deliberately laying out the crimes in her proceeding, so that is where eventual charges against Smith will first appear.
These illegitimate cases against Trump will result in revocation of prosecutorial immunity, along with the pending SCOTUS case.
Prosecutors and judges have been given/claimed far too much unchecked power without oversight.
Prosecutors do not have full immunity against unlimited misconduct. That is false.
Additionally, judges may face civil rights cases when rights of defendants are egregiously violated.
There are several of these cases about to be filed in PA.
Not for long they don’t.
Everybody associated with Trump is a criminal.
That statement is neither factual, has any truth to it, is obviously biased and therefore is a total misstatement sought to taint the facts with a false rebuttal. No wonder you are anonymous, because it could be a planted statement meat to convict for a crime that never was. Influencing a verdict by submission of a false statement, and even worse if it was given UNDER OATH.
Who cares what you think, Clowncar.
^ Troll alert ^
You badly misspelled Biden, Clinton, and Obama in that witless post.
As I understand it there’s no evidence that Trump even paid Stormy Daniels. And yet Bragg has pressed ahead with this charade anyway. Which leads me to believe y’all don’t get it – what Bragg wants is a guilty verdict and whether these are “trump-ed up” charges (a phrase Trump himself has been hesitant to use) or even a total “non-crime” makes no difference. Trump is the consummate politician, a rare blend of political intellect, intelligence and competency; he is winning, and therefore guilty of something, because today’s Democrat neither possesses nor recognizes, nor is willing to admit, any moral compass. Trump is winning, he is therefore “playing dirty,” and so must we! Guilty as charged! (Of what we don’t know.) And the future of American politics, and the America it has guarded for the last 250 years, be damned!
“As I understand it…” You don’t because you’re a moron.
^ Troll ^
^ Troll ^
^ Troll ^
Stephanie (Stormy) Gregoey Clifford (Daniels) has a notarized signed document denying she ever had any relationship
with DJT and explicitly says it never happened.
Case closed if we aren’t a banana republic…(We all know we are one because the fake case keeps going on)
And she has repeated stated that that denial was false and coerced. And she has now testified under oath that it did happen. So the statement is of almost no evidentiary value. At most a jury may take it into account and say it creates reasonable doubt — but it is also completely open to a jury to ignore it altogether, or even to regard it as evidence that Trump suborned perjury.
Your post accurately highlights Trump’s REAL crime – He is winning.
Trump is a crook because he defeated Hillary in 2016 – and that should not have been possible.
Trump is a crook because he is near certain to defeat Biden in 2024 – and that should not be possible.
Those on the left should take advice from Casius in Julius Ceasar – “the Fault is not in our stars (or our enemies), but in ourselves.”
Clinton lost, and Biden is losing, fo rmany reasons, but high among them because the modern democratic party has governed badly.
One of the few things that I beleive that Bragg has successfully proved is that the payments to Micheal Cohen were reimbursement for the Daniels NDA taxes, and some other fees to Cohen
Trump did not pay Daniels. Cohen did. But Trump did eventually reimburse Cohen for work, taxes and profits that included securing the Daniels NDA.
That does not get Bragg within 1000 miles of establishing any crime.
This is common with the left, which is why though I often attack factual claims that are false.
I Frequently assume for the sake of argument that much if not all the facts are as those on the left claim – even though that is absurdly false and directly confront their core argument.
The facts as ALLEGED by Bragg, do not constitute a crime. That is why this case should never have gone to court.
The Judge early on should have granted the equivalent of summary judgement saying that even if you prove everything you claim you are going to prove – you have no actual crime.
While I will be happy to highlight the absurdly stupid antifactual claims of those on the left, it is still inevitable that Bragg will porove somethings, or that he will persuade people of somethings.
I think the majority of americans beleive Trump had sex with Daniels.
That is irrelevant – it does not matter. It is not a crime and paying for daniels silence is not a crime.
But my weighing of the facts provided is that Trump did not have sex with Daniels, for many reasons but among those
Daniels recalls alot about what she can reasonably anticipate that she was going to be asked.
And NOTHING about the things she did not expect to be asked – like where was her own hotel room and how did she get to Trump’s.
More important is that the payment to Daniels of $130K is proportionate to the payment of $30K to the doorman for the absurdly false Trump had a love child with a made story. If Trump would pay $30K for a ludicrously stupid 3rd party false story, it is easy to beleive he would pay $130K for a first party story by someone who did actually meet him at a Golf Event.
At the same time – if the Story was True – at the very least Clinton would have paid a million for it – and Stormy is not stupid.
It is always less dangerous to sell a false story to the person it was about – both you and they KNOW it is false, so there is no fraud involved.
If you sell a false story to someone else representing it as True – you are engaged in Fraud and that is a crime.
The sad part about this trial, other than the fact a presidential contender bedded a playboy model, apparently a number of times, and a porn star, is the distraction this trial causes for the infinitely more serious crimes Trump is alleged to have committed regarding the legal transfer of power and January 6.
What “crimes” did Trump commit on Jan. 6, imbecile?
To summarize, Trump was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, witness tampering, conspiracy against the rights of citizens, and obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding.
And what crimes did he actually commit?
And what crimes did Charles Manson actually commit?
^ Troll ^
^ Troll ^
Hard to know. Manson’s was a bizarre case with likely FBI and CIA involvement, and prosecutor Bugliosi was charged with perjury (I believe).
Must read book, all documented – https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/chaos-tom-oneill/1129822092
Documented cuz it’s in a book.
Yes, and because that book contains the original LAPD, FBI, and other docs.
What crime did Charles Manson commit??????????
^ Troll ^
As we saw, the conviction will be a bonus. This is about election interference by shaming a presidential candidate and raw hate. These people are unhinged.
Trump is an anti-conservative anti-liberal populist who appeals to lazy I-got-left-behind losers. Totally unAmerican. Trump and his whining and complaining roadshow need to go.
Lots of whining from you, and no one agrees with you, apparently.
Trump brought many jobs and much money into NYC in his time. People were appreciative of his work on buildings and parks. Why do they hate him so much now that they lower themselves to lies and deceit? I think I could be a more fair juror on a Biden trial than what is being expected of this jury.
Total BS. Trump’s business history is full of money laundering for the Philadelphia crime family. How/why does anyone build an obscenely overpriced casino in Atlantic City and lose money during a recession??? Because the overage is money being laundered to the mob.
If that were true (it isn’t), it is long past time for Trump to call in some “favors” from his friends and take out lawless prosecutors and judges.
Putting a convicted perjurer on the stand as your star witness should get Bragg disbarred and prosecuted.
Trump should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Authoritarian leftists WILL spend the rest of your lives in prison.
If I were the prosecutor, I would be ashamed to put Cohen on the stand. The prosecution looks like stupid idiots grasping at straws. If I were the judge, I would hang my head in shame to know I was betraying this country and the judicial system so badly, it could never be repaired.
If you had any credibility, we’d care.
Question for the Professor….and practicing Lawyers…..
Can the Defense start the day off by challenging the swearing in of Cohen straight off the bat and cite his the Federal Judge’s comments, and the several times that Cohen himself while under Oath in other cases admitting having committed Perjury and force Judge Merchan to have to rule on that Motion and go on record why he will allow the Swearing and Testimony of such a known and self admitted Perjurer?
How can the Prosecution prove Cohen is testifying truthfully…any evidence to show all of the talk of “intent” and knowledge aforethought re the illegality of whatever law it is that Trump is supposed to have violated?
How does the Prosecution get around the fact the alleged criminal acts took place AFTER the election and thus have illegally subverted the Election?
That would make for an interesting start tomorrow morning!
Regarding your last point, I think you misunderstand Bragg’s argument. He says Trump entered “legal expenses” in 2017 to CONCEAL a campaign finance law violation in October 2016 involving NDA payments that helped him unlawfully win the election. The 2017 entry was to conceal a crime not to effect a crime. Bragg has yet to prove that there was a campaign finance violation, and I don’t think he can.
The Judge and Alan Brag have and continue to commit Legal Malpractice. Where are the adults?
There are many matters being left to Cohen’s testimony that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Was “legal expenses” an inappropriate characterisation of payments (and tax gross up) made to reimburse a lawyer for the consideration he paid on behalf of a client for an NDA?
2. Was Trump aware of this characterisation and that it was inappropriate?
3. Did Trump intend to commit a fraud through this characterisation?
4. Did Trump intend to commit this fraud to cover up another crime?
5. Bragg has said the other crime was election interference under NYL 17-152. But this law appears to apply only to state and local elections so should be irrelevant here.
6. Even if it applies, it requires the election interference to be carried out through unlawful means. So far Bragg has not said what those unlawful means were.
7. There is some indication that the unlawful means he is relying on were alleged violations of federal campaign finance law. Bragg has not specified this, however, and it appears that only the DOJ and FEC have authority to enforce the relevant law.
8. Moreover, Bradley Smith, former FEC chairman, has argued that these payments could not be campaign expenditures, under the definitions in the relevant law as understood by the FEC. I believe he will testify as to this if Trump has to mount a defense. In any event, Bragg has so far introduced no evidence on this point.
9. So Cohen must help Bragg prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump violated a law even though it appears inapplicable, that the unlawful means he used involved federal campaign finance law violations even though Bragg has no authority to enforce them and even though they appear not to have occurred given the relevant definitions and that Trump knew all this and intended to cover it up by labeling the payments “legal expenses”. This assumes that Bragg is able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the points in 1-3 above.
Unless it is possible that the evidence presented could persuade a reasonable juror that every one of these matters has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a directed verdict should be issued. So far, little if anything has been presented to prove these points, so it is all up to Cohen. In a fair world it would be hard to see how he could carry this burden. But the world of this court is anything but fair.
What about the other 33 felony counts?
They’re all the same. 34 checks to reimburse in instalments.
I think it is split between the number of checks, ledger entries and invoices which would seem to be guilty or innocent on all counts since they are all tied to the same thing
Imagine if a bank robber stole 100 $50 bills and trying to charge the robber with 100 counts, one for each bill
Number 8 is the key, as it clearly is not an election violation per the fed
DJT is gagged and held hostage in a “courtroom”. Where are shackles and cuffs, Judge Perv Merchan?
I’ve always wondered what a “Schmuck” looked like.
No mirrors at home?
Jerry Springer Show!
All we lack now is Bragg dressing up like a clown.
This is truly a dumpster fire of a case and I would agree that Bragg seems to think the worse he can make the fire the more likely something like a hot ember will fall on Trump. The trouble with fires and those who play with them is that they are by definition destructive and uncontrolled. As such they are even more likely to crawl up the sleeve of the one who has instigated and played with the fire and then leave a foul smelling, smoking morass where a courthouse once stood.
This isn’t a surprise. Literally everything about DJT, all of it, is a dumpster fire. He doesn’t even try to hide it.
Love ‘Turley’ trying to appeal to his base readership through their Nascar sensibilities. That talking point got traction in a fox writers room for sure…
Directed verdict? Dream on. Not happening. And we all *ABSOLUTELY NEED* to hear the testimony of a trump lawyer in this case. Buckle up. Imminent trump conviction on all counts.
Odd that you should sneer at Trump’s supporters as Nascar fans relative to a case whose motivation is to convict Trump in the court of tabloid opinion. Has Manhattan become the capital of lowbrow?
Your “star witness” is a convicted perjurer and your other witness is a porn star.
And one worked for Trump for quite a while. He bedded the other, along with a playboy playmate. Can’t make it up.
Neither of which involved any crimes (if he did indeed sleep with Stormy, which is doubtful).
So your case is….what, exactly?
The Trumptards are merely repeating what Sean Hannity said. They have no idea what’s actually going on with the case.
What do you believe is “going on” with this case?
Evidence destruction?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/alvin-braggs-office-deleted-phone-call-records-michael-cohen-and-stormy-daniels-lawyer
You know the law fair is lost when it all boils down to “who paid the hooker“?
The really neat thing here is the fact that Cohen was Trumps’ go to guy. His most trusted attorney and fixer. Think that one through Jon. The most important detail here is that this is yet another absolute direct look into the entire grift which is Donald J.Trump. If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable. My party, the GOP, used to legitimately claim to have the moral high ground over guys like Bill Clinton. Somewhere Ronald Reagan is weeping.
You know the law fair is desperate when it all boils down to “who paid the hooker“?
“Most trusted”…? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
Not according to Trump.
Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln’s communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) Democratic National Committee running Joke Buydone’s reelection campaign from the courts of the American system of “JUSTICE.”
________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
That’s got to be the dumbest post I’ve seen today. The day isn’t over, though. I’ll circle back to confirm if something even dumber isn’t posted.