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.
The Trump prosecution is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
—Macbeth, with apologies to William Shakespeare for any liberties taken.
Query: In the foregoing purchased diatribe, did Turley just violate American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 (a), which refers specifically to criticism of judges: “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.”
Turley said: “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. ” The only conclusion any reasonable person could draw from this statement is that Turley is calling Judge Merchan dishonest–that crosses the ethical line.
Turley is entitled to his own opinion–everyone is. Turley could have said: “I believe a directed verdict would have been warranted”–that’s fair commentary. But when a lawyer calls a judge dishonest because he’s a paid pundit who advocates for a litigant, that’s a bridge too far. It the very fact that Turley is using his “law professor” and “George Washington University” credentials to sell this unethical attack on the Judge that violates the Model Rule, and also IMHO, drags George Washington University into a bad light. He uses his position at the University to bolster his bona fides. Free speech is one thing, but for lawyers, freedom of speech not extend to calling a judge dishonest because he didn’t sua sponte grant a directed verdict, espcially when there is more than enough evidence to convict Trump.
Most legal professionals I have heard comment all agree that not only is there a prima facie case, but a strong case. Calling Cohen a liar is irrelevant to whether there’s enough evidence to convict Trump–it’s the jury’s call whether to believe or disbelieve Cohen. And, most of what Cohen said is strongly backed up with documentation authenticated by witnesses, like recordkeepers. Cohen admitted his previous lies and perjury conviction. Turley knows very well that the credibility of Cohen rests with the jury–not a purchased mouthpiece like him. But, accusing the judge of dishonesty is something entirely different. This is the tact used by Fox and other MAGA media, modeling such attacks on Trump, who does the same thing. I believe that a disciplinary investigation is warranted.
?
“more than enough evidence to convict Trump”
of what, exactly?
I may be a slow learner, but I AM a learner. When someone makes a comment like yours, they disclose that they are a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpster. Attempting to explain the case and evidence to you, despite all of the times various other conmmentators have explained the charges and how the evidence supports them in detail, is tilting at windmills. You wouldn’t believe it, you’d call me a liar, you’d argue with me, all because you believe MAGA media, which has indoctrinated you into believing that the case is politically-motivated, all of the witnesses are liars, the documents are fake, Trump didn’t do anything wrong, he’s a victim, the Judge is dishonest, the prosecutor is dishonest, the Judge’s daughter is making money from this case….blah, blah, blah. You are uneducable by design and by choice.
I may be a slow learner, but I AM a learner.
Peter, you are a terrible troll. Heck, you cant even impersonate a bad drag queen with lumpy, imbalanced falsies like Gigi. RuPaul would kick your rear ends (both of them) to the curb.
LOL
fabulous!
You proved his point by the response of yours. Get educated, trump is a world class grifter. I hope you bought your DJT stock. And I hope your sending your hard earned money to trump so he can pay his lawyers.
You proved his point…..
LMAO
For you see, folks, Gigi is not a she but a he, as in Ralph, Bob, bug, Wally, George, Svelaz etc, etc, etc
Dear DNC Troll Farm, your trolls are as believable as Queers for Palestine. Hire some new homos
BugAnon – we can agree that everyone should send money to Trump to pay his lawyers. Money is the fuel that keeps the Trump defense going. Even Mitt Romney should contribute.
DJT opend 3 months ago at 57. It closed today at 53.4. Seems like the IPO cam pretty close to getting the price right.
Further if you bought DJT at the start of this trial – you would have doubled your investment by now.
If this is “grifting” please sir, give me some more.
Separately, you are free to buy a Trump bible or Trump golden sneakers (or a Stormey Daniels patron saint of indictments candle) or not – your choice.
The people who bought DJT stock at 22 are laughing all the way to the bank.
We do not know what the future holds. Maybe you will prove right and they will prove wrong.
But the odds favor them not you.
Joe Biden asks me for money all the time. Is he a grifter too ?
So far in the battle grounds he has outspent Trump 15:1 and he is losing every single battleground.
Gigi, what action is the indictment based on?
Taking care of a bimbo eruption?
It was not a crime when Clinton had an entire War Room devoted to crushing his many bimbo eruptions and rape accusations. In fact, Clinton’s bimbo eruption War Room was run by the now “unbiased journalist” headlining on unbiased fake news ABC. None other than George Stephanopoulos.
But of course none of what Clinton did, with Hillary’s help, was ever considered “a crime.”
Let’s wrap up this election interference fraud fake crime lawfare “show trial” against Trump so the fake news media can focus its attention 24/7 on a real criminal trial: DEMOCRAT SENATOR Gold Bar Menendez.
In my state two judges were collecting kickbacks from private juvenile facilities for each juvenile they sentenced to those facilities.
Would it be a violation of the rules of legal ethics to call those judges dishonest ?
Outside the left and Merchan’s mind there is no law, no legal cannon that can legitimately preclude people from speaking the truth.
Of course there isn’t, and can’t be. The rule Gigi quoted specifically requires that the allegation is false, and that the speaker made it out of “actual malice” (as defined in NY Times v Sullivan).
Calling those judges dishonest would of course not be a factual statement at all, and so would not be actionable. Likewise it would not violate the rule.
Stating what those judges did is a factual statement, so if you named them and it turned out not to be true they could sue you, and if you were a lawyer they could bring action against you under that rule. You could defend yourself in both cases by showing that you had reason to believe it to be true. But merely calling them dishonest wouldn’t even get that far.
It’s in 3rd. person, you or anyone can be interpreted as they like. It is not an accusation.
“The only conclusion any reasonable person could draw from this statement is that Turley is calling Judge Merchan dishonest–that crosses the ethical line.”
No, the only conclusion that any reasonable person could draw is that the matter is undecided. Since you don’t, and can’t, know what Merchan will do you can’t logically draw the inference that he is being accused of being dishonest.
You’re retarded.
He says an honest judge will grant the motion. If Merchan does not, at that time then you can blame Turley for calling him dishonest. Maybe Merchan will indeed turn out to be honest.
Try to pay attention–Turley said that when the prosecutor rested, at THAT point Merchan should have dismissed. Turley DID call the judge dishonest by claiming that an honest judge would have dismissed when the prosecutor rested. That’s a disciplinary violation, IMHO.
There is no prohibition in the law or cannon of legal ethics for speaking the truth.
Gigi – please take a course in critical thinking and logic.
“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. ”
That is a perfectly correct statement. It can be made by any lawyer. It will very shortly be made By Trump’s lawyers in front of Merchan.
Judges are required – by the same legal and ethical standards to dismiss cases where the prosecution has not presented evidence of every element of every count of every crime. This is not unusual. Mueller had several cases in NY dismissed because he failed to provide ANY evidence of several crimes in his charges. The judge told him to put up or shut up. Mueller with drew the cases.
That occurred BEFORE jury selection. Merchan should have demanded that Bragg prove that he had SOME evidence of every charge BEFORE the trial began. Here we are 15 days in, the prosecution has rested, and we have lots of evidence that never should have been let in.
The jury has heard allegations of crimes that are not charged.
But no actual evidence of any crimes charged has been presented. In fact multiple prosecution witnesses have testified that payments for NDAs ARE legal expenses.
The gist of this case is that Payments to lawyers that include the money that a party to a Settlement receives are NOT legal expenses.
That is an OPINION – not a statement of law or fact. The IRS(and the state) as an example does not care what you call expenses – so long as you do not claim that something that is not an expense is. They do not care at all if you call something that is an expense NOT an expense.
You are allowed to screw yourself.
What should be self evident – even to someone as illogical as you, is that accounting is the process categorizing financial transactions for the purpose of determining the health of the business – and separately for the purpose of accurately determining taxes.
The fundimentals date back to the 1600’s
Double entry accounting – the system that dates to the 1600’s requires that every transaction has TWO sides a debit and a credit.
Because every transaction takes money and moves it from one catagory to another.
If you pay someone you take money from your bank and you give it to that person. Debit and Credit.
All Debits and Credits divide into 5 catagories. Assets, Liabilities, Capital and Revenue and Expenses.
That is the minimum required for a functional accounting system. That is also the minimum required to meet government tax reporting – so long as the catagorization of each transaction into A L C R or E is correct. The IRS does not go after people for misposting an expense into the wrong sub catagory.
But Businesses for their own purposes always divide A L C R and E into sub catagories. These have to do with the managment of the business, Not the law. For a Publicly traded business there are moderately strict rules regarding sub catagories – because all shareholders are Entitled to the Balance sheet(reporting A, L C) and the P&L reporting R and E,
There are no such requirements for privately held businesses.
I have run the finances of many business – my own, family businesses, partnerships, etc for 50+ years.
The typical chart of accounts for a small -medium business has about 100 sub categories. These are chosen by the business owners.
There is are a couple of standards that many businesses follow FASB being one these provide dramatically more sub catagories, but even so the typical business rarely sues more than about 100.
There is a reason for this – the purpose of the sub catagories is to allow managers to manage the business.
If you are the CEO of a company (or a shareholder in a public company), You do not need to know the amount spent on Pizza as opposed to soda for business sponsored employee events.
Witnesses testified that Trump Organization checks needed one signature under 10,000 and two signatures over 10,000
This is an example of categorization and the purpose is to avoid inundating business managers with extraneous information.
Business reports – especially for non-public businesses are kept to 2-3 pages at most. Because someone owning a multi-million dollar business does not have the time to review expenditures in thousands of categories.
That is going to be true of privately held businesses no matter what the scale.
Left wing nuts tend to not understand this – but one of the strengths of the free market is NOT that it is perfect, but that it is efficient.
I own apartments. When I have one for rent, my goal is to rent the apartment as quickly as possible to a tenant that is GOOD ENOUGH.
I do not spend hours reviewing every application – that is inefficient. I do not need the BEST tenant, I need a GOOD ENOUGH tenant.
Everything in the real world and free markets works that way.
Businesses thrive not by making perfect decisions – but by making good enough decisions quickly and efficiently
This is one of the reasons why government intrusion is ALWAYS harmful. Government is NOT about efficiency. Nor is government actually about the ants and needs of people – that is the purpose of markets not government. Government is about preserving the minimum of order necescary to preclude anarchy. Free markets will manage the rest.
The point is that every single transaction – every check, every expense is going to be catagorized by a business.
Catagorized means GROUPED.
One of the mistakes You and Brag are making is failing to grasp that the purpose of catagorization – grouping is to sort transactions into abotu 100 different groups – keeping things that are similar together.
It is NOT to describe in detail each individual transaction.
The manages of a business do nto want to see the details of every transaction every time they run a P&L.
Legal expenses is the correct catagory for anything paid to lawyers.
I would further venture that the FASB which provides thousands of codes/groups/catagories, does not have one for “NDA’s with porn stars.
Query: In the foregoing purchased diatribe, did Turley just violate American Bar Association’s Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 (a),
No, he didn’t.
which refers specifically to criticism of judges:
No, it doesn’t.
“A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge.”
Read those words. What does it say? It forbids only false factual statements, not opinions. Even if Mr Turley had actually called Marchan dishonest, which he didn’t, that would be 100% ethical, and protected speech, because it’s an opinion. Just as Marchan could not sue him for defamation, because opinions are not actionable, he could also not bring an action under this rule. And that would apply even if the opinion were incorrect, which it isn’t. Merchan very likely is dishonest, and lawyers are just as entitled as the rest of us to say so.
Can Trump’s defense call Rep. Goldman and Loren Merchan as witnesses?
“Democrat Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), client of Justice Juan Merchan’s daughter’s consulting firm, said Tuesday he prepared Michael Cohen for his testimony in the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump.
Goldman’s preparation of Cohen appears to raise a conflict of interest.
Goldman paid more than $157,000 dollars to the political consulting firm of Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, Federal Election Commission disbursement filings obtained by Breitbart News…”
https://www.breitbart.com/2024-election/2024/05/15/rep-dan-goldman-client-judge-merchans-daughter-says-he-prepped-michael-cohen-trump-trial/
Witnesses to WHAT, exactly, as it pertains to the charges against Trump? HOW would witness preparation assistance constittute a conflict of interest? Those MAGA media pundits you listen to and believe are polluting your brain with nonsense.
Corruption and coordination. It would allow the jury to hear their testimony. Just as the jury was allowed to hear Stormy’s totally irrelevant “testimony.”
Witness prep is a legitimate domain for inquiry.
But if this jury does not already know Cohen is a sleeze – Examining Goldman will not get you there.
The best strategy is demand a directed verdict. whn they do not get it. Put on no witnesses and tell the jury the prosecution has failed uterly to even present evidence much less evidence beyond a reasonable doubt concerning the ACTUAL charges.
Frankly I think the defense should reserve about 1/3 of its closing for Trump to speak to the jury.
Trump is likely to be good there, and that allows the jury to hear from him.
He can say most anything he wants without legal peril – even the gag order would not apply.
But he would MOSTLY have to stick to the case.
Gigi,
“Witnesses to WHAT, exactly, as it pertains to the charges against Trump?”
Correct, That is why Daniels, Pecker, and innumerable other witnesses should never have been allowed to testify.
There are 34 counts of fraudulent business records. That is what is admissible. That is all that is admissable.
If Bragg wanted to bring in Daniels and the National Enquirer and about half the rest of his witness list – he needed to file a charge that somehow involved them.
Goldman is admissible to impeach Cohen – but it would be incredibly difficult to get a sitting member of congress.
Goldman would be a lousy witness, He is a moron. He is possibly the stupidest democrat in congress and worse he is too stupid to know that. But Trump would have to deal with him on direct which is much harder.
Finally – if this jury does not already know this is a political trial and that Cohen is a sleezy perjurer, no additional witnesses will help.
Witness prep is not a “conflict of interest” – but it is a legitimate avenue of inquiry for opposing parties.
I doubt Merchan would allow Goldman in – again sitting members of congress really hard to get as witnesses.
But if Goldman was Mar Elias – i.e. NOT a sitting member of congress who had prepped Cohen he would be admissible.
But I do not see any reason Trump should call any witnesses.
The prosecution has FAILED. There is nothing a Trump witness can say that has not already been elicited by Trump’s lawyers on Cross.
While there are a number of lies that were told, the defense has dealt with those on cross, and there is already testimony from others contradicting most of them. And finally – it does not matter – because you can beleive every word Daniels and Cohen and … said and there STILL is no case.
Trump is not the person who coded the payments as a legal expense. The accounted testified that he did that on his own – or with limited consultation with Weisleberg. The prosecution did not call Weiselberg. No one has testified that Trump told anyone to call these payments legal expenses.
But worse still – They ARE legal expenses. That is both a fact and several prosecution witnesses testified to that.
So there is zero evidence of the charges Brag filed.
All the rest of this circus has been about Braggs dubious legal theories about inadmissible crimes because they were not charged.
There is no charge of a federal campaign violation.
There is no other charge at all except the records charge.
You can not convict someone for something they are not charged with.
And there is no evidence of the actual charges.
Guilt by association is something leftists do. I hate to see a fellow conservative following that vile thought pattern.
Judge Merchan is not responsible for his adult daughter — he’s only responsible for running a fair trial. He’s given Trump a number of favorable rulings, so I just don’t buy that he’s biased. Anyway, the Jury, not the Judge, decides the verdict. It takes a unanimous 12 for guilty. That’s doubtful, especially since Merchan allowed 2 lawyers to serve as jurors.
You “just don’t buy that he’s biased”?
He’s made obvious reversible errors and he does not care.
Merchan gagged Trump, but allowed Stormy and Cohen to be all over SM selling ‘their’ stories, profiting, and trashing Trump, the DEFENDANT.
Merchan allowed Stormy’s totally irrelevant testimony.
Yet you believe he’s “running a fair trial”? LOL.
An appeals court reviewed the gag order and said it was fine.
As far back as 1838 the U supreme court said otherwise. In the early 20th century they extended that to state courts.
Gag orders are common – though pretty much NEVER on defendants.
A judge can gag a witness, because the enforcement is that the witness does not get to testify if they violate.
You can not gag the defendant, and there is very little latitude for gaging the defense lawyers.
The first amendment does not read, the defendant has free speech – except when the government accuses them of a crime.
Trump can be punished for speech that is ACTUALLY a crime. By indicting him and trying him for that speech.
Worse still the gag order is “prior restraint” – that faces the HIGHEST constitutional bar.
You can SOMETIMES punish people for what they say. You can not tell them what they can not say.
This is not even a close call – Merchan is wrong, the apeals court is wrong.
I would note you can also tell this is unconstitutional by the order itself.
Trump is allowed to say what ever he wants about Merchan and Bragg.
But he is not allowed to say anything about Colangelo or any of the other prosecutors.
Trump lost at the appeals court level because the courts no that they will never be overruled.
Not because they are right on the law.
But because one way or the other the gag order will be lifted shortly. And once it is every subsequent appelate court will refuse to hear the case because it is moot.
Though Trump is in the unique position of being able to file a violation of rights under color of law lawsuit That would NOT be moot – because he can claim the gag order had an ongoing effect on the election.
Because of what his daughter does for a living, judge Merchan is responsible for recusing himself as required by law. Following judicial “ethics” and the “law” is what Merchan is responsible for.
Merchan is breaking NY ethics rules for not recusing himself due to the money trail to his immediate family. He and Bragg are going to end up buns up and kneeling!
Conflicts of interest do include family members – Merchan should have recused himself.
Merchan is not responsible for his daughter. He is responsible for staying on a case where his own family will benefit from one outcome.
That said Trump’s lawyers can try to impeach Merchan in appeals, but NOT infront of the jury.
Merchan has given Trump a FEW favorable rulings.
But he has made a long list of reversable errors.
Large numbers of people are saying that this case can not go to the jury.
The fact is there was never enough to go to trial.
More than 1/2 of the testimony in this case had NOTHING to do with the charges against Trump.
it was inadmissible.
Probably not. Trumps lawyers can probably subpeona Loren Merchan as part of their appeal – but she has nothing to do with the charges and evidence at this trial.
Nor should Trump seek to call her. Almost half of the witnesses Bragg called have no relationship at all to anything related to this case.
If there is an appeal one of the huge issues will be bringing predjudicial extraenous garbage into court.
Merchan has already said that Stormey was admissible because Trump denied the relationship.
Merchan is wrong about that, but he is correct that because the defense denied the affair in their opening they clouded the issue.
It would have been better to leave that for the closing. Then it would have been harder for Merchan to allow he as a witness.
Maybe Goldman could be called to impeach Cohen. Though that would get very messy. It is very hard to get a congressmen into court.
Goldman is a moron and likely would be worse that Cohen. But Trump would be dealing with him on direct which is harder.
Regardless, it really serves no purpose. If this jury did not know before the start of this trial that Cohen was a sleezebag tons of further evidence would not sell them.
I am not sure the best thing for Trump to do is not to:
1). Demand a directed verdict.
2). Rest their case with no witnesses.
They have proven everything they are likely to prove very successfully on cross already.
There is nothing they can add.
Calling no witnesses is a signal of confidence and strength.
There is no damage they need top do to Braggs case – it is an abject failure.
If this jury is going to convict anyway – no witnesses will matter.
“Biden claims the Trump trial is not political, then invites Trump to a debate saying “I hear you are free on Wednesdays,” removing all doubt that the trial is part of his political strategy.” @DavidM_Friedman
The real question here is what in the hell are the jury instructions even going to be! The instructions have to lay out elements of the alleged crime that the prosecution has to meet.
I do not see this judge giving a directed verdict, though he should. Having practiced criminal law for years my curiosity is has me pondering that question.
Professor, what are your thoughts?
Why don’t you see a directed verdict here? Clearly the judge will want to avoid a DV, but there are no elements of a crime. If he tries to continue, how does he justify?
I practice in civil court and this would clearly be over after the plaintiff’s (prosecutor’s) case-in-chief. Heck, it would have been killed before trial in summary judgment. But maybe criminal is different.
When the judge allowed Stormy Daniels to testify about wholly irrelevant and overly prejudicial facts to the case, I knew this was not an impartial jurist. Making matters worse, he scolded the defense for not objecting more after they had objected to the testimony to begin with.
You did not know that BEFORE Stormy’s testimony? It’s been blatantly obvious all along.
Well yes to the public it’s obvious. Procedurally the issue has to be raised before a judge can rule on it.
This corrupt judge Merchan is nothing more than an apparatchik working on behalf of the apparat.
JM: No. When Trump’s lawyers moved for a mistrial, Judge Merchan commented that they failed to object to portions of Daniels’s testimony. Whether this was deliberate or not is the question–I believe it was deliberate–elicit objectionable material, fail to object, and then scream “mistrial”. Failure to object, move to strike and move for the jury to be admonished to disregard constitutes WAIVER, both on the trial court level and appellate level. It’s called “invited error”–and, it won’t fly. The issue is not Judge Merchan’s impartiality–this was, IMHO, a tactical decision by Trump’s attorneys that backfired. But, since you live MAGA media and believe their hype, all of a sudden Judge Merchan has to be the bad guy here. You can’t scream prejudice when you invite the error and don’t move to strike.
https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1788412793848570208?
Looks like Wray is up and running with Crossfire Hurricane for 2024
It is amazing all these attorneys and citizen jurors who throw away a lifetime of integrity for the hate of one man.
Floyd Estovir, Trump has spent 8 years stoking hatred. And now it comes back to him. Big surprise!
it’s amazing to me how so many people are blind to the reality of Donald J. Trump–a chronic, habitual liar, serial adulterer, flashy, braggadocious, hungry for power, attention, adulation and who attacks anyone who doesn’t kiss his ring. This is someone who trashed our economy lied about a pandemic, causing more people to die unnecessarily, damaged our credibility with our allies because Putin helped him cheat, a thief of classified documents, someone who started an insurrection, someone who interfered with Biden’s presidency, and who can’t stop lying.
What world do you live in whoever you are today?
I don’t think people understand. He might as well of lied the whole time, you may assume he did legally. Once you’ve been convicted of lying under oath, your credibility is shot for life. A courtroom is the last place you’re going to be from both sides. Obviously the Democrats have a very, very low bar. You can legally assume everything out of his mouth is a lie. And folks, you never get that back your whole life. Once you ruin your word, there is no way to get it back.
America, take a good look at what you have become due to the egregious extralegal extirpation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the immigration law of the American Founders, and the subsequent invasion, conquest, and subjugation of the United States.
Who the —- hands their nation to the barbarians on a silver platter?
Where can I see pictures of Stormy’s beaver?
Just get a giant quart jar of mayonnaise and take the lid off…
Hilarious!
Professor Turley Writes:
“Pecker was speaking to Trump about the payments and even met with him at the White House”.
……………………………………….
One thing we have learned from this trial is that The National Enquirer played a pivotal role in launching Trump’s 2016 campaign. ‘The National Enquirer’, a supermarket tabloid no one would ever associate with serious political news. Trump relied on this tabloid, along with Alex Jones, to put his name out as candidate in the 2016 primaries.
And to think that Trump attacks mainstream media on almost daily basis.
So, do you think that the New York Times is any more honest? That is funny if you do.
Kerry Kolsch is Floyd James Estovir
He can’t buy them off toe say what he wants so it infuriates him.
“Did Michael Cohen Commit Perjury in the Trump Trial?”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Indeed, this court proceeding is not the “Trump Trial.”
This jurisprudential travesty is a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) 2024 presidential campaign event derived from a putrefied, banana republic judicial branch.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which long ago abandoned the veritable American Constitution and Bill of Rights, fundamentally transforming the United States of America into an essentially Marxist ideological Frankenstein.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Oh, look! An “honest” Democrat!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CjSvCPiMGXw
“It’s more about just getting the community together.”
– Video Interview Subject
_____________________________
She just described the fraudulent “climate changy,” “global warming” campaign for collectivism (i.e. socialism, i.e. communism).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
When all is said and done is there a way to put the prosecutors and the judge in prison for extreme malpractice?
Legal and ethical violations including, but not limited to:
– “Malicious Prosecution.”
– “Making public statements that were prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
– “Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
– “Conspiracy.”
– “Suborning perjury.”
Thanks!
Zero chance. Less than zero. Sadly. It’s just the way it is.
No, there is not. Prosecutors and judges both have absolute immunity.
Even Nifong would have got away scot free if he hadn’t tampered with evidence. Knowingly bringing false charges was not enough, because of his absolute immunity.
Turley makes a valid point about Trump’s great misfortune to hire convicted, pathological liars like Michael Cohen, Andrew Weisselberg, & Rudy Giuliani. Weisselberg pleaded guilty to perjury charges & was convicted of tax fraud & falsifying business records. Giuliani was convicted on defamation charges & currently faces a defamation lawsuit by Smartmatic for claiming voting machines rigged the election.
Of course, Trump himself was found liable for sexual abuse & convicted of business fraud.
We all look forward to Trump taking the witness stand to forcefully explain the actual reason he paid convicted pathological liar Cohen $420,000 after the 2016 election.
The marxist A.I. programs are getting better every day. It appears the program has a “self-loathing” feature. Cool.
The best thing about marxist A.I. programs is how they use actual facts like Weisselberg & Giuliani’s convictions & Trump being held liable for sexual abuse & convicted of business fraud. Wholeheartedly agree they’re definitely getting better every day.
No one with a brain believes that these men are guilty of crimes. It just shows how Democrats will destroy you if you do not play ball with them.
MICHAEL COHEN
First of all we remind you that paying money for hush deals under confidentiality agreement contracts IS NOT A CRIME, Cohen was familiar with because he had done it before for other clients. What Michael Cohen got in prison was years of TAX EVASIONS IN HIS PERSONAL RECORDS. The data showed that hundreds of thousands of dollars were given to Cohen, via Essential Consultants, from Fortune 500 firms such as Novartis and AT&T, which had business before the Trump administration. It was also revealed that Essential Consultants had received at least $500,000 from a New York-based investment firm called Columbus Nova, which is linked to a Russian oligarch. The firm’s largest client is a company controlled by Viktor Vekselberg, a Ukrainian-born Russian oligarch.
Questions were raised about many of the payments, such as four totaling $200,000 that AT&T paid to the LLC between October 2017 and January 2018, while at the same time the proposed merger between the company and Time Warner was pending before the Justice Department. AT&T claimed that the money was paid to the LLC and other firms that were used to provide insights into understanding the new administration, and that the LLC did no legal or lobbying work for AT&T.
On May 11, 2018, the CEO of AT&T stated that in early 2017 it was approached by Cohen to provide “his opinion on the new president and his administration”. Cohen was paid $600,000 ($50,000 per month) over the year, which its CEO described as “a big mistake”. Novartis was also approached by Cohen and was offered similar services.
Novartis, a Switzerland–based pharmaceutical giant paid the LLC nearly $1.2 million in separate payments. Novartis released a statement May 9, 2018, that it hired the LLC to help the company understand the “health care policy” of the new administration, but it actually did not receive benefit for its investment. The statement continued that Novartis made a decision to not engage Essential Consultants further, but it could not terminate the contract for “cause”, raising concerns on why the company did not pursue reimbursement.
Korea Aerospace Industries paid $150,000, ostensibly for advice on “cost accounting standards”.
Franklin L. Haney agreed to pay Cohen $10 million if he successfully lobbied for the United States Department of Energy to finance the Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station, or a reduced fee if the funding targets were only partially met.
The FBI sought documents pertaining to Michael Cohen’s ownership of taxi medallions, Cohen is also being investigated for possible bank and tax fraud.
In 2017, Cohen was estimated to own at least 34 taxi medallions through 17 limited liability companies (LLCs) as co-owner of Taxi Financing Corp and a fleet of New York City taxicabs. Cohen was a business partner in the taxi business with Simon Garber. Between April and June 2017, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance filed seven tax warrants against Cohen and his wife for unpaid taxi taxes owed to the MTA.
Cohen has been implicated in real estate ventures in Manhattan, including buying and selling four apartment buildings between 2011 and 2014. The total purchase price of the four buildings was $11 million and the total sales price was $32 million. Cohen sold the four properties at assessed values, in cash transactions, to LLCs. In 2015, Cohen purchased an Upper East Side apartment building for $58 million.
What action falsified the accounting record?
Lots of words tossed about but the definitions of the words seem to be as pliable as jello
You are the one playing word games.
The invoices are false in and of themselves. Cohen has testified to that.
The “action” of entering the invoices AT ALL FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER into the General Ledger is in and of itself a CRIME!!!!!
It is not a question of how the invoices were categorized. They were false invoices. They cannot be categorized for any legitimate business purpose.
The fact that they were entered AT ALL IS THE CRIME!!!!!
You truly are a bombastic kind of silly. Your bias list is so willing to allow this travesty , emphatically even . Says a lot about the blue D branders lack of commitment to rule of law , morality and plain old common sense
Phergus is Floyd James Estovir.
Damn! Busted again!
Then the crime is Cohens.
The NDA’s are real. Legal
What bull! A NDA is a legal contract and any cost of procuring it is a legal expense. NDAs serve a legitimate business purpose and are used every day in the business and scientific world.
It’s true that entering the invoices under a false category would be a crime. The question would be, who did it and who authorized it and why. If Trump did it/authorized it, then he committed the crime, which is a misdemeanor under NY laws, and the statute of limitations ran out long ago. To gin it up to a felony, which could still be charged, the prosecution has to prove that it was done as part of another (felony) crime. From what I can gather, the prosecution hasn’t proven that Trump is the person who authorized the false entry, or that he did it to facilitate another crime. I am not a big Trump fan, but the idea that Bragg can simply say, “Oh, Trump did it while committing another crime,” and give no specifics, thereby not allowing Trump to fight back, is absurd. It truly is banana republic stuff.
If Trump did it/authorized it, then he committed the crime, which is a misdemeanor
“If” is no longer a needed modifier. Bragg said he is done submitting evidence, and calling witnesses.
There is NO evidence Trump involved himself with the accounting.
That is just an outright lie. There is no such crime. And the invoices weren’t false; Cohen was genuinely owed money for his legal services in obtaining an NDA from Daniels, including laying out money out of pocket for it. So regardless of what he wrote on the invoices they were genuine.
“The “action” of entering the invoices . . .”
Someone doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “invoice.”
I actually pity the poor Shills here, pretending that they do not see anything wrong with this whole ridiculous trial. An overly conflicted judge whose family is making money off the deal, no ability to state an underlying crime, a porn star and a perjurer as the star witnesses, etc. – and the poor Shills have to pretend that none of that exists. It looks like Shill HQ has instructed them to just keep hollering- Trump falsified business records! Yeah, by calling legal expenses – legal expenses.
I am being sincere about my sympathy for the Shills, because one of my part-time jobs is working in a field where government and academia intersect. I hate that job, and can not wait for the day when I can give my two weeks notice. Assuming I do not get fired prior to that. The people there are nice enough, but I am required to pretend that I am stupid. Half the group works to achieve certain objectives, where the other half of the group (the supervisors) work to prevent the first group from achieving the goals. The business acumen there is childish and rudimentary – yet the people running the place are highly paid and dumber than a bag of hammers. Others there are not stupid, but they have to conform. They are young, and it is a well-paid job for them, with benefits.
But, I have to work to feed the stray cats I have taken in. The job takes a mental toll on me. I get sick to my stomach each day before I go to work, and dread the hours of enforced stupidity that lay ahead of me. So, for the paid shills here, I understand what they must be going through, too.
Floyd, get a different job then, if you can.
Why put yourself through that?
Should be something better out there.
I am looking. Because of medical problems, I have to have a particular type of at-home work that I can work around those issues. As it is, I take certain medications well-prior to going to work, and moderate what and when I eat so as not to interfere with that job. I did the same thing on a prior job (for over five years), and never took a sick day during that time. When I was briefly hospitalized a few years ago, I worked from my hospital bed. However, that job ended when the company had to downsize, and many people were laid off. Hence, my new job.
Something better is out there, and I just have to find it. In the meantime, I just gotta grin and bear it as best I can.
Floyd,
After just skimming through the comments, yeah the shills are not having a good day.
Their narratives are failing. They keep screaming the same DNC talking points over and over again but anyone with any degree of common sense can see right through them.
Biden is falling behind in the polls to include swing states he won in 2020. Biden is polling poorly with Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and now, Jews are questioning the DNC.
Then there are Never Bidens: The Rise of the ‘Never Bidens’
“Donors who once worried more about Donald Trump now see the president’s bid for a second term as the greater threat to America.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-rise-of-the-never-bidens
Good luck with the job hunt.
Thanks! Heading off to the stupid job now. Grrrrr.
Merchan’s family is NOT “making money off the deal”. Nobody has yet shown any evidence that the daughter’s income will change by so much as one dollar depending on the outcome. And that is the standard. Nor has anyone shown any evidence that she has raised so much as a dollar in connection with the trial.
Turley object to Cohen’s grifting.
What is he selling gold sneakers or bibles?
Marketing. Free market in action.
All DC politicians market swag with their names.
The people on this blog are obsessively repeating bizarre fantasies about the facts in this case.
There is no crime.
Bragg has yet to identify a crime.
Even if there was a crime, it is a misdemeanor.
The statute of limitations has expired.
The payments were for legal expenses.
There was no falsification of business records.
Invoices are not business records.
Cancelled checks are not business records.
Trump was unaware of what was going on.
This is a very short list.
If any of these claims have any validity whatsoever, then why didn’t Trump’s lawyers move for dismissal on these grounds when the charges were first laid.
His lawyers have not even attempted to argue any of these points because they have absolutely no validity.
The answer is that all these claims are total nonsense, untethered from reality. You are living in a bizarre alternate reality.
You called these “bizarre fantasies”???
“There is no crime.
Bragg has yet to identify a crime.
Even if there was a crime, it is a misdemeanor.
The statute of limitations has expired.
The payments were for legal expenses.
There was no falsification of business records.
Invoices are not business records.
Cancelled checks are not business records.
Trump was unaware of what was going on. . .”
Uh, Dude, those are REALITIES!
Then kindly explain to me why Trump’s lawyers have not even ATTEMPTED to argue these points.
These would all be grounds for dismissal, but Trump’s lawyers have not argued this.
Why not??????
Because they have no validity.
Kindly explain to me why you haven’t read what record there is? (my first response disappeared for some reason.)
OMG – hit the bong again.
The case will be overturned on appeal for any number of reasons. I do agree that the lawyers are not the best.
“Did Michael Cohen Commit Perjury in the Trump Trial?”
Does it matter?