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.
Cohen committed perjury before he was finished being sworn in!
Mr Turley sir Occam Razor
Simple to understand what all this is by the amount of LIES and Misleading
Twisted characters aka FOOLS
It is just another show an the lead character is still a dumb ass
Trump has incredible potential to be GOOD
BUT his common sense to hang around amongst EVIL and pay EVIL to be in his life
A very big ? MARK
For many in the court of public opinion so many fail to understand what they see an hear is
Holly weird ,every character in this show asks
ONE PEOPLE
To Suspend believe as if this is a daytime tv drama ,it is
The ART OF WAR
A simple bread an circus without real red meat
All of it is proof that all of them have sold their SOULS
TO
THE MASTER OF LIES
WARPED SPEED said a very stable genius and many have taken rump very serious
My fellow Americans this daytime soap opera
By it very design destroys JUSTICE FOR ALL
It is to show all that the founders were RIGHT
Trump an the all these actors are playing a part in the END their democracy created in 1913
And literally before our eyes are hell bent on the destruction of what is left of the usa .
This is the rambling of a disturbed individual.
“Pressure of thought” and “pressure of speech” are symptoms of a psychotic disorder.
Please seek help for your own good.
“Trump has incredible potential to be GOOD.”
That’s not what hordes of people who’ve worked for him say. One of them wrote this:
“Trump lacks any shred of human decency, humility or caring. He is morally bankrupt, breathtakingly dishonest, lethally incompetent, and stunningly ignorant of virtually anything related to governing, history, geography, human events or world affairs. He is a traitor and a malignancy in the nation, and represents a clear and present danger to our democracy, and the rule of law.”
President Trump did not surround himself with evil people. Democrats have tried their best to destroy good people in his orbit. Had he not been obstructed at every turn and had a good 8 years to right this country, we and the world would be in a far better place.
Cohen spoke the words any programed automaton would.
He had no choice. He put himself in that exact position.
And if that’s perjury he’ll be thrown away like a soiled paper towel.
Paraphrased—> Cohen was asked why he was doing this. His response was, for the money.
We know he told the truth at least once.
The commentary has deteriorated into trolls using gutter language and ideas.
Thanks for your commentary , Mr. Turley.
You hit that nail on the head!
JT thinks the trouble lies with Cohen because he lied in court before.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
According to quite a few news organizations, trump has lied over 30,000 times while he was president.
Sure, put trump on the stand. The odds of him committing perjury are pretty close to 100%.
How is that 2020 election fraud trial going? Oh yea, 60+ court cases thrown out because trump failed to bring forth any evidence.
Give me a break. Who do you trust, a porn star or a man that made a career of mocking people and telling lies? I’ll go with the porn star any day.
what we have heah is failure to communicate a failure to communicate.
Well, is anyone surprised at this point? Everyone knows Cohen is a mess and that he is a clown in this Prosecutor’s circus. At this point, I would say this is over, except it is Donald Trump involved and everything is sideways and none of it makes sense. If our esteemed Professor is correct, then no crime is shown let alone proven. Now what? This being NYC, I would expect a conviction because he is so disliked, but there are two lawyers on the jury, so there is hope for fairness.
If a crime is committed and proven, then Trump should be convicted. Yet when both sides of the legal aisle are openly questioning both a trial and the lack of charges, one has to wonder what is really going on.
It just could not be politics, could it?
Quiet Man,
Well said.
Would bet that if there was a trial charging Bragg, Cohen, Merchan
for the misdeeds they are committing with this BS lawfare trial
the media would say they were ‘victims’, and also barely cover it.
The instructions given to the jury (assuming there isn’t a directed verdict) are going to be the key. I don’t know how the Court is going to instruct on the crime that was allegedly covered up.
Once the defense rests the m”judge” will direct there jury to return a guilty verdict. He will then have Trump remained into immediate custody awaiting the sentencing hearing which will take weeks or even months. Alternately he will sentence him to the maximum term with immediate custody awaiting the appeals. He will not be allowed to remain free during the appeals. This has been the plan from the beginning.
Not only that. How he will instruct on the following will be important:
1. What is needed to prove that the “legal expenses” labelling was false;
2. What is needed to prove that Trump knew of the labelling, knew it was false, and intended to commit fraud; and
3. What is needed to prove that Trump thereby intended to conceal another crime?
Regarding the other crime:
4. Does 17-152 even apply to presidential elections;
5. What is needed to prove “unlawful means” if it does;
6. Are payments to secure an NDA potentially campaign expenditures and if so under what circumstances; and
7. What must be proven with respect to Trump’s state of mind about this alleged other crime.
So far as I can tell, there is little evidence supporting a conviction on any of these matters. But Merchan will try and find a way around this through his instructions.
The closing argument of the defense team will be very important for framing these issues.
This was a reply to David T Welch.
Daniel,
Once again, great analysis.
How will the judge thread that needle?
Ad hominem fallacy (or ad hominem) is an attempt to discredit someone’s argument by personally attacking them. Instead of discussing the argument itself, criticism is directed toward the opponent’s character, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is clear, now that Bragg has said Cohen is the last witness, Bragg never intended to prosecute a criminal case. Only the CPA, bookkeeper, and I think there was one more person that was in the Accounting sphere for Trump. Those were ALL Prosecution witnesses. They all testified they carried out their rolls in the accounting offices, and stated, DJT never discussed how they were to handle the invoices from Cohen. Those witnesses were guided by the education, training, and experience, in handling these mind numbingly mundane bookkeeping tasks.
The indictment charges the invoices from Attorney Cohen were booked by DJT as legal expenses, a crime by DJT according to the indictment, a misrepresentation of the expense.
This case hinges on the alleged misrepresentation. DJT is the accused.
There is no evidence DJT had any input into how accounting handled the invoices from Attorney Cohen.
Repeating. Bragg has claimed he will call no more wittnesses, present no more evidence.
The core charge of misrepresenting expenses, fails on the misrepresentation allegation. The charge DJT influenced the Accounting determination, fails due to absence of evidence
Iowan2,
The prosecution failed to prove their case.
Not that they had a case in the first place.
@upstatefarmer, they did not fail to prove their case. Not until the jury decides after hearing testimony and reviewing evidence.
@Iowan2,
“There is no evidence DJT had any input into how accounting handled the invoices from Attorney Cohen.”
Yes, there is. He personally approved of the checks and was in constant contact with Cohen about it. He has had plenty of input. There are even recordings of phone calls discussing the issue.
He personally approved of the checks and was in constant contact with Cohen about it.
What does that have to do with how the checks were recorded in the ledgers. That is the only item in the indictment
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.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/michael-cohens-ex-lawyer-provides-counter-story-congress-habitual?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
You mean the man that never represented Cohen but was his back-channel through Rudy to Trump?
From the article above,
“Each time Cohen said to me: ‘I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump,’” Costello’s prepared testimony states. “Cohen must have said this at least ten times because I kept coming back to it from different approaches.
“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.”
Cohen testified that he never told the truth to Costello because he knew anything he said would get right back to Trump through Rudy. Assuming Costello is telling the truth, that was good advice to tell Cohen to cooperate, something he actually did. For all the attempts to discount everything everything Cohen said on the stand because he has lied a lot (mostly for Trump) in his past. I haven’t heard anyone dispute the specific facts Cohen testified to, especially that Trump was in the room and dictated how the payments would be made and knew what they were for. Of course, Trump could always take the stand. If his documented lies were entered into the record the trial would have to be extended for months.
None of this matters because:
1. Credibility of witnesses is for the jury to decide.
2. Even if Trump is convicted, he will be out on bail pending appeal.
3. He will drag out the appeal process for so many years that he will pass away before it is done.
Trump will never see the inside of a jail cell. His supporters don’t care if he is convicted, and the rest of us already know how bad he is.
Biden won’t participate in non-partisan commission’s debates, challenges Trump to two others
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/biden-says-he-wont-participate-non-partisan-commissions-debates
But Biden will participate in two news organizations debates.
Why is that?
Trump and the RNC said they would not participate in those a while ago. This is Biden not wanting to push and issue that the RNC already killed and is trying to get the debates on better terms.
Convicted of what? Where’s the crime? How many banks reported Joe and Hunter’s bribery scheme payments to the treasury department? Yet you seem to dismiss true criminal activity to zero in on malicious political prosecution. Be prepared to harvest what you have sown.
The actual Biden debate news today:
Biden is refusing to debate Trump in front of an audience of voters.
His campaign is demanding big guardrails for Biden, including:
– No audience.
– No RFK Jr.
– No Trump remarks during Biden’s answers.
– Only Biden-friendly outlets & anchors can moderate (from CBS, ABC, CNN or Telemundo).
— Vince Coglianese (@VinceCoglianese) May 15, 2024
This is a good strategy on the part of the Biden campaign. This is not guardrails for Biden, this is about taking away the ability for Trump to do BS in the debate.
It is ALL about guardrails for Biden.
And about making sure Biden can spew BS.
Favorable questions, no pushback, etc.
Yep, unless Biden can have total control over the audience and commentary he won’t debate. In the article it paints the picture of Trump being a bully and over speaking Biden. They forget many people watched that thrashing. chrissie wallace soft balled Biden, didn’t call him out for any of his lies and repeatedly tried to undercut Trump. The fix was in…
It won’t happen again folks, Biden can’t complain a full sentence.
It’s time we leave Merchan out of this. He is enjoying the show. It’s better than Broadway. Thanks, juan!
Stormy sued cohen and cohen had 15 or more lawyers and cohen settled. How did cohen pay the lawyers. Stormy sued her other lawyer and he settled. Stormy sued trump and lost and owes him approximately $600,000 plus intrest (?) cohen broke client lawyer confidentiality so can trump’s current lawyer demand access to all of cohens documents? Everybody has sued everybody else and settled except Trump who won. Can he use all of the evidence in all the other lawsuits in his defense. Plus cohen received $500,000 from a Russian oligarchs company and a large amount from ATt(?) a known fact because the IRS agent supplying the info pled guilty. Sun Tzsu was right the truth is so valuable it must be defended by vast armies of lies.
Jonathan: Looks like Tommy Tuberville and JD Vance were not the only ones to show up at DJT’s trial and acted as his “surrogates”–since they are not subject to the gag order. So who showed up at yesterday’s trial session? It was MAGA House Speaker Mike Johnson who said: “I wanted to be here myself, to call out what is a travesty of justice”.
As SOH, Johnson took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and the rule of law. For Johnson to attack a criminal trial and condemn the trial as a sham and describe it as a mockery is an unwarranted interference with the criminal justice system. The SOH has no business showing up at a criminal trial. His job is legislating. But Johnson owes his job to DJT so when he is ordered to be at the trial he’s there with bells on. Johnson is a puppet of DJT and he is the one who deserves mockery!
The Constitution needs defending against corrupt prosecutors and judges too. The criminal justice system has been stood on its head with DA’s like Alvin Bragg. Good for Mike Johnson. He is doing a heroic job.
Anonymous said: : ” Good for Mike Johnson. He is doing a heroic job.”
So you say. Seems to me he is just doing the bare minimum that he believes necessary to preserve what credibility he still has. If you are actually correct, then he needs to take some of that heroism back to Congress and apply it to working toward passing legislation that benefits the people and helps restore the Republic, an effort at which he has thus far been sadly lacking.
Did Cohen commit perjury? It does not matter. Americans know by now the playbook that the democrats are using. You even stated it:
For Bragg and his team, it is all about what they can get out of this case despite the law.
it is reminiscent of Josef Pieper’s classic, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, published originally in German in 1974, and reprinted in 1992 in English. Pieper was a Platonist and Thomistic philosopher, and he juxtaposed the times we are living today with those of Plato’s time. Sophists like Democrats are a threat to society.
It does not matter what truth is anymore, the law, the US Constitution, or Court decisions. Democrats will distort it like the Sophists of Plato’s time, to justify their urges. It’s all about power. Thankfully the US Founding Fathers knew tyrants in their day so they included the 2 Amendment for us in our day.
Plato’s lifelong battle with the sophists, those highly paid and popularly applauded experts in the art of twisting words, who were able to sweet-talk something bad into something good and to turn white into black. … Plato recognized, identified, and battled in the sophistry of his time a danger and a threat besetting the pursuits of the human mind and the life of society in any era.
Josef Pieper: Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power
Bolded emphasis mine
JT has no interest in truth. He obfuscates and tries to use his once good reputation to tell you there is nothing to see here, go home, elect trump.
BS, JT knows better, he is hoping for an AG job with a future trump administration. That ain’t gonna happen. JT completely ignores all the testimony about trumps involvement with making the payment for political reasons. Legal expenses? My ass.
If JT wants to see some perjury, he should encourage trump to take the stand.
Why not just admit it…You’ve been broken by Trump like so may other leftists?
Speaking of BS… suggest you check yours:)
ad hominem attack. Logical fallacy
Don’t feed the trolls.
Iowan2,
It is all they have.
When presented with the facts as the good professor has laid out, they have nothing else.
They still have yet to name a crime, just as the prosecution did.
What is it with this constant “they have yet to name a crime”.
Saying it over and over and over again does not make it a true statement
FALSIFICATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS.
This looks like an ad hominem attack to me. Did they teach you in school that this is the weakest form of argument, something to throw up against the wall when the facts and the law don’t help your case?
Aren’t Cohen and Bragg here essentially one? Bragg in opting to tender Cohen as beta-agonist or so-called “star witness” reveals much about himself also. What we see is a dishonest, financially motivated political operative, the likes of which the Free World hasn’t seen (as mentioned above) since the Volksgericht of World War II. These people have no pride, no concern for consequence, no foresight, nothing but self-interest and commitment to party. But, that said, who would opt to live or do business in Manhattan as a result? Who would risk prison time and financial ruin to do business in NY? And yet they don’t care, because, self-interest. Add that I think there is a significant portion of our society, of all societies, that view such people with absolute disdain. There must be or the concept of society, of mankind itself, could not exist.
The only question that the jury needs to be asked is, “what is the the correct accounting code this should have been entered as?”. Since the prosecution has not answered that question…
All the Jury needs to know is if the invoices were falsely categorized. Because intentionally falsifying them IS a crime.
George you have been asked more the once
One more time
What should have been the GAAP accounting category used to book the payments
One more time.
There is NO GAAP accounting category for false invoices presented in a crimininal conspiracy to hide reimbursements, especially when both parties are aware what the payments were really for.
The fact that the invoices were categorized AT ALL, is the actual crime.
What is so hard to understand about this.
especially when both parties are aware what the payments were really for.
Conspiracy to do what exactly? Conspiracy must have a goal
Assumes a conclusion not presented in testimony or evidence.
@Iowan2,
The goal was to conceal the nature of the payments. That’s why falsifying the documents is a crime.
It HAS been presented as evidence AND testimony.
The goal was to conceal the nature of the payments.
Conceal from who?
Its not a crime to conceal personal money spent. Its called privacy and we all try to keep our finances private(concealed)
You are quite deliberately playing with words here in attempt to obfuscate.
***Its not a crime to conceal personal money spent. Its called privacy and we all try to keep our finances private(concealed)***
You are correct. It is not a crime to conceal personal money spent. You can keep it private.
BUT HE DIDN’T KEEP IT PRIVATE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He could have put $130,000 in hundred dollar bills in a briefcase and had it anonymously delivered to Daniels front door. That would have kept it private. If he did that there would be no crime. He would be completely off the hook.
But he didn’t do that. Instead he concocted a conspiracy to have Cohen do the payoff and try to conceal it by falsifying his business records.
THAT IS A CRIME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The conspiracy was to conceal the fact that Trump was the real source of the payments to Daniels.
Trump willingly paid Cohen twice the amount that Cohen actually paid to Daniels, in order to account for the income taxes that Cohen would owe. Payments for legal services rendered are never grossed up to account for income taxes. You provide a service, you get paid and you pay taxes.
The payments from Trump were a reimbursement for money that Cohen HAD ALREADY PAID TO DANIELS OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET. Therefore Trump was willing to pay Cohen twice the amount Cohen had already paid out to cover his tax liability. Trump could have simply paid Cohen $130,000 as a reimbursement of the $130,000 Cohen had already paid out to Daniels, in which case Cohen would have no tax liability. The problem with this would be that Trump would be identified as the real source of the payments.
Instead, Trump and Cohen conspired to conceal the fact that Trump was the real source of the payment to Daniels by making it look like Cohen was simply paid for legal services rendered.
Don’t you think it is odd that the always penny-pinching Trump was perfectly willing to pay out twice the amount that he otherwise could have if he had simply treated the payments to Cohen as a reimbursement.
It was a conspiracy to conceal the fact that Trump was the real source of the payments to Daniels. Trump was perfectly aware of what was going on and was willing to falsify his business records to achieve his goal of concealing the source of payment to Daniels.
Instead, Trump and Cohen conspired to conceal the fact that Trump was the real source of the payment to Daniels by making it look like Cohen was simply paid for legal services rendered.
Whats the crime here? Just because its a hypothetical I’ll stipulate evidence supports your claim
The crime is FALSIFICATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS, for the umpteenth time.
The concealment was based on Cohen’s FALSE INVOICES for legal services, which in reality represented the payoff to Daniels.
The false invoices were entered in Trump’s ledger. THAT IS THE CRIME.
It is a crime to knowingly enter false invoices into a business ledger, for any purpose WHATSOEVER. Trump knew what was going on because Cohen recorded conversations with him when they cooked up this CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FALSIFICATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS.
It is not a simple matter of incorrectly categorizing the false invoices. There is no category for false invoices.
The fact that the invoices were categorized AT ALL IS THE ACTUAL CRIME.
The fact that the invoices were categorized AT ALL, is the actual crime.
That’s beyond ridiculous. The payment was made. Lawfully. Therefore it had to be assigned some category code. Every payment needs a category. You can’t enter it without one.
Please read the following slowly and carefully.
Paying a settlement for an NDA is perfectly legal. However, it is a PERSONAL expense, not a business expense.
The crime occurred when Trump categorized the payment as a BUSINESS expense in his business records.
Paying a porn star to keep quiet about a personal sexual encounter can in no way whatsoever be characterized as a business expense.
There is no category for business expenses that are not legitimate business expenses.
You say, ***Therefore it had to be assigned some category code***
NO. It did not have to be assigned some category code, because it is not a legitimate business expense. There is absolutely no legal basis for entering it as a business expense in any category whatsoever.
If he had treated the payment as a personal expense and not entered it into his business records, then that would be perfectly legal. There would be no crime, and no trial.
The fact that he chose to treat the payment as a BUSINESS expense is the ACTUAL CRIME !!!!!!!!!
He falsified his business records by illegally entering the payment as business expense.
Iowan, you are correct. Clients don’t break down invoices from their accountants and lawyers to line items, but book then total invoice amount as legal and accounting costs. Reimbursement of costs included in an invoice of an attorney is not separated and then entered into a separate category (depending on type of costs). I don’t see how Trump violated the GAAP by doing so. If it were fraudulent to do so, all clients of lawyers and accountants would now risk prosecution for a misdemeanor in NY.
The problem for Bragg is that he needs an other crime that Trump allegedly tried to cover up to make the misdemeanor into a felony and avoid the statute of limitation blockade. Not identifying what that other crime is, constitute a violation of the due process clause of the US Constitution in my opinion. Apart from that, the assumption that violation of US campaign financing laws is that other crime, raises other issues. If Trump had been convicted of such a crime, Bragg could make that argument by simply referring to that verdict. However, because Trump is neither convicted nor prosecuted for such a crime, Bragg would have to prove that assertion in a New York state court that has no jurisdiction on the matter. So, through the backdoor, Bragg as a NY district attorney who has no authority to prosecute federal crimes, before a NY judge who has no jurisdiction over federal crimes, is asking a NY jury that has no authority in that matter to render a verdict on the existence of a federal crime committed by Trump to arrive at a NY felony. This case is even to Kafkaesque for Kafka.
It’s not quite as bad as that. There is nothing wrong with a NY state jury deciding, purely as a question of fact, whether some other crime, in some other jurisdiction, was committed or contemplated. (Remember the “other crime” doesn’t have to have actually been committed.) It could be a federal crime, a crime in another state, or even in another country. Making that factual determination doesn’t convict him of that other crime, it just allows it to be used as an element of this crime.
But like all elements of a crime, Bragg would have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. He can’t do that without even saying what it is!
All the Jury needs to know is if the invoices were falsely categorized.
To know whether the accounting code entered against them was false, they must first know what the correct code should have been. If they don’t know that, then how can they know that the code used was false?
“If they don’t know that, then how can they know that the code used was false?”
Damn good question.
To which the prosecution’s answer is: Trump used that code. So it’s false.
As I answered to iowan2 above, the fact that the invoices were categorized at all in the General Ledger, IS THE ACTUAL CRIME.
There is NO GAAP accounting category for false invoices presented in a criminal conspiracy to hide reimbursements, especially when both parties are aware what the payments were really for.
What is so hard to understand about this.
The invoice was not false by itself. The payment was made by Cohen under the NDA and then invoiced for reimbursement to Trump. That is not a false invoice. Where did you go to accounting class?
A reimbursement is NOT a payment for legal services rendered. These are 2 completely different things.
We have evidence in the form a written note by Weisselberg that the payment to Cohen was “grossed up” by doubling the amount that he actually paid to Daniels. This was done to account for the fact that Cohen would have to pay income taxes on the payments, otherwise he would be out of pocket. He was in the highest possible tax bracket. Trump could have simply paid out the money to Cohen as a reimbursement, in which case Cohen would have no tax liability. But Cohen, Trump and Weisselberg conspired to conceal the transaction as payment for legal services rendered, in which case Cohen would have tax liability.
THAT IS THE CRIME.
The net effect was that Trump paid out twice the amount that he could have. It seems odd that penny pinching Trump paid twice the amount that he could have. The reason he did so was because he was knowingly trying to criminally conceal the payments as payment for legal services. He knew exactly what was going on, and was willing to pay twice the amount hoping to conceal the fact that he was the real source of the payment to Daniels.
Legal services are never “grossed up” to account for income taxes. Just like any other services provided, or wages paid for services, you get paid and you pay your taxes. McDonalds does not “gross up” the wages of its burger flippers to account for the fact that they have to pay taxes. You provide a service, you get paid and you pay your taxes,
By any measure the payments to Cohen were a reimbursement and not payment for legal services rendered.
You are assuming testimony from Weisselberg that is not evidence. Hand written notes are not proof of intent or action. I make hundreds of business notes. They are thoughts, notions reminders, place keepers, theories. With out my testimony, my notes PROVE nothing.
I’m working on an insurance appraisal right now. I have notes of first impression, insureds thought, his memory of his orders to contract labor, $ estimates, time frames. Those notes are not proof of any action I have yet to take. That will be signed by me.
The prosecution is not calling Weisselberg. I guess I can charge Bragg with corruption for failing to call Weisselberg because he has exculpatory information and Bragg is conspiring to defraud the jury.
The note from Weisselberg has ALREADY been admitted into evidence. Weisselberg does not need to appear.
McConney has testified that the note is in Weisselberg’s hand writing. Cohen also made notations on the same document. McConney also confirmed that those notes were in Cohen’s hand writing. Cohen himself testified that the note has Weisselberg’s and his hand writing. Both also testified to the effect that the intent of the note was to create a false business record.
Two of the 3 people in the room have testified that this document was intended as the basis for the falsification of business records.
A reimbursement is NOT a payment for legal services rendered.
That is a lie. The payment was classed as “legal expense”; ANY money you pay your lawyer is a legal expense. It makes no difference what it’s for.
@millhouse,
They will know it was false because of Cohen’s testimony and the testimony of several other witnesses.
Cohen literally told the jury the category in the invoices was false.
Exactly right. I’m glad you agree that the invoices were falsified.
It is a crime to enter falsified invoices into business records FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.
False invoices cannot be used for any legitimate business purpose.
That is utter bullsh*t. The invoice was for money legitimately owed. It had to be paid. And the payment had to be recorded.
The real question is not whether Trump committed a crime, but rather would anyone other than Trump be subjected to a month long trial on these facts? The answer is pretty obvious.
If you don’t know what the proper categorization should have been how can you then claIM IT WAS FALSIFIED?
Your statement makes absolutely no sense.
The invoices were falsified. Cohen testified that he falsified the invoices to make it look like the reimbursement was actually payment for legal services rendered. Trump knew what was going on because he willingly paid Cohen twice the amount of the payment that Daniels actually received from Cohen. This was done to cover the income taxes that Cohen would owe on the payment to him. Why would Trump willingly pay Cohen twice the amount he otherwise could have if the payment really was for legal services. They were trying to hide the fact that Trump was the real source of the payments to Daniels. Payments for legal services are never grossed up to cover income taxes owed.
THAT IS A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO FALSIFY BUSINESS RECORDS. Cohen and Trump both knew EXACTLY what was going on.
There is no “proper categorization” for falsified invoices. The fact that the invoices were categorized at all is the crime.
All the Jury needs to know is if the invoices were falsely categorized.
By your own analysis, Merchan has not choice but to issue a Directed verdict, acquitting Trump
No evidence was presented showing DJT influenced the CPA and bookkeeper. The persons making the decisions as to how to categorize the expense.
New George, how does one respond to such ridiculousness? Laughter!
Yes. It is a misdemeanor. Hillary’s campaign used this dodge to characterize her payments for the falsehoods in the