Columns, Criminal law

The Appearance of Michael Cohen: A Wreck in Search of a Race

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.

309 thoughts on “The Appearance of Michael Cohen: A Wreck in Search of a Race”

  1. Just when the limit of stupidity has been set, trump supporters achieve a new limit. Reality is gonna hit trump supporters hard, then again, they don’t believe in reality.

    2. Is there any meaning at all to your comment ?

      We all know that you have a bad case of TDS,

      But your post is nothing but insult. You do not even provide the slightest basis for hatting the people you so clearly loath.

    1. @Anonymi:

      So salient. By all means keep spreading your toxic nonsense. Nobody cares. I hope your impotent rage keeps you warm at night. It usually makes people suffer and eventually die. This is not a therapy site that cares about your feelings. Find a better and more realistic way to cope. Your own mind is killing you.

      1. Floyd Estovir, you post variations of this comment 20 times per week under different names.

    2. The O.B.I.T security monitoring system has been activated.

      O.B.I.T uses outer band individuated teletracers. Dr. Lomax will explain the operation.

      1. Who are you? An excellent question that is best answered when you die.

  4. It appears that Bragg is not going to call Weiselberg. That means the only witness linking Trump to the payments and their characterisation and the reason for the characterisation will be Cohen.

    1. Of course not. Weiselberg will refuse to testify, He will take the fifth and not say a thing. He will not even testify to the day of the week.
      He has absolutely no reason to cooperate with Bragg and I would be surpised if he does not loath Merchan as Merchan has repeatedly threatened to jail him for the rest of his life for ludicrously stupid claims of perjury.

      Weiselberg with not give his name if he can avoid it – Merchan will try to fit him up for perjury for that.

      Weiselberg will take the 5th immediately if ANYONE asks him to testify – and justifiably so.

      The Judges in NY – and particular Merchan are looking to kill him.

  5. Turley,
    I think your comments this morning about Cohen were spot on… (Fox news)

    The judge is playing along and this case should be tossed.

    1. Truly keeps coming up with statements that show he is way off base in so many things he posts. Every time he post something you begin to wonder if he’s already picked a particular side. I will no longer read what he prints. They have plenty of evidence even before Michael Cohen testifies so what the hell is he talking about that the evidence isn’t there? Does he even read what he writes?

      1. Lol Pick a particular side. Do you even read what you write. Every one of the hate Trump lawyers has long ago picked a side and there is probably TEN times as many of them

    1. @Dabvid

      Seriously? The NYT? 🙄 In 2024?

      Here we are, with one of the people I described in my comment below. Thank God we have state’s rights, otherwise we’d all be mushroom-headed fools like you, David, or at the least subjugated by them.

      Find your humanity. If it’s something you lost, reclaim it, if it’s something you never knew, learn about it (my suspicion is the latter; you smack of a trust fund). Pfft. You contribute nothing to these conversations, never have, not once, if a salient comment came out of your keyboard it would be because you copied and pasted it; and that is because you are someone that needs to be told what to think. Please step aside and let the grownups talk. The kid’s table has lots of treats and snacks to keep you occupied. You and the other trolls are like a sewage leak: it is something we can’t really do anything about, personally, it stinks to high heaven, and we all wish we could just stop it.

      Civil and intelligent people come here to discuss things. You are not one of those. And if you are paid, your empolyers are barking up the wrong tree.

      1. I have the courtesy to even correct your name: ‘David’. Though I highly doubt that is what is on your birth certificate.

        1. James, I assure you that my legal name is indeed David. 🙂

          1. @’David’

            Then bravo. It does not make you less of a tool. You were given a brain and the capacity for critical thought and even compassion: try to use them, because none of us care about your regurgitated, reposted boosheet. We endure it because we must. And that is right and proper, but seriously, grow up and find your spine because you are a parroting coward, and you and your ilk are going to be left on the sidelines. If I could come to your house and give you the spankings your nannies couldn’t, I would. Then I would throw you into Cambodia without a phone or a credit card and see how you fared.

            1. James, I recommend that you read the Civility Code found at the top of the page. I think you are currently in violation and unworthy of recognition or especially, enagement.

    2. David Benson

      Andrew Wieseman? Seriously? Wieseman? The man that prosecuted the Russia hoax for almost 2 years and got NOTHING. Because all that while, Wieseman never saw a single piece of evidence to advance the investigation.
      Wiesman is a Democrat operative. Every thing out of his mouth is intended to advance the Democrat Narrative.
      The article is pay walled.
      Benson, why don’t you pick out just legal argument that Turley has got wrong, according to the article you linked.

      1. iowan2: explain to me, please, after a REPUBLICAN Senate Intelligence Committee investigated and found that Russian hackers did help the Trump campaign in 2016, that you continue to claim there was a “Russia hoax”? Also, why do you claim that the Mueller investigation “got nothing”, when there were dozens of prosecutions? Also, explain WHY Trump refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, if he didn’t do anything wrong?

        1. Gigi, please explain we we should beleive often the same people in government who told us that masks would stop Covid, that lockdowns would work, that social distancing would work, that vaccines would work, that Covid came from a wett market in Wuhan, not a lab.

          We can fight over details like Ivarmectin or HCQ – but the OBVIOUS fact is that nothing worked.
          In fact that countries that did next to nothing did as well or better than those who imposed draconian measures.

          I am using covid as an example – because the failure their is glaring and fresh in everyone’s minds.

          But on policy after policy – Government has failed.

          It took 4 separate enquiries into Benghazi to aquire the actual true.
          That Hillary KNEW from the start that this was an Al Queda terrorist operation, and that she not only lied about it but orchestrated the adminstrations campaign of lies to recover from a political disaster that threateded to cost Obama re-election.

          And how did we discover all of this ? Because the evidence was in Clinton’s emails that she stored on her secret bathroom basement mail server, and we did not learn about that until years after the fact.

          The FACT is nearly all the Senate report is highly favorable to Trump.
          That parts of it – favorable or not are garbage based on bad information.
          That even today we are STILL learning new things that continue to undermine the original naratives.

          It took a long long long time for sufficient information to become public for people to fully grasp that this was all a gigantic HOAX.

          There were people who knew from the start – People who lied over and over and over.

          Including lying to the Senate.

        2. Trump actually fully cooperated with the Mueller investigation.
          There is a difference between giving Mueller everything he asked for and treating him as a warm and fuzzy friend.

          The advice Trump’s lawyers gave was that fully cooperating was the fastest way to make this go away.
          Mueller was constantly subpeonaing or just confiscating illegally records he had no business obtaining that had nothing to do with his investigation.
          Trump ranted and raved about this and publicly and privately called Mueller all kinds of names – and deservedly so.

          But Trump fought against very little of Muellers inquiry.

          Muellers claim of “obstruction” rests on the idiocy that you can not call law enforcement mean things when they investigate you.

          We have versions of this same stupidity going on with the unconstitutional gag orders against Trump.

          Regardless, the FACT is Trump almost never asserted executive priviledge, legal priviledge or sought to quash a subpeona.
          Trump only very rarely litigated against the Mueller investigation.

          Trump’s goal and that of his legal advisors was to get this finished as quickly as possible – because there was no “there, there”.

          It is Mueller that drug his feet, and kept expanding into more and more stupid areas.

          1. Trump barely cooperated with Mueller. He took an obstructive stance rather than a cooperative one. Trump never follows his lawyers advice. That’s why he chose fight instead of cooperate.

            “Muellers claim of “obstruction” rests on the idiocy that you can not call law enforcement mean things when they investigate you.”

            It wasn’t about Trump saying “mean things”. It was about Trump actively obstructing through the AG. Barr was slow walking and stifling the investigation on behalf of Trump. Such dishonesty and re-writing of history is grossly misleading.

            Mueller’s subpoenas were legal and relevant. Trump’s various attempts at delay and obstruction were mean to stifle a legitimate investigation. AG Barr played defensive tackle for Trump.

        3. Currently Republicans and Democrats are falling all over-themselves to pass a bill that essentially conflates anti-Zionism with genocidal hate speech.

          You think most of use here think republicans can do no wrong ?

          I am surprised Turley has not spoken out against this bill. It is popular with both parties, and it is WRONG,
          it is an anti-free speech bill.

          It is absolutely true that nearly all antizionists are antisemites.
          It is not true that they are the same thing.

          Regardless, I will defend the right of stupid and hateful people to say racist, sexist, anti-semetic things.
          That is what the first amendment requires.
          But it is more than just about a paragraph written by people now long dead.
          It is what well functioning and proseperous society requires.

        4. Gigi, the Mueller/Wieseman investigation has been buried. Nothing there. If there were prosecutions, the never had anything to do with the hoax investigation.

          The core of my comment, asked for just one point of law that Wieseman challenged
          Turley,s analysis. You’re the legal expert. Jump in and cite just one thing

          1. Prosecutions resulting from the Mueller Investigation (excerpted from Time Magazine)

            Russian troll farm: Charged with distributing Russian propaganda

            Russian spies: Charged with stealing Democratic emails

            Mueller’s second big set of charges was of 12 Russian military intelligence officers. The similarly detailed 29-page indictment explains how the hackers allegedly used phishing attacks to steal files from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton presidential campaign, then worked with WikiLeaks to distribute the information to damage Clinton’s candidacy in an effort to help Trump win. It also explains how cryptocurrency was allegedly used to pay for the effort, as well as other attempts to penetrate state elections websites. These charges are also unlikely to ever lead to a trial in the United States.

            Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes

            Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice

            Trump confidant Roger Stone: Convicted of lying to Congress

            On Nov. 15, longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone was found guilty of all seven counts he faced, including lying to Congress, tampering with a witness and obstructing a congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
            Mueller charged Stone with lying to the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 about his contacts with WikiLeaks and tampering with a key witness who could discredit his version of events.

            The Cooperators

            Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

            Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators

            Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress

            Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos: Served 12 days in prison for lying to investigators

            The Minor Figures

            Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison for lying to investigators

            Richard Pinedo: Sentenced to six months in prison for identity theft

            Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist

            Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws

            Mueller’s team also referred two high-powered Washington insiders to federal prosecutors in New York for investigations into violations of foreign lobbying laws: former Obama Administration White House Counsel Gregory Craig, former Republican Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, and Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager.

            Sounds like a a whole lotta something, and certainly no hoax.

            1. Gigi All the Russian indictments, are meaningless. Wiesemann knew they would never have be subjected to trial discovery.
              They were wrong.One did answer the charge in person. Wiesemann instantly asked for a continuance. The Judge had to remind Wiesemann that 1L students are smart enough to know an indictment means the Govt is ready for Trial. The govt dropped the charges.
              All the Russian indictments were phony. Used to feed ignorant leftists like you phony hope.

            2. Russian spies: Charged with stealing Democratic emails

              Again, all the Russian indictments were phony. They were never going to be subjected to discovery.

              But the e mails hack, was never a hack.

              CEO of Crowd Strike testified under oath to Congress that he had no evidence the emails were hacked.
              Another phony narrative to fool the leftists .

      2. iowan2, the link I gave is supposed to give you access, I was informed. Kindly try again to see if you can access the NYT opinon piece.

        1. @David

          If you aren’t 14, then . . . no, you are either 14 or the equivalent. No grown adult that has lived a life full of responsibilities could ever hope to have such a sophomoric view of life. And that you have nothing better to do, all day, every day – sheesh.

        2. Ive chased links. They rarely contain what you claim.
          Just give an examples

        3. David,
          I did get int the Wieseman puffery.
          That’s why I don’t chase your links. The never support your claim.
          All he claims I’d the coverup has been proven. That’s it. But that’s not a crime.

          I asked for one legal disagreement with Turley. You refused. Because the law is never mentioned

          1. iowan2, I didn’t *claim* anything other than Weissmann (whose name you misspelled) offered an analysis of the Cohen testimony. He states the case is clear, not murky as Jonathan Turley states.
            Be brave enough to follow the link and read it yourself.

            1. offered an analysis of the Cohen testimony.
              What a lie. His puff piece was published before Cohen’s “testimony” delivered today.

              Wiessmann only repeated the Leftist narrative. NEVER mentions the charges. Never mentions the evidence provided get no where close to the indictment.

              1. iowan2, I am content to infer that indeed you could read what Weissmann wrote for yourself.

      3. Andrew Weissmann should be disbarred!! During his prosecution (persecution) for former Senator Ted Stevens, he knowingly withheld critical information that would have exonerated the Sen. Instead, the sleaze bag got his conviction forcing the Senator to resign. Another court (appellate?) recognized the sham, and overturned the Senators conviction. Every prosecutorial process associated with Weissmann is agenda-driven toward one-direction, LEFT!! He will Lie, Cheat, Steal, to convict the innocent if it pleases his party bosses.

        1. This is generally true of the mid level aparatich’s in our government.

          Though I would note that the left bias is not all that extreme.

          These people are on the left – primarily because the honestly believe the government is the answer to all problems.
          When most often Government is the problem.

          In the US the tendency to see government as the answer to any problem is a common trait of the left, not the right.

          But many of these people have served left and right. In many instances they were celebrated by the right when politics aligned.

          Many of these people are globalists and neocons and the Republican party has long been deeply infected by both.

          The 21st century has seen several policy shifts in the Republican party that are of great consequence.

          First the religious right – social conservatives lost their stranglehold on the party.
          Next the GOP has swung away from Big Business, and the wealthy and towards the working class.
          Next the GOP has swung away from globalist, and neoconservative policies.

          This has been a political realignment on a scale that is very rare.

          It is also why the “deep state” is increasingly at odds with Republicans – even deep staters that in the past held important roles in republican administrations, are now strongly aligned with the left.

          While I do not think these people like Weismann are on the far political left.
          They are and always have been on the side of broad exercise of government power – and THEIR wielding it.

          You can predict their views on most anything by asking – what gives government – and particularly THEM more power.

    4. Ah, Andrew Weissman. The guy who bamboozled a court into cobbling together sections of two different laws to manufacture a crime, who gave sweetheart deals to real Enron malefactors in order to bring down . . . their accountants. Which destroyed a reputable firm, many thousands of people’s livelihoods, before the Supreme Court in unanimity reversed the conviction.

      Who then went on to more mischief on the taxpayer dime. I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the time of day.

    5. Wow you are really using this ultra corrupt Democrat criminal former FBI man as your good source. What’s next ? Use Mr Cohen himself? Pathetic my friend.

    6. Andrew Weissman was reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court in the Enron Case.

      So much for your “better understanding.”

    7. “Here you are . . .”

      The hired gun, Weissmann? Seriously?!

      That work of fiction is notable for its absence. He continuously uses the words “crime” and “conspiracy.” Yet nowhere does he name, yet alone explain, those alleged crimes and conspiracies.

      The whole manipulative piece drips with: Don’t you know who I am?

  7. This is such a clown show that words fail, but I’ll try anyway. Absurd. Vindictive. Petty. Unbecoming. Pathetic. Sad. Puerile. Unconstitutional. And ultimately, boring.

    I have always thought that folks on the East coast (and the wealthy, white savior left in general) were only intelligent and ‘enlightened’ within the tiny confines of bubbles and they call home and the tiny echo chambers that mirror their narcissism back to them they flit around. I have always thought they were the actual bucktoothed Cletuses of America (it’s just that they can afford good dentists), and this farce removes any doubt for me.

    Money, especially generational money, does not = intelligence, heart, merit, or worth. The people living in the highest towers are the actual hillbillies. They are making Trump into a martyr, more and more with every passing week, and they are revealing that they would have a tough time fighting their way out of a wet paper sack were it not for their financial advantages and connections. Pathetic. People of this mentality have wrought all of their own ills, and we are at a point where they had better think twice about fleeing their bad decisions and trying to colonize the cities and states where people have been smarter than them, because it isn’t going to fly anymore.

    Absurd. Vindictive. Petty. Unbecoming. Pathetic. Sad. Puerile. Unconstitutional.

    1. You said, ” I have always thought that folks on the East coast (and the wealthy, white savior left in general) were only intelligent and ‘enlightened’ within the tiny confines of bubbles and they call home and the tiny echo chambers that mirror their narcissism back to them they flit around. I have always thought they were the actual bucktoothed Cletuses of America (it’s just that they can afford good dentists), and this farce removes any doubt for me.

      Money, especially generational money, does not = intelligence, heart, merit, or worth. The people living in the highest towers are the actual hillbillies. ”

      Yes, you hit the nail on the head. It is the elite white Democrats who are the true “bitter clingers” – holding on for dear life to the ideas that racism is the biggest problem facing blacks today, that punishing crime is a bad thing, that deviant sexuality os a good thing, – and that us hoi polloi that should reduce our carbon footprint, all while they maintain 2nd homes, extra-large first homes fly hither and yon, and send their brats off to Europe to tromp around having sex and doing drugs.

      Not to mention the evil, stupid castration of young boys and the cutting off the breasts of young girls, all based on zero science. And the lawfare stuff. And the shutting off of political speech that they disagree with.

    2. You are so right. This performance by these so called superior people is so head scratching. All they had to do was nothing. Trump loses. Their obsession and hatred for one man has so overtaken their minds that they are giving the election to Trump. No idea why they would think any of this bold faced election interference would work. It’s like they purposely trying to lose

  8. NASCAR is an acronym…National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing

  10. JT states, “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.”

    I have another analogy, a neck tie party. Public hangings had a carnival like atmosphere where you could bring the whole family. Beer & pretzels were often sold there.

    Actor Steve McQueen plays Tom Horn, a gun for hire, who was found guilty & hung.

    To spare the hangman of any culpability in the killing, and to avoid paying an executioner, local architect James Julian was commissioned to design a new gallows. The device featured a trap door, which was connected to a bucket of water. The weight of the water would, conceivably, create enough pressure to break the trap door, plunging the condemned to their death.

  11. This is the state of the left: a porn star and a known liar to try to bring down Mr. Trump. The prosecution has been “coaching” Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Bragg could not have scrapped the bottom of the barrel any further.

    1. Bragg is not directly prosecuting this case. If you read Weissman’s piece, linked above, then you’d know that the most devastating witnesses against Trump were Hope Hicks, David Pecker and the various recordkeepers, and that Trump’s lawyers didn’t go after them much. Weissman even says that Cohen’s testimony is not entirely necessary because of the strong paper and evidentiary trail that has already been laid. You speak of a “known liar”–Trump is the most-notorious lying politician in US History, and that’s saying a lot. No one is trying to “bring down” Trump–the things he’s charged with are due to his own conduct and choices.

  12. This is brought to the public by a longstanding campaign to get the former President by any means necessary. These are the same whacked weirdos who live in a warped, alternative reality. They hate this nation, all that it stands for and are at the ready to bend any and every rule, to achieve their objectives. They are dripping with seething hatred.

    For example (one of many), the “protesters” are showing their true colors as they have more in common with the Nazis. They hate Jews, they hate free speech and strive to shut down any opposing viewpoint.

    We are entering new territory in this fragile experiment we call democracy. If not put in check, things will digress into the dangerous. Hopefully, fair minded people will snap out if it and finally say, “No! No more of this Bull excrement! Enough already! Basta!!”

    1. E.M: I have yet to see any anti-Semitic banners, signs or chants. What the protesters are complaining about is the genocide in Gaza–killing and starving of innocent civilians when no one is retaliating against Israel. What Israel is doing is purely vindictive againt the Palestinian people in general–not Hamas–, and will lead to more terrorist groups forming. Not only that, but Israel refuses to allow the Palestinian people to govern themselves and moved 700 thousand Israelis into the West Bank, which is Palestinian territory. Israel has announced it plans to “annex” more Palestinian territory, and won’t even allow outside aid groups to bring in food. Calling such protests anti-semitic or hating of Jews is simply wrong. But MAGA world sees an opportunity to garner support by distorting the situation. That’s wrong, too.

  13. Once again JT obfuscates facts. This is really a simple case. Did trump falsify business records in the payment to Stormy Danials? Cohen has already been convicted of this crime as he was the conduit by which the money went from trump to Stormy. So the next question is, did Cohen do this without the blessing and approval of trump?

    If you think Cohen would spend $130,000 of his money as a gift to trump to make this story go away, wow, get off the koolaid, trump is not a god and you really need to look at yourself as a trump cult member.

    1. You’re arguing for a misdemeanor whose statue of limitations has passed.

      Maybe you need to lay off the koolaid?

    2. Your TDS appears terminal. May your hate and loathing consume you as an aggressive cancer. You are the cult member of the liberal mental society of misfits.

    3. Everything you said is either legal, or illegal as a misdemeanor but well past the statute of limitations. Turley correctly argues that in order to bring them back to life and make them felonies, you need to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Trump did so with the intent of concealing a crime.

      Turley also correctly argues that such a crime has not been mentioned or even alluded to except some vague indirect ramblings from Bragg; almost as if he is throwing things at the wall to see if they’ll stick.

      Due process requires that the defendant be made aware of the scope and facts that the prosecution is charging him with. They can’t just cast a wide net and attempt to incriminate him.

    4. If you think Cohen would spend $130,000 of his money as a gift to trump to make this story go away, wow, get off the koolaid,

      All the evidence to this point, proves Trump did not ask nor approve of Cohens actions. Actions, again, according to testimony in this Trial, show is not a crime.
      I’m ignoring your stupid conclusions, you pretend are facts.

      1. @iowan2.

        “All the evidence to this point, proves Trump did not ask nor approve of Cohens actions. Actions, again, according to testimony in this Trial, show is not a crime.”

        Cohen testified that he was acting on the direction and request of Trump. Cohen played a phone conversation confirming it in court. Trump did approve of it and asked for it.

        1. George: thanks. Trump also admitted the payoff in that California case involving Stormy Daniels. From NPR, dateline 5/2/2018:

          “President Trump admitted Thursday to reimbursing his lawyer for a $130,000 payment made on the eve of the 2016 election to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of a settlement about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump.

          Trump, however, denied any sexual encounter and claims the payment was in no way connected with the campaign — despite the timing.”

        2. My comment was before Cohen’s testimony.

          We are back to the law. NDA’s are 100% legal. A lawyer recording a clients phone calls are not.

    5. It’s not clear by any means that a payment to one’s lawyer cannot be called “legal expenses.”

    6. Cohen has already been convicted of this crime as he was the conduit by which the money went from trump to Stormy

      Your posts keep contradicting themselves.

      It is a legal impossibility for Cohen to be convicted of accounting fraud concerning Trumps records.

  15. Why would Trump pay someone $130,000 to go away so that her allegations would not hurt his election chances AFTER he had already won the election? It makes more sense that he was concerned about the effect it would have on his wife and family.

    1. Turley barely touches on the fact that while Bragg has not come close to proving the only reason for these payments was to influence the election – even if he did – that is not enough.

      One of the problems with this case from the start has been that if Bragg could prove everything he claimed he could prove, he STILL does not have a crime.

      Influencing elections is PRECISELY what campaigns do. That is the entire purpose of a campaign and it is a legal purpose.

      Brag has to prove that Trump ILLEGALLY tried to influence the election.

      NDA’s are legal.
      Paying for NDA’s is legal.
      Doing so to influence an election is legal.

      There is no crime within 1000 miles of this case.

      There has not from the start.
      Trump was charged with 34 counts of something that is arguably not illegal, and even if it were would be a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations expired long ago, UNLESS it was done to cover up a crime.

      But there is no indictment for any other crime. There are not charges for any other crime,
      and Merchan committed multiple counts of reversable error allowing Bragg to attempt to prove crimes that were not charged.

      And now nearing the end of Braggs case – not only was Bragg permitted to present witnesses for uncharged and unindicted crimes,
      But those crimes exist only in the heads of left wing nuts who see one clear crime – Winning in 2016.
      A crime that is not in any statues anywhere.

      1. It can’t be stressed strongly enough that paying a porn star for her “silence”
        has never been a legitimate campaign expense. If Trump had paid Daniels
        out of donor campaign funds he would have been prosecuted by the feds
        for campaign finance fraud and would have actually been guilty of a crime.

        Since paying porn stars off is NOT a legitimate campaign expense, Trump was
        free to use his own funds and had ZERO legal obligation to report the payment
        to the FEC. There is simply no crime here.

        The judge, on this alone, should toss the case before it ever gets to the jury.
        Since no felony was concealed the statute of limitations effectively nullifies
        the rest of the case.

        Both Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan should be removed from office and disbarred.

        1. Good point. What I am also struggling with is the timing. The alleged act to influence the election was the NDA. That was before Trump’s election but was not a crime. The allegedly false entry of this as legal expenses in furtherance of the alleged illegal act, the NDA, was done AFTER Trump had already been elected. So how can it legally be said to have been done to influence the election? There is no legal connection. Of course the only testimony about the decision to characterize the payment as a legal expense came from the bookkeeper and her boss – basically saying we had limited categories in the software program and he made the decision to use this category. There has been no testimony about Trump knowing about this categorization or directing it. But putting this aside, there is still the issue of the timing – how can the entry have been made in furtherance of an alleged illegal act to influence an election that had already taken place? I just don’t get it.

          1. Nobody is alleging that the record in Trump’s accounts was intended to influence the election. How could it, even if it were made before the election? How could the public possibly have known about it?

            The allegation seems to be that Trump instructed Cohen, before the election, to make the payments in order to influence the election, and didn’t report it as a campaign expense. That seems to be the “other crime”, though Bragg has not been clear about it. Then, a year later, when Cohen’s invoice was paid and it went in the books as a legal expense, that was “falsifying a business record” to conceal the “other crime” that happened a year earlier.

            But since the “other crime” is an element in this one, surely Bragg has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Which would mean he has first to actually say what it is!

        2. It can’t be stressed strongly enough that paying a porn star for her “silence” has never been a legitimate campaign expense.

          Since when? If the purpose was in fact to keep her from harming his election, then it was a legitimate campaign expense, and should have been reported as such. If.

          If Trump had paid Daniels out of donor campaign funds he would have been prosecuted by the feds
          for campaign finance fraud

          Only if they were to claim the real purpose was not to keep her from harming his election.

      2. @john say,

        “Trump was charged with 34 counts of something that is arguably not illegal, and even if it were would be a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations expired long ago, UNLESS it was done to cover up a crime.”

        He was charged with falsifying business records. It’s illegal in NY. The statute of limitations is irrelevant. The charges were filed before the statutes of limitations expired. Trump’s numerous delays only makes it look like the SOL expired.

        Bragg is still using this case to prove Trump violated 17-152. He’s already got Cohen saying on the stand Trump directed the him to produce the false records to hide the payments to Daniels because Cohen already stated it would have been highly damaging to the campaign.

        17-152 is not about campaign influence. It’s about a conspiracy to promote election to public office. Hiding the story by falsifying business records to promote election to office is the crime.

        And yes, there ARE charges for crimes. 34 to be exact.

        1. George: thanks. Apparently MAGA media haven’t focused on Hope Hicks’s testimony in which she swore that the Access Hollywood tape seriously hurt Trump’s image. Another woman coming forward with a story about a sexual tryst right after Melania had just given birth to Barron might have doomed his campaign entirely. Hicks’s testimony put the entire payoff scenario in context with the election, and was critical.

        2. 17-152 is not about campaign influence. It’s about a conspiracy to promote election to public office.

          No, it isn’t. That isn’t and can’t be a crime. NY can’t make it a crime. 17-152 is about a conspiracy to do so by unlawful means. So Bragg has to allege that there was something unlawful about the payments to Daniels. And what is that? Even failure to report it as a campaign expense wouldn’t be enough, because that failure wasn’t for the purpose of influencing the election. The payments were (allegedly), but that’s not unlawful, and therefore doesn’t violate 17-152.

    2. Agreed – He has always been Family First, like any responsible Father.
      And he also realized that because of the inevitable Democrats: This Day Would Come.

      -TRA

      1. “Family First”–really? WHICH family? The one with Ivana, in which he attacked her physically and sexually when she didn’t show enough sympathy for the pain following his scalp-reduction surgery to hide his baldness and during which he conceived Tiffany with Marla Maples? Or, the second marriage with Maples, in which he also cheated on her? Or, the current “family” in which he tells a casual sexual acquaintance that he and his wife don’t share a bedroom, and he cheats on her like a dog, including with a porn actress, didn’t use a condom and therefore risked pregnancy and/or an STD, and in which his current wife had to stop him from using her son as a campaign prop? Then, there’s the bragging about kissing women he finds “beautiful” and grabbing them by their genitalia. If there’s anything people with any sense can plainly see, it’s that Trump is anything but a “responsible Father” or “Family First” husband. He is a selfish self-absorbed narcissist.

    3. Huh?! The payment wasn’t after the election, it was before the election. The reimbursement, and the recording it as legal expenses, was after the election.

      And no one is claiming Cohen paid the money as a gift to Trump. Obviously he expected to be reimbursed. The question is whether Trump was involved in this decision. The evidence seems to show that Trump did not involve himself in that sort of thing and trusted Cohen to take care of whatever needed taking care of, and to bill him for it. In which case there is not even the beginning of a crime.

      Cohen certainly had no involvement in or knowledge of how Trump recorded the reimbursements in his own personal accounts. Nor is it clear to me why it’s anyone’s business how he recorded them, or why “falsifying” his own personal accounts should be a crime in the first place.

  16. What’s awesome about this case is watching Trump hang himself. This is a case about financial fraud not about sex. But Trump wants his attorneys to run the case as if it’s about whether he had sex with Stormy Daniels. That’s what Trump is concerned about, being outed as a liar. LOL. As if that would be shocking. Trump lies so much, he lies when he doesn’t even have to. To wit, this case. If Trump’s attorneys started this case with, “Yeah, our client had sex with Stormy Daniels… so what?” then they could easily argue that the payment to her was to shut her up to hide it from his wife. Not political at all. Trump walks out of court totally exonerated. But no. He lied about not having sex with Stormy Daniels and he’s sticking to it. Trouble is, he now can’t argue the reason he paid her was to hide it from his wife since he never did it. So why did he pay someone $130,000 to stay quiet about something that never happened? To win an election. The jury is going to convict him.

    1. 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).

    2. ATS – your own post proves what is wrong with the prosecution of this case.

      Bragg is the prosecutior – not Trump.

      Merchan erred when he said that Trump made this case about Sex.
      Trump does not control the case.

      Trump can say in his opening this case is about little green aliens – that does not mean that Bragg can proceed to prove anything that is not relevant to the indictment and charges.

      The sex aspect of this is important to Trump, it is important to Daniels, it is important to Bragg.
      It is important to left wing nuts such as yourself.

      But it is not even relevant to the case.

      Contra Merchan and you – Trump does not control the case Bragg does.

      And we have had 13 days that have had nothing to do with the charges.

      The very little testimoney we have had on the charges establishes there was no fraud.

      First Trump’s boookeeper testified that the designation of the payments as legal expenses was his and his alone.
      Several witnesses have testified that payments for NDA’s ARE legal expenses.

      So there is no falsehood – not by Trump not by anyone.

      And that is the end of the entire case.

      But it gets WORSE.

      Fraud is far more than a false statement.
      Fraud requires that statement is to a third party.
      There is no third party here.
      There is no tax implications to these payments.
      They were properly reported on taxes – we have had that testimoney.
      There are no tax evasion charges – so Bragg can not even argue tax evasion.
      Regardless, the records here – the checks the ledgers are all private internal records.
      They are Trump writing to himself.
      They are a journal – Litterally.

      There are no legal implications at all to “lying to yourself”.

      Fraud requires deceiving others. No one outside a handful of people in the Trump organization saw these truthful records that Bragg claims are false.

      But Fraud requires still more.

      Fraud requires an intentionally false statement. Again the accountant testified Trump did not chose the legal expense designation.

      But we are not done yet.
      Fraud requires a duty to provide truthful information.
      Again these are internal records – like a dairy or journal.
      They are used for many purposes – such as determining taxes.
      But they are NOT part of a tax return – there is no duty to tell the truth to yourself.

      Finally Fraud requires actual harm.
      There is no harm here at all.

      The government was not deprived of taxes, by records that are accurate, that there never was an obligation to government.

      There is OBVIOUSLY no right of anyone, much less the public to know about an NDA – otherwise all NDA’s are illegal.

    3. “Trouble is, he now can’t argue the reason he paid her was to hide it from his wife since he never did it.”
      Of course he can. That is an incredibly stupid claim.

      Do you really think Melania would be happy about a False story of Trump having sex with a porn star ?
      Would your wife ?

      ” So why did he pay someone $130,000 to stay quiet about something that never happened?”
      Why did Trump pay 30,000 to a doorman to kill a false story about an alleged love child with a hispanic maid ?

      The Fact that Trump only paid Daniels 130K is pretty strong evidence the story is false.

      If the story was true – Daniels would have been able to sell it for 10 times as much.
      Hillary paid 1.6M for the steele dossier. I am sure she would have shelled out atleast a million for Daniels story if it were true.

      Have you ever read the national enquirer ? They run stupid and unbeleiveable stories all the time.

      All stories about politicians the wealthy, and celebrities have value – Pecker testified to that – but you have to be a moron who thinks everything in the National Enquirer (or New York Times) is true not to understand that even false stories have value – just less value than true ones.

      Do you honestly beleive that every catch and kill of the National equirer was true ?
      Do you really think All the stories about all the people that Turley listed that Pecker testified about were true ?

      Some were, some were not. The fact that a story was paid for says very little about whether it is true.

      While the truth of this story does not matter at all to this case. Bragg and Daniels failed to prove her story is true.
      The money is not enough for a story this significant and true at this moment in time.

      It is YOUR and Bragg’s argument that the 2016 election hinged on this story. That had it gone public Hillary would have won.

      That clearly makes a true story about sex between Daniels and Trump worth far more than 130K.

    6. But no. He lied about not having sex with Stormy Daniels and he’s sticking to it.
      Trump is not indicted for lying.
      You also have to lie about the Doorman that made up a story, and signed a NDA.
      15 witnesses and 150 articles of evidence, and you insist on believing the lies msnbc tell you.

      1. Extortion has not ever been mentioned as a charge in this trial. Stick to the facts.

        1. No, extortion isn’t a charge, it’s a defense. Though of course the defense won’t actually use that word; but that’s what it amounts to. Daniels extorted money from Cohen (as Trump’s agent).

    8. But Trump wants his attorneys to run the case as if it’s about whether he had sex with Stormy Daniels

      The Defense is doing just that. Defending against the witnesses and evidence presented by the prosecution.
      Trumps attorneys have no power, yet, to “run the case” Its like you never watched tv show, set around lawyers.

    9. Completely agree he is going to get convicted. This is third world banana republic Laverentia Beria justice with an utterly corrupt judge and and a jury pool filled with anti Trump deranged fanatics who are totally removed from reality!……like you!
      This trial is a giant feces Stain to our legal system and New York will suffer because of it for decades to come!!!

    10. Well, the jury probably will convict him, but not because they should.

      You’re saying he lied to “win the election”? Dang— EVERYONE does that. We’d have to put every single candidate who’s ever run for office in jail as well as anyone who has ever won an election.

  17. It’s getting to where I laugh out loud at Turley’s sentences that start with “many of us “ followed by blah, blah, blah, — whatever the Fox daily affirmation talking points are. Another thing good for a laugh is his feigned lack of understanding of the charges against Trump. Some of what Turley wrote is just plain not true—that the prosecutor’s case hinges solely on Cohen. This claim ignores the testimony of Pecker, Hicks, Weisselberg and the various Trump record keepers.

    Here’s something for you, Turley: many of us believe that with the testimony of Weisselberg, Hicks, Pecker and the others, the prosecutor has already made a prima facie case for falsifying business records by misrepresenting a payoff to Daniels as attorney fees for the purpose of influencing the election.

    Many of us also believe that Trump’s lawyers made some serious strategic errors in judgment, probably because Trump demanded that they do his bidding instead of using their own judgment— for, by way of example, trying to slut shame Daniels for being a sex worker and author of pornographic stories, by failing to object to evidence they elicited, by bringing up the “orange turd” memo, which Daniels handled gracefully and then moving for a mistrial based on their own strategic errors. Many of us also believe their motion for judgment on the evidence will fail.

    Cohen is not the lynchpin of the prosecutor’s case—they’ve already laid a strong foundation for his testimony which will help blunt the foreseeable attacks on Cohen.

      1. Have you seen the pieces of work who show up at Trump rallies? How many of Trump’s supporters are homeless? Are you homeless? Asking for a friend.

        1. I have.
          They are Americans of every class and race.
          Clearly you have no idea of which you witlessly comment on.
          Lawrence Taylor was at the last one endorsing DJT among over 100,000 others. Perhaps you missed it.
          Like everything else DJT.

        2. You mean the pieces of work who know what sex they are, wearing normal clothes, sporting normal haircuts and normal hair colors instead of pink, blue or purple hair. People who don’t hide behind a mask for fear of being busted for their rioting and looting know there are only 50 states and don’t talk to the dead thinking they are at one of the rallies? Those pieces of work?

        3. Do homeless people drive for hours to attend political rallies?

    2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!.
      Where is the crime, Perry Mason?
      There is none. Your TDS is has driven you stark raving stupid.
      Congrats!
      LOLOLLLL!

    4. HAHAHAHAH!
      There is no “Lynchpin of the case” because there IS NO CASE!
      It’s a kangaroo court of TDS knaves and fools and you cheerlead this embarrassing farce of “justice”
      Shame on you. You are an embarrassment to yourself. Creep away in humiliation if you have a shred of dignity left in your soul. But you won’t. You are a leftist,

    5. “the prosecutor has already made a prima facie case for falsifying business records by misrepresenting a payoff to Daniels as attorney fees for the purpose of influencing the election.”

      You are incorrect, but even if you were correct – there is no such crime.

      Thje Crime Trump has been charged with is creating fraudulent business records to coverup a crime.

      Trying to influence an election – YOUR WORDS is not a crime – it is the entire legitimate purpose of every political campaign that ever was.

      Further falsifying business records – something that Bragg has still failed to provide evidence of,
      is not the same as Fraud.

      False means incorrect.
      Fraud means intentionally deceiving someone you have a duty to provide the truth to, and causing them harm.
      Bragg has not proved the records are incorrect.
      He certainly not proved they were fraudulent.

  18. [OT]:
    Turley, why don’t you do a column or post here discussing “42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights ”
    And how it could be used against the Universities and their staff.

    We now return you back to the farce which is Michael Cohen.

  19. When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

  20. Almost 70 comments and all the leftist trolls have is child like playground taunts.

    Not a single one has used the law to explain what President is being charge with. An Accounting dispute. A CPA, informed by decades of Experience, Years of Collegiate Education, 100’s of hours of continuing educational training, determined an attorneys invoice for services, should be booked as legal expense. The govt is calling this accounting fraud. The Govt has not presented a witness that claims to be defrauded.

    But again, the leftists trolls plaster the site with comments. Not a single one defends the governments case against President Trump

    1. Sounds like no one, including you, has read the actual indictment.

    2. That is because there is no case against DJT with the slightest shred of legality.
      It’s ALL a 3rd world kangaroo court. The left knows this.
      All of this is a desperate leftist Hail Mary attempting to keep him from the 2024 ballot because he will win
      if he’s on the ballot by an unstealable landslide.
      The tratorous left doesn’t even bother to deny that obvious fact. They don’t care at all about the charade
      because they are indeed traitors, and the rule of law is irrelevant to traitors.

    3. The purpose of accounting codes is to group similar expenses into a small number of catagories so that business managers can track the performance of the business.

      When someone wishes to know the exact nature of an expense – you pull the VENDORS invoice for that expense.
      If a vendor wants to get paid it is their job to accurately describe what they expect to be paid for.

      From the businesses perspective the objective for catagorization is to be fine grained enough to spot problems, and broad enough not to wast executives time.

      This case is worse than fighting over whether a book is misfiled under the dewey decimal system and even less consequential.

      The Trump organization is NOT a public company – it is privately held. There are actually NO accounting requirements it is obligated to follow. There is IRS guidance on this that allows businesses to use any accounting standards or none at all – so long as they correctly report taxes owed and whatever system they use does not intentionally misrepresent taxes owed.

      Outside of taxes – where 99% of all expenses fall into one of three tax catagories – deductable, partly deductable and not deductable,
      the accounting records are entirely internal.

      Bragg might be able to argbue that Trump coded NDA’s a legal expenses to hide them from Melania.

      But not from the IRS – these payments were tax deductable and were properly 1099’d.

      1. The purpose of accounting codes is to group similar expenses into a small number of catagories so that business managers can track the performance of the business.

        Yea, all the experts her opining about accounting procedures they have no clue about.
        Monthly P/L’s are compared to last years and this years budget.
        If legal expense is triple for the month of April, the CPA will find out why and footnote the report to his bosses. The CPA does not care. Not his job. If the anomaly needs adjusted, the CPA will get direction from his bosses.

    4. Iowan2,
      Well said.
      I do enjoy watching John Say, Lin, JJC, Daniel, others and yourself with knowledge and experience in law and accounting smack down the trolls. They clearly are out of their depth when it comes to the law, as they just cut and paste the DNC and MSM talking points.
      Well done!

Comments are closed.