Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in the New York Post on the first day of cross examination for Michael Cohen. He still has one day of cross examination ahead of him on Thursday. With the government resting after Cohen’s cross examination, I believe that an honest judge would have no alternative but to grant a motion for a directed verdict and end the case before it goes to the jury. Judge Juan Merchan will now have to give the full measure of his commitment to the rule of law. Given the failure to support the elements of any crime or even to establish the falsity of recording payments as legal expenses, this trial seemed to stumble through the motions of a trial. Michael Cohen was only the final proof of a raw political exercise. For critics, some of Cohen’s answers appear clearly false or misleading. Like their star witness, the prosecutors have shown that they simply do not take the law very seriously when there is an advantage to be taken. Cohen has truly found a home with the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Here is the column:
On Tuesday, the prosecution surprised many by suddenly announcing that it would rest its case against former president Donald Trump with the completion of testimony by Michael Cohen.
It was surprising because the prosecution never clearly stated the crime that it was proving, the elements of that crime, or even why denoting payments related to Stormy Daniels were not properly recorded as legal expenses.
Indeed, the only thing the prosecutors proved was that, in the pantheon of dishonesty, there are liars, pathological liars . . . and Michael Cohen.
Cohen spent the last two days insisting that he used to be a liar but lied to help former President Donald Trump. If that is the thrust of his testimony, it is just the latest lie told by Cohen under oath.
Cohen has lied to Congress, courts, special counsels, the IRS, the banks, and virtually every creature that walks or crawls on the face of the Earth.
Notably, his past conviction for business and tax fraud were not taken in the interests of Trump but himself.
When he admitted on the stand that he lied during his prior plea agreement, that was not to assist Trump who he had already denounced. It was to advance his own interests.
There is every indication that Cohen is still lying.
Cohen repeatedly said that he could not remember even recent calls after recounting calls from eight years ago with crystal clarity. He said that he could not remember key exchanges and statements. However, these paled in comparison to other glaring moments.
Take, for example, his testimony on his unethical decision to secretly record a Sept. 6, 2016 telephone call with Trump.
It was a breathtaking betrayal that most lawyers would not contemplate, let alone carry out.
When asked by the prosecutors about that act, Cohen bizarrely claimed that he did so to guarantee that David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, would “remain loyal to Mr. Trump.”
No one seriously believes that this is true. It does not even make sense. Pecker was speaking to Trump about the payments and even met with him at the White House.
Playing for him a call with Trump would produce nothing but confusion rather than pressure for Pecker.
Moreover, why would Cohen tape the call without letting Trump know? The obvious motive was to squirrel away material to use against Trump if he ever needed a little leverage.
Again, it was for Cohen.
Cohen’s testimony showed that he has consistently acted in his sole interest.
After portraying his sudden cooperation with prosecutors as a type of Road to Damascus, jurors learned that all roads lead back to Cohen and his bank accounts.
After telling the jury that he has dedicated his life to righting the wrongs of Trump and holding him accountable, he admitted that he repeatedly acted to undermine the prosecution in order to make a buck.
Told by prosecutors to stop doing public interviews, Cohen did not care. He did roughly two dozen television appearances and recorded hundreds of podcast episodes.
He admitted that Trump is mentioned in virtually every episode, of which he did roughly four a week.
He recounted how he raked in millions on books, including one titled “Revenge.” He admitted that he is selling items like a $32 shirt with a photo of Trump in a jumpsuit behind bars and a coffee mug with the phrase “send him to the big house, not the White House.”
He is also peddling a reality show called “The Fixer,” in which he promises viewers, “I am your fixer.”
After just a few hours of cross examination, it was clear that Cohen is the same grifter saving himself — one Venmo at a time.
Yet, Cohen continued to reframe reality in his own self-constructed image.
When asked about his TikTok antics, he portrayed his postings as a type of sleep deprivation therapy, explaining that “having a difficult time sleeping and [he] found an out.”
No sane prosecutor would rely on Cohen, let alone make him the entirety of their case.
The prosecutors did not even bother to show that Trump was responsible for or knew about how the payments were recorded on ledgers and business records.
They also just shrugged away the need to show why denoting these payments as “legal expenses” was fraudulent — or what the correct description might be.
Those details might be demanded in any other courtroom, but this is New York and the defendant is Donald Trump.
For Bragg and his team, it is all about what they can get out of this case despite the law.
In that sense, they found a kindred spirit in their star witness, and Michael Cohen has finally found a place that values what he calls on his reality show promo his “particular set of skills.”
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
Biden and Cohen are synonymous with lying.
This exchange shows the professor didn’t pay attention to the testimony or he’s just ignoring it.
“Cohen said that soon after he started receiving monthly $35,000 checks from Trump after he sent an invoice for “legal services rendered.” Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked if he’d performed any legal services. “No, ma’am,” Cohen answered.
“Was this invoice a false record?” she asked. “Yes, ma’am,” he replied.”
That’s the crime.
If a lawyer arranges and negotiates an NDA and makes the payments for a client, that is arguably legal services. Even if it isn’t, is there any evidence that Trump instructed his people to make the false entry? And if there is some evidence that Trump was involved, is it beyond a reasonable doubt?
@Thomas,
The NDA is not the issue. In fact it’s irrelevant. The payments to Cohen categorized as “legal services” and “retainer fees” are false. Cohen admitted it directly while being questioned by the prosecution yesterday. There is evidence that Trump was directly involved. His signature on the checks. Cohen testified that Trump personally knew and approved of the scheme. Prosecutors entered into evidence documents, phone conversations, text messeges, all which were later corroborated by Daniels and Cohen and Trump’s employees who took the stand.
Cohen has a recording of a conversation with Trump where they discuss the scheme of hiding the payment to Daniels as payment for legal services rendered by Cohen. It is already in evidence and was played in court.
Trump knew exactly what was going on.
Lawyers negotiate the terms of an NDA all the time. The services rendered are the negotiation and preparation of documents. The services rendered DO NOT include the lawyer paying the settlement out of his own pocket, which is what Cohen did. They did this to hide the fact that Trump was actually the source of the payment. When Trump REIMBURSED Cohen, he paid out twice the amount that Cohen had already paid to Daniels to cover the cost that Cohen would owe income tax on the payment that had been falsely characterized as payment for legal services.
The “grossing up” of legal fees to cover the cost of the lawyer’s tax liability is simply not a thing.
Trump could have simply REIMBURSED Cohen dollar for dollar with no doubling of the payment, but that would leave a paper trail back to him. He was more than happy to pay twice what he could have to hide that paper trail.
There is no possible way that the payment of an NDA settlement by the lawyer on behalf of the client can ARGUABLY be payment for legal services.
If the invoice was a false record, that’s on Cohen, not Trump. It wasn’t Trump who created the invoice, and he had no duty to read it carefully, let alone to do anything about it.
But the invoice was not even a false record, because the money was indeed for legal services, i.e. arranging and paying for the NDA. That is a legal service.
@Millhouse,
Trump signed the Checks. Checks are business records. The invoice was a false record because it was intentionally categorized as payment for legal services that did not occur. The checks were for Cohen’s retainer fees, but Trump does not have a retainer agreement with Cohen so that is demonstrably false. That is the crime.
Even if the invoice was a false record, that is entirely on Cohen, not on Trump. Trump did not create the invoice.
The checks were not for “retainer fees”, they were for “legal services”. That includes anything a lawyer bills for. And arranging and paying for an NDA is a legal service. Just because not every lawyer does it that way doesn’t change the fact that it is a legal service, and it is totally reasonable to put the payment under that category.
If you think it wasn’t, the first question you must answer is, in that case what category should it have gone under? Then you have to explain why it must go under that other category and not this one, and how that is anyone’s business but the owner’s.
“Was this invoice a false record?” she asked. “Yes, ma’am,” he replied.”
That’s the crime.
Cohens legal invoices are DJT’s crime?
I’m really tired of chasing this goal post all over the state of Texas.
no one can agree on a crime. “its all of them, its none of them, doesn’t matter. There has to be a pony in this pile of horse manure.”
@iowan2,
Keep up. The records are not just the invoices. They include the checks, signed by Trump, the recorded purpose on the trump organization’s ledger. Plus Trump was aware that the purpose of the payment was NOT for legal services or retainer fees.
Cohen and the evidence established that Trump knew the payments categorized as “legal services” was not true. Trump went the extra mile to falsify the records to hide the intent of the payments. That is the crime.
Cohen already did time in jail for HIS part. Trump didn’t because he was president at the time.
Plus Trump was aware that the purpose of the payment was NOT for legal services or retainer fees.
Not in evidence.
Trump paying for “legal services rendered” is not a crime. But billing for legal services not performed surely must be, everywhere, except in a Manhattan court room?
Even if that were true, it is a misdeameaner for which the statue of limitations expired years ago. Do you not find THAT relevant?
@Steven Walker,
The statute of limitations pauses whenever Trump is out of the state. When he moved to D.C. or Florida the statute paused. It only comes into effect whenever Trump is continuously in the state. Since he became a Florida resident permanently, every time he stayed in Mar a lago the statute of limitations paused. It’s how the law works. it’s weird, I know, but it’s how it is according to NY law. So the statute of limitations did not expire when the charges were filed.
“So the statute of limitations did not expire when the charges were filed.”
As I (and others) have already explained: That is false.
The NY statute of limitations on those misdemeanors is *2* years. And, as if it matters: Trump was a resident of and living in NY during those *entire* 2 years.
@Sam,
“Trump was a resident of and living in NY during those *entire* 2 years.”
No, he wasn’t. Trump singed the checks to Cohen with the false categorization when he was in the White House. The White House is NOT in NY. This is why the argument that the SOL expired is not being used by the defense. Every time Trump was not in NY whether it was Bedminster New Jersey, Mar-a-Lago Florida or D.C. the statute of limitations paused. Trump was not living continuously for two years in NY when the alleged crime was committed. The charges were filed before the SOL expired.
“This is why the argument that the SOL expired is not being used by the defense.”
That, too, is false.
Defense attorneys made that argument back in February. The Left’s policy “judge,” Merchan, ignored NY state law.
“Trump singed the checks to Cohen with the false categorization when he was in the White House.”
You fell right into that trap. Which I’m not going to explain.
🤔 Let me see if I understand your point correctly.
– Cohen invoiced Trump for legal services that Cohen claims were not actually legal services. Fraud? Sure. Committed by Cohen, not Trump.
– Trump’s accounting department received an invoice for legal services and they recorded paying it as legal expenses. Crime? Bwahahahahaha! 🤣
OLLY,
And they failed to prove it was somehow . . . election interference.
Upstate, if they dared to try and prove Trump paying legal expenses was election interference, they would be exposing the state to the exact same charge, as this entire “legal” activity is all about election interference.
Election interference is perfectly legal. The crime Bragg is apparently using is election interference by unlawful means. So before it can be a crime it has to already be illegal for some other reason.
@olly,
Trump was shown to be aware that the payments were NOT for legal services. Cohen admitted in court that the payments were not for legal services and that Trump knew it as well. That’s why Trump is in court. Because he knew he was presenting falsified business records.
Trump was shown to be aware that the payments were NOT for legal services
Are you aware there was trial? Witnesses, evidence, testimony? It is the ONLY source of information.
The Trial has produced zero evidence of Trumps knowing the payments were anything but an execution of an NDA agreement.
George, what business records were falsified? Trump didn’t ask his janitor, or his limo driver, or his CFO, or anyone other than his attorney to negotiate and settle an NDA. That is not a crime. The motivation behind that transaction, whether it was to prevent something embarrassing being exposed to his wife, or that might have the potential to harm his campaign, is also not a crime. The fact his attorney invoiced Trump as legal services rendered, is also not a crime. The fact that Trump’s signature is on a check or checks to pay for these legal services, is also not a crime. The fact his accounting department booked paying for the legal services rendered as legal expenses, is also not a crime.
I do taxes and accounting for a living. Even if Cohen paid the $130k from new HELOC, he kept hidden from his wife, invoiced Trump for “legal services rendered” and was reimbursed the full amount, the only possible fraudulent activity would have been the reason Cohen gave to his lender for getting the HELOC, or deducting the 1098-INT on his schedule A.
OLLY,
You are clearly an expert on this.
Thanks Upstate. This is actually not that complicated. It’s uncanny how it is proven time and again, that whatever the Democrats are accusing Trump, Republicans or anyone else of doing, the reality is they are doing or have done it themselves. Every effing time!
What does the prosecutor claim the business records should have said so as not to be false?? NDA, hush money payments, election interference?
Falsified invoices cannot be categorized for any legitimate business purpose.
The fact that the invoices were categorized FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER IS THE ACTUAL CRIME!!!!!
Huh? That utter bulldust. Every payment must be categorized as something.
Trump owed Cohen the money; Cohen sent him an invoice and he paid it. What notes Cohen wrote on the invoice is entirely Cohen’s business, not Trump’s. There’s no reason to suppose Trump even read the invoice. Do you read every word on every invoice you receive?! So long as you recognize the biller, and the amount is correct, you pay it; no normal person reads the whole thing unless they’re extremely bored.
“Cohen spent the last two days insisting that he used to be a liar but lied only to help former President Donald Trump. If that is the thrust of his testimony, it is just the latest lie told by Cohen under oath.”
He admitted under oath that he has lied before. How is that a lie? It’s the opposite. He’s honest about the fact that he has lied or has said inaccurate things in the past. Turley is struggling to maintain the narrative of Cohen being a liar after he admitted he has lied before. The prosecution undercut the defense’s strategy and Turley’s to paint Cohen as an untrustworthy liar. The problem for both is that by admitting it early and openly robs the defense of its most potent approach. It undermined it to the point where the defense ended up meandering from one topic to another during questioning and arriving nowhere. Cohen being the lawyer he is handled the questioning in the same fashion Trump would expect of him except he ended up frustrating Trump’s lawyers.
The evidence of the crimes has already been established and corroborated by the witnesses. Trump did not have a retainer agreement with Cohen. The payments were categorized as retainer fees when in fact they were payments to reimburse Cohen for paying off Daniels. That is the crime. The falsifying of the purpose of the payments. In NY that is a crime.
I don’t think there will be a directed verdict. Not after the dismal questioning and inability to paint a clear picture of Cohen as untrustworthy. Sleepy Trump couldn’t stay awake long enough to understand that his lawyers were not succeeding.
Sam, “he’s honest about that fact that he has lied….” That is Sam’s logic in a nutshell. This KNOWN and PROVEN liar said that he lied and therefore he is telling the truth now. Beautiful, simply beautiful. I haven’t seen such great logic since Anonymous spent all day yesterday saying that the Statute of Limitations tolled because NY didn’t know how to get in touch with…THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
“That is *Sam’s* logic . . .” (emphasis added)
?!
@Hullbobby,
You don’t get it. The prosecution does not deny Cohen has lied before and has lied to Congress, and to courts. BUT, by admitting it ahead of cross examination Cohen robbed the defense of ability to paint him as a liar and untrustworthy. By admitting it openly and early he established the fact that he was doing so because Trump wanted him to and appreciated that he was doing it on his behalf. Trump hired Cohen exactly because he’s a liar.
However, Trump also threw Cohen under the bus after the FBI raid and badmouthed him and essentially abandoned him after years of loyalty and fealty to Trump. Cohen and the prosecution established that Cohen has indeed lied, but he as no reason to lie about what he and Trump did because they BOTH engaged in acts of misleading, and lying to hide the Stormy Daniels story before the election. It makes complete sense that a liar like Cohen would lie for Trump who is also a liar. Trump was well aware of what Cohen was doing and why. Establishing that early gives credibility to Cohen’s testimony and together with the evidence entered into the records corroborates Bragg’s charges for the crime of falsifying business records.
Michael Cohen’s ex-lawyer to nuke Cohen’s tale before Congress: ‘Habitual liar, totally unreliable’
” A former federal prosecutor, Robert Costello’s testimony and contemporaneous documents directly conflict with Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump.”
“Cohen kept on saying: ‘Guys I want you to remember, I will do whatever the F … I have to do, I will never spend one day in jail,’” Costello recalled. “I even said to Cohen at one point: ‘Michael, now is the time to tell the truth and cooperate if you want your legal problems to disappear.’
Cohen would again reply: “I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/michael-cohens-ex-lawyer-provides-counter-story-congress-habitual
The prosecution does not deny Cohen has lied before and has lied to Congress, and to courts. BUT, by admitting it ahead of cross examination Cohen robbed the defense of ability to paint him as a liar and untrustworthy.
I believe the word for that is strategery.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Cohen is a serial liar. He has proven in court and in front of Congress that he will lie for any purpose he is called to testify under oath. Yes, he is irredeemably untrustworthy. BUT, (Lucy holding the football) this time you should believe him. Why? Because the defendant is Donald Trump.
Brilliant! Robbed? 🤔 More likely Trump is going to receive another legal services rendered invoice from the state. Perhaps that should be recorded as a campaign contribution?
Trump did not have a retainer agreement with Cohen.
Does not need to be in writing
Trump never claimed he did either. I assume in NY it is required to be in writing. Plus Cohen admitted in court he did not have one with Trump. That’s a problem.
You are correct.
In the eyes of the law, a verbal retainer agreement is perfectly valid and binding. There are at least 2 parties to such an agreement, in this case Cohen and Trump.
Cohen has already testified that there was no such agreement.
Trump can contest that. He can say that Cohen is lying and there was in fact a verbal agreement.
Trump’s problem is that to establish that he entered into such a verbal agreement, HE HAS TO TAKE THE STAND AND TESTIFY UNDER OATH, and let the jury decide who is telling the truth.
Obviously, he can’t risk taking the stand so Cohen’s testimony stands until disproven.
Cohen has already testified that there was no such agreement.
Cohens opinion is worthless. The Defense is just getting started deconstructing Cohens words vs Cohens actions. Much more testimony will have the jury dismissing all his testimony as wholly self serving, lies.
His actions prove he is out for revenge against Trump, and doing literally anything to monetize this trial. He has, by example lied repeatedly if it is in his best interest.
Cohen may very well be lying about having a verbal retainer agreement. That is entirely possible. However that is his testimony and it stands until disproven.
Trump can very easily resolve this issue by producing a written agreement or taking the stand to testify under oath that there was a verbal agreement, and allowing the jury to determine who is telling the truth.
He has not produced a written agreement.
He will not risk taking the stand because knowing that he is a compulsive liar he will inevitably incriminate himself.
Until disproven Cohen’s testimony stands.
“He can say that Cohen is lying and there was in fact a verbal agreement.”
Trump doesn’t need to “say” anything. The *actions* between the two are the contractual agreement.
You might want to get up to speed on the rules of contract. It’s called “acceptance by actions.”
George – your post makes my head hurt…. so the liar “admits” he lied before – NUMEROUS TIMES, including under oath, but THIS time, he really, really is telling the truth. What’s really hilarious, and quite sad, really, is that there are people who believe him.
@admindaa79a02f,
Cohen is not denying he has lied multiple times. The prosecution even established that in court. But they did so in the context that he was doing that because that is what Trump valued about Cohen. That was before Cohen was unceremoniously dumped by Trump after years of loyal service. Cohen’s lying does not detract from the fact that he still knows exactly what happened and because he was betrayed by Trump and thrown under the bus when things went sideways. He had no reason to protect Trump anymore. Being honest about his lying established a reason to believe what he is saying about Trump is true, because he is no longer obligated to be loyal to Trump.
Cohen has no reason to lie about what he and Trump did after being betrayed by Trump. His motive is revenge and that involves being honest about what Trump did and knew. Why would he lie and defend Trump after being betrayed?
Pinacho? Michael Cohen? Lie/Perjury? YES Federal Judge, a Dem., called him a known Liar? He has proven it over and over. Judge Merchan this is a JOKE, he is a Left Wing DEM, who is conflicted, while his family makes money on the trial? Merchan should have resigned from the case? Unless the Judge at the end of this trial dismisses this case, Bragg ( Fat Albert from the past Bill Cosby joke:) has not proven anything and has not defined the violations and the law, or unless the jury dismisses or is hung, this case will be over turned, even in the Left Wing Appeals Court of NY or NY Supreme Court for several reasons. This case is a joke and those who think this is real and Trump is guilty of something are fools or Left Wing NUT DEMS
Great post FAT ALBERT or Bragg in disguise
Do you enjoy denigrating other people?
Wally, what is worse denigrating someone who is trying to railroad a person into prison or railroading someone into prison?
Bragg has done it to himself. Remember Bragg refused to prosecute this because he found no crime.
That’s self degradation.
Neither Merchan’s daughter nor any other member of his family has any money riding on the trial’s outcome.
You don’t know that, and neither do I. But it is not necessary for purposes of recusal bias or the appearance thereof.
Actually it is necessary. And if we have no information to indicate that she does have money riding on it then we MUST assume that she doesn’t.
Look, it’s not as if Merchan made this decision not to recuse on his own. He asked the appropriate authorities, and they explicitly told him it was not a problem, on the basis that she wasn’t working for any party, and had nothing to gain from the outcome. If he lied to them, that’s an even bigger problem.
“[T]he only thing the prosecutors proved . . .” (JT)
Their entire politically motivated, lawfare case rests on this malevolent wish: That the jury equates “seedy” with “criminal.”
This trial reminds me of a great line from a terrific movie, Cold Comfort Farm: “I saw something nasty in the woodshed.”
Did you hear about the cat who gave false testimony? She was accused of purrjury.
This judge knows that any conviction will be reversed on appeal. He doesn’t care. His job is to make sure that the Democrats can scream Trump is a “convicted felon” until the election and he’s going to do his job. One can only hope that one of the two lawyers on the jury has the ethics and professionalism to, if necessary, be the lone vote to acquit.
Turley must be smoking something wacky. The prosecution did establish the case for the crime. The level of dishonesty about that happened yesterday and his wild prediction of a biblical reckoning of sorts failed to materialize.
This is expected of Turley to maintain the Fox News narrative that the prosecution failed. It didn’t.
The witnesses for the prosecution corroborated the evidence before the jury. Trump’s lawyers visibly struggled to pin down Cohen as an untrustworthy witness. The prosecution made the smart move of laying it all out before cross examination that Cohen did lie, but maintained the claim that he’s not a liar. What they successfully laid out the fact that Cohen was lying FOR Trump.
The crime of falsifying business records was firmly established by the evidence entered into the record and having Cohen and Stormy Daniels corroborating it. Defense lawyers were having difficulty with their meandering line of questions ending nowhere.
The professor’s dishonest spin on Cohen’s testimony is a deflection from yesterday’s ‘biblical’ hype and poor prediction.
Judge Merchan will not do a directed verdict. There’s no reason for it. Cohen supposed to testify again Thursday I believe.
The crime of falsifying business records was firmly established by the evidence entered into the record
WHAT EVIDENCE! You claim it is presented, but never identify what exactly
Leaving asside all the lies, there is zero evidence DJT falsely booked lawyers invioces as legal expense. According the The CPA, DJT never communicated with him about his bookkeeping determinations. (not a tough call. Lawyer invioce= legal expense)
The decision was made after the election.
Iowan2,
“WHAT EVIDENCE!”
That right there.
The prosecution failed to identify the evidence.
They relied on “I see dead people” Stormy Daniels and Cohen’s testimony to prove . . . Nothing.
Nothing at all.
Everyone knows it too.
So, they have to resort to the only thing they have, attacking the good professor.
@Iowan2,
“WHAT EVIDENCE! You claim it is presented, but never identify what exactly”
You need to read or research for yourself what the prosecution entered into evidence, at least what has been entered that is publicly available.
Here’s one source, complete with pictures of documents and other evidence.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/12/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-evidence/73630898007/
The crime of falsifying business records was firmly established by the evidence entered into the record and having Cohen and Stormy Daniels corroborating it.
How would either of these people have information about a CPA’s decision?
Corroborating. That word does not mean what you think is means
@Iowan2,
“How would either of these people have information about a CPA’s decision?”
Because witnesses gave first hand accounts AND there is a paper trail of evidence produce by the CPA’s, Trump’s accountants, and Trump himself.
you stated Cohen and Daniels corroborated the evidence proving the falsifying of business records.
Those two have no information about how The Trump org classifed expenses.
Sorry Daniels’ testimony was unnecessary for the trial as the existence of the NDA was not in dispute. Neither were the payments made under that agreement by Cohen to Daniels and the reimbursement by Trump to Cohen. The only purpose of Stormy’s testimony was to damage Trump’s public image.
Trump does not do his own bookkeeping, so Bragg has to prove that Trump not only knew but instructed his bookkeeper to book the payments to Cohen as legal expenses. Bragg did not do that. The fact that Trump signed the checks to Cohen does not prove much. CEOs often sign checks prepared by others without knowing the details. And certainly that does not prove Trump would know how the invoice was categorized by the accounting department.
Jonathan: No. Michael Cohen did not “commit perjury”. That sensational headline might appeal to the readers of the the NY Post, that deals in salacious headlines and stories, but nothing in Cohen’s testimony would justify such a charge. What was notable was Todd Blanche’s long anticipated cross examination of Cohen. It was largely a fizzle. Despite Blanche’s attempts to provoke Cohen, his calm demeanor on the stand left Blanche with little to work with. Cohen’s testimony about the hush money payments and the cover was never dented by Blanche.
But there is some other important news about the trial. In a previous column you argued Judge Merchan’s gag order is “unconstitutional”. It was DJT’s same argument when he appealed the gag order to the 1st Appellate Division in NY. Yesterday, a 3-judge panel issued its decision upholding Judge Merchan’s gag order. The Appellate Division found that DJT’s documented attacks on court personnel and the witnesses “poses a significant and imminent threat to the functioning of the criminal trial process”. The Court found that DJT’s 6th Amendment rights were not violated.
What was remarkable about the decision is the Appellate Division relied heavily on the opinion of the federal DC Court of Appeals in DJT’s appeal of Judge Chutkan’s gag order. Her gag order was virtually identical to the one issued by Justice Merchan. In US v. Trump the DC Court rejected DJT’s claim against that gag order. Also interesting is that Robbie Kaplan, E. Jean Carroll’s attorney, filed a friend of the court brief that the NY Appellate Division refers to in its decision. Why is this significant? It shows that every time DJT loses an appeal it comes back to haunt him–because other courts use those decisions as case precedent against him!
Read this part of the post carefully. He testified UNDER OATH that he only lied to help Trump. Please see the 3rd sentence below. Business and tax fraud? Was that to help Trump? So yes, I would say he lied under oath.
Cohen spent the last two days insisting that he used to be a liar but lied only to help former President Donald Trump. If that is the thrust of his testimony, it is just the latest lie told by Cohen under oath.
Cohen has lied to Congress, courts, special counsels, the IRS, the banks, and virtually every creature that walks or crawls on the face of the Earth.
Notably, his past conviction for business and tax fraud were not taken in the interests of Trump but himself.
When he admitted on the stand that he lied during his prior plea agreement, that was not to assist Trump who he had already denounced. It was to advance his own interests.
Cohen didn’t lie under oath. Admitting he lied on previous occasions is not perjury. If he DENIED that he lied on other occasions while under oath THAT would be perjury.
If it is wrong to use the courts for election interference, then why is it happening?
Because for a Democrat, the end always justifies the means. Simple.
If running for election is turned into a “get out of jail free” card, we’ll see more criminals taking advantage of it.
The reform needed is to speed up the legal process, so that crimes are tried and punished rapidly — that way only candidates who break the law while running for election would be interfered with. All these Trump trials could have been completed before election season.
If the prosecutor intentionally delays getting the prosecution underway until election season, when it could have been done before, the charges should expire.
Bravo Jonathan, a good summation.
“… No one seriously believes that this is true. It does not even make sense …”
BUT, given the unreal; actions, turn-arounds, out-of-the-blue, crazy contempt, that this ‘Get Trump’ Era has shown us,
I wouldn’t put it past this Trial to have an outcome that’s favorable to the Democrats. The Dems have a penchant for making the impossible, possible out of thin air.
I’m not sure if you have heard the Lawfare podcast. Here are some supposed legal experts talking about how well the prosecution made their case ( even though as you pointed out they haven’t laid out what their case is.) My point is those that hate Trump do not hear the same things in court.
It will ultimately all come down to the jury instructions, and this is why Bragg has it in the bag. Because the NY business records law is usually used in plea bargains where the defendant isn’t going to challenge the conviction, the judge can take a very expansive interpretation of “conceal another crime” and say it is consistent with case law. The judge will say that the other crime does not have be by the same defendant, can be past, present, or future, and the jury does not have to agree on what the other crime is, was, or will be as long as they agree there is one. The jury will be told that Cohen committed federal crimes as a matter of law because he pled guilty and the court accepted the plea. And the prosecutor’s closing argument to the jury will be you are the only ones who can stop Trump 2nd term, so therefore you must. Trump will be convicted.
Unfortunately, I fear you are right. There will be no directed verdict and Merchan will give jury instructions to ensure a conviction. Since the trial could end early next week, he will be giving these instructions then. Does anyone know what steps have been taken for the defense and prosecution to propose what should be said?
Usually, immediately after both sides have “rested” and before closing arguments, each side gives the Judge their proposed instructions.
There is no other description for this persecution Team other than Criminal. However, given the current state of Lawlessness in New York, Michael Cohen and Al Bragg will be celebrated……..
We Trust the Bar to keep lawyers honest. Where are they?
The proceedings in the NYC courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan — both from the bench and from the prosecutor’s table — are disturbingly reminiscent of the Volksgerichtshof proceedings of the Third Reich.
Indeed, those National Socialists used special courts to persecute their political opponents. It was shear lawlessness. We are creeping that-a-way by simple using particular venues.
In the not so distant defamation trial of Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, attorney for the plaintiff did not tell the jury that that they must find that defendents committed defamation, but that the jury needed to “send a message” that climate denial will not be tolerated. Maybe a higher court will reverse this D.C. result, but we are becoming a lawless nation.
The defense used the judge’s failure to officially gag Michael Cohen against Cohen by showing the jury how much he was shooting his mouth off for the past few weeks and revealing what an unbiased witness he truly is. It was BRILLIANT!
Too bad this cross-exam isn’t being videotaped. I would love to watch it.
Thank you Professor, for all you do. Everyone knows that you are spot on with this column. No way the Judge will grant a directed verdict, but I still hold out hope that one or both of the two lawyers on the jury can find the courage to do what they know is the right thing and possibly, just possibly, convince a couple of others to join them.
Yes, New Yorkers are almost all deep blue Far-Left Democrats and vote that way, but speaking from personal experience many of those folks also have a strong sense of fairness and a love of this United States and our Constitution. They are not sheep. Because of that I would not be surprised to see a unanimous “Not Guilty” verdict. I’ll pray for it.
Every single attorney in the nation, both practicing and in academia, should be denouncing this farce of a trial. The prosecution never even introduced the elements of a crime.
Perhaps you should read more than JTs obfuscation of the facts. Trump has been doing a mob style business for nearly 50 years. He learned the craft well from his father. How often has trump been in court and lost? Lots.
How many bankruptcies has trump been involved in? Many, Unless you are still flying a trump airline, eating trump steaks while taking a class at trump U. Do you remember the millions he paid out because trump U was a fraud?
trump is a fraud and has now become a cult leader. Take the rose colored glasses of and look around, trump is a criminal and his chickens are coming home to roost.
I’m still waiting for Gabriel to blow his trumpet and declare this to be the greatest biblical happening since the parting of the red sea. Still waiting.