Below is my column in Fox.com on the approaching end of the Trump trial in Manhattan. With the dramatic implosion of Michael Cohen on the stand on Thursday with the exposure of another alleged lie told under oath, even hosts and commentators on CNN are now criticizing the prosecution and doubting the basis for any conviction. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper admitted that he would “absolutely” have doubts after Cohen’s testimony. CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig declared “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically.” He previously stated that this case would never have been brought outside of a deep blue, anti-Trump district. Other legal experts, including on CNN and MSNBC, admitted that they did not get the legal theory of the prosecution or understand the still mysterious crime that was being concealed by the alleged book-keeping errors. The question is whether the jury itself is realizing that they are being played by the prosecution.
Here is the column:
In the movie “Quiz Show,” about the rigging of a 1950s television game show, the character Mark Van Doren warns his corrupted son that “if you look around the table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.”
As the trial of former President Donald Trump careens toward its conclusion, one has to wonder if the jurors are wondering the same question.
For any discerning juror, the trial has been conspicuously lacking any clear statement from the prosecutors of what crime Trump was attempting to commit by allegedly mischaracterizing payments as “legal expenses.” Even liberal legal experts have continued to express doubt over what crime is being alleged as the government rests its case.
There is also the failure of the prosecutors to establish that Trump even knew of how payments were denoted or that these denotations were actually fraudulent in denoting payments to a lawyer as legal expenses.
The judge has allowed this dangerously undefined case to proceed without demanding greater clarity from the prosecution.
Jurors may also suspect that there is more to meet the eye about the players themselves. While the jurors are likely unaware of these facts, everyone “around the table” has controversial connections. Indeed, for many, the judge, prosecutors, and witnesses seem as random or coincidental as the cast from “Ocean’s Eleven.” Let’s look at three key things.
1. The Prosecutors
First, there are the prosecutors. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg originally (as did his predecessor) rejected this ridiculous legal theory and further stated that he could not imagine ever bringing a case where he would call former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen, let alone make him the entirety of a prosecution.
Bragg’s suspension of the case led prosecutor Mark F. Pomerantz to resign. Pomerantz then wrote a book on the prosecution despite his colleagues objecting that he was undermining their work. Many of us viewed the book as unethical and unprofessional, but it worked. The pressure campaign forced Bragg to green-light the prosecution.
Pomerantz also met with Cohen in pushing the case.
Bragg then selected Matthew Colangelo to lead the case. Colangelo was third in command of the Justice Department and gave up that plum position to lead the case against Trump. Colangelo was also paid by the Democratic National Committee for “political consulting.” So a former high-ranking official in the Biden Justice Department and a past consultant to the DNC is leading the prosecution.
2. The Judge
Judge Juan Merchan has been criticized not only because he is a political donor to President Biden but his daughter is a high-ranking Democratic political operative who has raised millions in campaigns against Trump and the GOP. Merchan, however, was not randomly selected. He was specifically selected for the case due to his handling of an earlier Trump-related case.
3. The Star Witness
Michael Cohen’s checkered history as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer is well known. Now, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., is under fire after disclosing that “I have met with [Cohen] a number of times to prepare him.”
Goldman in turn paid Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, more than $157,000 dollars for political consulting.
Outside the courtroom, there is little effort to avoid or hide such conflicts. While Democrats would be outraged if the situation were flipped in a prosecution of Biden, the cross-pollination between the DOJ, DNC, and Democratic operatives is dismissed as irrelevant by many in the media.
Moreover, there is little outrage in New York that, in a presidential campaign where the weaponization of the legal system is a major issue, Trump is not allowed to discuss Cohen, Colangelo, or these conflicts. A New York Supreme Court judge is literally controlling what Trump can say in a presidential campaign about the alleged lawfare being waged against him.
The most striking aspect of these controversial associations is how little was done to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interests. There were many judges available who were not donors or have children with such prominent political interests in the case. Bragg could have selected someone who was not imported by the Biden administration or someone who had not been paid by the DNC.
There was no concern over the obvious appearance of a politically motivated and stacked criminal case. Whether or not these figures are conflicted or compromised, no effort was taken to assure citizens that any such controversies are avoided in the selection of the key players in this case.
What will be interesting is how the jury will react when, after casting its verdict, the members learn of these undisclosed associations. This entire production was constructed for their benefit to get them to convict Trump despite the absence of a clear crime or direct evidence.
They were the marks and, like any good grift, the prosecutors were hoping that their desire for a Trump conviction would blind them to the con.
Bragg, Colangelo and others may be wrong. Putting aside the chance that Judge Merchan could summon up the courage to end this case before it goes to the jury, the grift may have been a bit too obvious.
New Yorkers are a curious breed. Yes, they overwhelmingly hate Trump, but they also universally hate being treated like chumps. When they get this case, they just might look around the courtroom and decide that they are the suckers in a crooked game.
Some here have tried to attack Costello.
Costello’s testified to, and said on the MSM that his advice to Cohen was
“If you have anything Truthful on Trump NOW is the time to provide that to SDNY.
If your choices are between suicide and rolling on Trump and you have ANYTHING to give SDNY, NOW is the time to give it to them”
Costello told Cohen this in-front of another lawyer – so it can be corroborated.
I would also WARN those left wing nuts fawning over Cohen. That is appears near certain Costello will be testifying.
Costello’s Target is NOT Cohen – though Cohen will be the weapon he uses.
Costello’s target is Bragg – for failing to provide the grand jury with inculpatory evidence – which they are obligated to do.
And with Putting Cohen on the stand KNOWING ahead of time he was going to lie.
Sorry exculpatory evidence – inculpatory regarding Cohen.
Exactly.
Costello can destroy the entire proceeding – serious witness with extensive experience fatal for the corrupt prosecution.
Assuming Merchan doesn’t direct the verdict, the defense should call Costello to impeach Cohen further, Bradley Smith to explain that payment for an NDA is not a campaign expenditure and an accountant to explain that booking the payments to Cohen as legal expenses was not improper.
Costello’s comments in front of Congress the other day (Jordan’s committee) indicate he wants to go after Bragg for suborning perjury, and possibly Merchan for his actions in this sham show trial.
Numerous left wing commentors have claimed that Cohen is doing well under Cross – that is Not what Reporters like Anderson Cooper and the MSM legal experts are saying.
Numerous MSM reporters and legal analysts – not Turley not Andrew MacCArthy are saying that Blanch is brutally dismembering Cohen’s testimony.
While there are many many instance in which Blanche has purportedly dismembered Cohen – and BTW he is not Done, the bloodbath will continue Monday.
The most Critical is that Blanche completely undermined Cohen’s testimony that Trump knew what he was doing With Daniels.
The Critical phone call to Trump’s body guard Schiller lasted 90 seconds.
It occured immediately after a text to Shiller from Cohen asking if Schiller could deal with some harrassing phone calles that Cohen was receiving from a 14year old boy.
The Text confirms and Cohen admitted the actual purpose of the phone call was to ask Schiller if the Secret Service could do anything about this 14year old.
It is problematic that Cohen tried to sic the SS on a 14yr old boy.
It is problematic that the call to Schiller is not long enough to deal with the issue that Cohen now admits he called about, and THEN have Shiller FIND and pass the phone to Trump
Finally Cohen backed down from – “This is what I told Trump” to I NOW recall calling Shiller about the 14yr old,
But it is my recollection that I also talked to Trump about Daniels.
@John Say
Uhm… the issue w Cohen had nothing to do w his attempt to sic the SS on a 14yr old Boy.
But that he claimed that it was that phone call where he told Trump and was caught in yet another lie.
Now you have a couple of problems… Cohen lying under oath, again…
Bragg now could face issues over 1752. Suborning Perjury. (And more evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.)
Trump’s lawyers should move for a directed verdict of not guilty… and this would box the judge into a corner.
This case stinks.
Some are saying the fix is in because Biden wants Trump to be in jail when it comes time to debate him.
So he could have his empty chair moment. That will backfire.
Or its Biden’s ‘Hail Mary’ and if he fails… they’ll try to find another candidate.
-G
There are SO MANY problems with this case they are beyond counting.
It is increasingly evident that this case has FAILED, Backfired.
That is why many one the MSM are starting to point out problems.
It is why Biden agreed to debates.
There is no way in the world Biden would agree to debate Trump if he was leading in the polls.
AND BTW – I am fine with that. How Biden runs his campaign is his business – and when he loses it was because of his choices.
Candidates agree to debate – because either they believe that the debate will help them with voters, or because they believe refusing to debate will harm them. If they have a big enough lead – they can get away with refusing and avoid the risk of helping the other candidate.
The FACT that Biden agreed to debates, means that he and his campaign beleives that WHATEVER the outcome of this lawfare in Manhattan, that Trump will have survived and still be leading.
Contra Biden – he lost all his debates with Trump before – even the one Trump had Covid during.
But it is worse than – even the points that he did NOT lose – all turned out to by LIES.
If the MSM does not rigorously fact check Biden in these debates – voters will.
Almost no one believes Biden is credible in anything he says.
There is absolutely no doubt at all – that even in a highly biased against Trump format that Trump will wipe the floor with Biden.
But THAT is not what these debates are about – that is already baked in. I doubt anyone is going to change their vote because Biden is caught in yet another lie.
People KNOW what they are getting with Trump, and they KNOW what they are getting from Biden.
The two can spar over policies issues – but that will not change a single vote. We do not need to see Biden and Trump vote to make our voting choices based on ISSUES.
The ONLY person who has a risk in these debates is Biden.
If he manages two consecutive performances like he did for the SOTU he migh persuade a few voters. more likely he will not lose any, and more important still – if he does not fall on his ass on June 27th he MIGHT blunt efforts to dump him at the convention.
But if Biden has a bran fart at one of these debates – especially the June one – he is toast – the democrats will pitch him.
And Biden has brain farts all the time.
Biden’s SOTU was a piss poor SOTU – but it WAS evidence that for 90minutes Biden was able to come accross as not thoroughly demented.
Regardless the debates are a hail mary by team Biden – because they understand that Bragg has failed.
Whatever the results of the Trial – Team Biden does not beleive they have weakened Trump politically.
We’ve Seen This Before
Anonymous says:
Darren licks Dennis Macs balls and cornholes his nephew when Dennis is done with him
……………………………………..
This is Floyd James Estovir having a tantrum. We saw this last fall when ‘Tom’ failed to take-off as a new identity.
Smug liberals kept linking Tom to Estovir’s retinue of ‘regulars’. A clump of supposedly unrelated commenters who speak in total unison.
Back then, in the fall of ’23, Estovir was vexed by his failure to make Tom the big man on blog. ‘Tom was supposed to happen’, Estovir presumed.
So Estovir felt compelled to keep posting ‘turds’. Endless comments about steaming sh-t with generous use of the ‘K’ word.
Estovir kept posting these ‘turds’ under green anonymous. That was deliberate strategy. Estovir was taking ‘anonymous’ hostage. An effort to completely degrade, not just green anonymous, but the entire comment thread.
That crisis ended only when Mr Smith agreed to censor anyone questioning the identities of Estovir’s regulars. Liberals were once again required not to notice Estovir’s different identities..
So here in May, we are having another hostage crisis. Estovir, as green anonymous, will blow-up the blog unless Mr Smith cracks down on the liberals .
Al this makes one ask, “Is Johnathan Turley’s blog subject to the whims of a foreign troll?”
Or could Estovir be a domestic troll linked to a militia, perhaps? Or anti-abortion extremists?
And could Johnathan Turley ever come clean by admitting his blog is compromised? It might not be so easy. Look at the message above. That’s an indicator of ‘who’ Turley is dealing with.
This is Floyd James Estovir having a tantrum. We saw this last fall when ‘Tom’ failed to take-off as a new identity.
You spend so much time complaining about this blog, you and the chicken littles can have your own blog and whine to each other.
That lets the adults in the room talk.
This is an excellent summary of a appalling trial. I am not a fan of Trump and some of his behavior but this trial is an overt effort by the New York political and judicial establishment to politically and financially damage Trump. While New Yorkers may be a curious breed, but it appears that the New York justice system has a high threshold of tolerance for a politically malicious judicial process – especially if it goes in the approved direction. Other than the jury and the voters, within the system there isn’t much in the way of checks to spiteful prosecutions. One would hope that in other jurisdictions, beginning a trial with ill defined charges would result in the case being dismissed immediately.
What kind of A hole flies a flag upside down because their neighbor doesn’t like trump? Oh, that would be a Supreme Court Justice Samual Alito. But wait, it gets worse, He blames his wife. That’s right, the weasel can’t even take responsibility for his own household, he blames his wife. What a weasel. But we already knew that, didn’t we?
This matters how?
It makes him feel like a man.
Flown mine upside down since the 2020 stolen election. America as a Constitutional Republic is obviously in distress and under attack. A very concerned citizen for our Nation, that is the kind of Ahole that flies the flag in a sign to all that our Nation is in distress, 34 trillion reasons to start.
What does everyone think of Jared Moskowitz’s Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Body video.
MTG’s official name is now changed to B-6.
The Professor is probably the last honest democrat on earth. No, the jury will not look around and reconsider. There are no morals remaining on our modern left. It’ll go to appeal, and it’s disgusting.
“The Professor is probably the last honest democrat on earth.” Ha ha ha. Good one Jim!
Professor Turley Writes:
“New Yorkers are a curious breed. Yes, they overwhelmingly hate Trump–
………………………………..
If readers didn’t know Trump was a native New Yorker, they would never guess from reading Turley’s coverage of this trial.
Not once has Turley even attempted to explain ‘why’ New Yorkers hate Trump so much. It’s as though Trump is really a Florida man indicted in New York by way of some technicality.
Nowhere has Turley come close to considering that New Yorkers know Trump better than anyone else.
Back in the 1980’s, when New York was a lawless city-state, there were grifters on every corner known as ‘Three Monty Guys’.
They typically stood behind improvised cardboard booths where they would shuffle three playing cards and move them around. Passersbys were then invited to wager money on the position of certain cards.
The game looked so easy to win because the grifter seemed too slow in shuffling. What’s more, shills were employed to ‘beat’ the grifter who cheerfully paid-out with a handfuls of cash.
These demonstrations would lure out-of-towners to play. But of course they never won. That was the whole idea: ‘To con out-of-towners’!
Ironically it was Rudy Giuliani who ran all these grifters off the streets. The same Rudy Giuliani who later became Trump’s shill; defending the biggest of Three Card Monty guys!
So when all these red state Congresspeople come to New York on Trump’s behalf, it’s like they’re out of towners defending a Three Card Monty guy.
They’re trying to tell New Yorkers, “This man isn’t a con, he’s one of ‘us’, a good, upstanding Christian from the deep south”.
Total utter ignorance.
PANIC!!!
That too. It is all they have.
Trump is a world class jerk. But even he deserves a fair trial
While Guilliani was busy running off the Lawless.
Trump was busy rebuilding Manhattan.
No he wasn’t—more Trump hype and lies—just like Eric Trump claimed Trump built the New York skyline. Since several of you Trumpsters keep repeating this nonsense, what MAGA media is spreading this lie?
Not once has Turley even attempted to explain ‘why’ New Yorkers hate Trump so much.
For the Same reason the WNBA players hate Caitlin Clark
A mix of fear and jealousy. A fear of being exposed and not quite what they pretend to be.
Nope. Read my post above—look up the Central Park Five scandal, the Bon Wit Teller art destruction scandal and the race discrimination consent decree scandal.
Did those all happen before Al Sharpton gave Trump an award for his work to alleviate racism?
Not at all strange for a prominent business man with 5 decades of doing business in NY, was never considered a racist, until he ran for office as a Republican
All the talking points are just that meaningless lies. Lies you revel in spreading.
Gigi, you know whats racist? all those Black women in the WNBA that hate Clark because the color of her skin.
Ignorant of all the Money Clark is putting in their pockets
Maybe and maybe not. You have to consider that before Clark the WNBA didn’t get much attention or fans. I have it on good authority that before Clark joined the Fever they struggled to get fans to come to watch the games. They even used to give kids a free hot dog, chips and a drink. Now, they fill Gainbridge Fieldhouse and some tickets go for several hundred dollars. There’s bound to be some resentment irrespective of race.
It seems Trump was put in the position of “Do you still beat your wife” kind of conundrum. During an election campaign on the tail of a secret recording of a poontang discussion going public, smear attempt one. What person hasn’t done same at one time or another talking trash? Cohen being the slime ball he has evidenced himself to be, appears to have orchestrated this whole event, Costello under oath indicated Cohen stated he had nothing on Trump multiple times. For Trump, a here’s some cash go away was probably a calculated move for his political career. Trump has always liked the ladies but why on earth would he want to have sex with someone like Stormy Daniels? Porn stars are exposed to every STD in the book while Trump is reportedly a germaphobe? A new baby son and a smoking hot wife like Melania, I don’t think Trump is cut out of that Clinton. It doesn’t add up, but what does add up is a shakedown.
A lot of people here are obsessed with very peculiar notions of what this trial is all about. A very few examples follow:
NDA’s are not illegal so Trump is innocent.
The unintentional mis-classification of invoices is not a crime.
No crimes have been identified.
Trump was paying for legal services which are legitimate business expenses.
I offer the following as an exact analogy for what is really going on, so that you have a better understanding.
Imagine that you are happily married, but you have a mistress that nobody knows about. Your mistress demands that you buy her a diamond necklace or she will reveal that she is your mistress. You are willing to buy the necklace for her, you even have enough money to pay cash. However, if you do this your wife and family will notice that money has disappeared from your bank account. You have a problem. You have to buy the necklace without leaving any paper trail that you paid for it.
You happen to run a real estate business, so you go to your attorney for advice on what to do. Together, you decide to have your attorney buy the necklace and then bill your business for legal services in the amount of the cost of the necklace.
You and your attorney go ahead with this scheme, and your mistress gets her necklace that cost $36,000. Your attorney bills you $3,000 a month for 12 months to recover the price he paid for the necklace. You pay the monthly fee and record the expense as legal services for you business. Problem solved, right. You have achieved the goal of giving your mistress a diamond necklace without leaving any evidence that you paid for it. You are free and clear, unless someone else finds out about it.
Buying your mistress a diamond necklace is a personal expense. There is absolutely nothing illegal about that. However, it is not a legitimate business expense. The purchase of diamond necklaces is not a routine part of running a real estate business. But when you characterized the payments to your attorney for the necklace as legal services, you in fact falsified your business records. The invoices for “legal services” were clearly not legitimate. Your payment of those invoices was not legitimate. You and your attorney have entered into a conspiracy to falsify business records, which is a crime.
Now suppose the District Attorney finds out about your conspiracy. You are in big trouble and will probably be going to prison.
The checks were drawn on personal accounts
It doesn’t matter what account was used.
If he paid with a personal check, why didn’t he just leave it at that. No crime would be committed in that case.
The crime was committed by entering the payment as a business expense in the business records.
You know zero about accounting.
double entry bookkeeping requires a debit and a credit. You cannot credit one entity and debit another entity.
my wife works for a medical clinic. they have three distinct businesses. They work all the deposits at the same time. You cannot debit income to the surgery center, and credit the patient care business.
Bragg has bamfoozled all those people that have no clue about businesses. I believe the comptroller explained all this in his testimony.
I have no idea what you are talking about. It is a word salad of nonsense.
The issue is very very simple.
The fact that any of these transactions appeared anywhere in the accounts or business records IS THE ACTUAL CRIME.
The invoices from Cohen were falsified to make it appear that the payoff amount was for legal services. THAT IS A CRIME.
Trump knowingly paid the false invoices and entered the transactions in his accounts. THAT IS A CRIME.
All this nonsense about personal checks and the definition of business records is pure fantasy. The crime occurred when they entered all these transactions into the business accounts. If they had simply made the payments without entering the transactions into the business account then there would be no crime committed.
The comtroller, McConney, testified to the fact that this whole thing was a conspiracy from the start. He was not asked about, nor had anything to say about “double entry bookkeeping”. His testimony was simply about his discussions with Weisselberg about how they were going cook the books.
It’s only a crime if it was improperly deducted for taxes since DJTs businesses are not public. DJT did not deduct the NDA from his taxes as an expense. There is no crime is a private party doesn’t label a check book register a certain way but still correctly pays his/her taxes.
Since Trump misrepresented the payoff as attorney fees, he or his company no doubt deducted them on their tax return. Cohen had to claim the money on his tax return, which is why it was “grossed up” by doubling it. So there’s probably a federal crime too.
“The fact that any of these transactions appeared anywhere in the accounts or business records IS THE ACTUAL CRIME.”
FALSE. You are making a legal claim about something you do not know and do not understand.
“The invoices from Cohen were falsified to make it appear that the payoff amount was for legal services. THAT IS A CRIME.
Trump knowingly paid the false invoices and entered the transactions in his accounts. THAT IS A CRIME.”
FALSE – again both as a matter of FACT and as a matter of law.
Using your own IDIOTIC analogy.
You are claiming that if I pay for a necklace for my mistress, and I DO NOT get an invoice – that is perfectly legal.
But if I do get an invoice – and some idiot DA disagrees with the way the person who sold me the necklace listed the item – that is a crime ?
You are completely clueless.
While Iowan2 has pointed out that this was a personal check, and therefore the records we are dealing with are PERSONAL records – not Business Records.
Even that does not matter – You are free to mix personal and business finances – so long is it is a busines that YOU own.
You are free to have records or NOT have records.
What you are not free to do is improperly pay your taxes.
There are a number of unusual things that show up in the testimony in this case, specifically because the finances, financial structures and record keeping of high net worth people is by their choice and for their benefit done in much the same way as a business.
Regardless the existance of records that normal people do not have does NOT magically make them guilty of crimes because YOU do not like the way the records are kept.
You and ATS have one point – and I have tripped over this in court before.
Prosecutors, judges, Juries – and often even defense attorneys are CLUELESS about Business, accounting – frankly most any area of specialization and expertise.
ANYONE with the least experience in actual business KNEW the EnMoron/James case was a crock of Schiff from the start.
But because JAmes and EnMoron were clueless, we will have to wait for an appealate court with a clue – so far we have not hit one,
To go “wait a minute, no one could possibly have been harmed here – Fraud is LITTERALLY impossible”
We are now seeing permutations of that in Braggs case.
Contra ATS Trump can pay for absolutely any good or service that is legal from his personal accounts, or from a private business that he owns. It DOES NOT MATTER whether Trump paid from a personal bank account or a business Bank account.
Though this is simplest if the account is personal.
There is ABSOLUTE NO REQUIREMENT AT ALL to keep records for personal finances – particularly personal expenses.
For tax purposes you must document expenses that you deduct from your taxes – but that is all.
LOTS of people – not the majority, but still millions keep full sets of financial records of the personal finances.
My mother did. For many years I did – today with the electronic records that banks and credit card companies keep for you,
I keep more limited records. But I can create a full set of “books” from the information from my banks and credit cards.
But that is a choice. You can not commit fraud in something you are not obligated to do and only do for your own purposes.
But even if Trump rant this through a business – that does not defacto make anything illegal or fraudulent.
While it is generally not wise – and there are other potential consequences of mixing business and personal finance, it is NOT automatically illegal.
It becomes illegal when doing so causes some actual or potential harm to others.
Such as improperly paying your taxes.
But in that case the crime is tax fraud.
The indictment states:
“The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about December 5, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump account check and check stub dated December 5, 2017, bearing check number 003006, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.”
This language does not indicate what the “false” entry was.
It is agreed that Cohen was one of Trump’s lawyers, that he was tasked with obtaining a NDA agreement from Ms. Stormy, and did so. He paid money from his own pocket to effectuate the NDA.
How should this have been billed by Cohen to Trump? The phrase “legal expenses” comes to mind. It appears that that is how the invoices were billed.
See https://www.courthousenews.com/mcconney-trump-signed-michael-cohens-reimbursement-checks-from-the-white-house/ :a
“McConney said that they arrived at $420,000, which broke down as a $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels’ lawyer Keith Davidson and a $50,000 tech expense. McConney claimed they multiplied those expenses by two to account for New York taxes, which prosecutors note is an unusual practice, and added an additional $60,000 as a bonus for Cohen.
“Michael was complaining that his bonus wasn’t large enough for the prior year,” McConney said. “This was, I guess, to make up for whatever he thought he was owed.”
That $420,000 was broken down into monthly payments of $35,000, which Cohen invoiced every month with a formulaic, inconspicuous email that made it seem like he was billing legal fees.
“Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for April,” Cohen wrote in a 2017 email to Weisselberg.
McConney said that the checks were then “drawn out of President Trump’s personal account.”
Cohen’s wording: REMIT PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED
Indeed, they were payment for services rendered, including expenses incurred by Cohen in rendering those services, and there may have been other services rendered beyond buying Stormy’s silence. Legal invoices are not supposed to be detailed memoranda of the services rendered; and there certainly no legal requirement that they be so. So, the invoices are not “false”.
The indictment is too clever by half. The text of the indictment is saying that Trump used Trump Organization staff to maintain records of his personal finances.
Again pretty close to universal among high net worth individuals.
My mother owned many businesses. She hired ONE bookkeeper.
That person kept the books for each of her different businesses AND her personal finance records.
In fact – though there were independent sets of financial records for each business and for her personal life.
There was ONE bookkeeper, and ONE accounting system. She used her Business bookkeeper and her business accounting system to keep records of her personal finances.
I used my mother as an example. But at various times I have done the same.
At the moment my primary business can not afford a bookkeeper. So I have simplifed records for all businesses and for my personal finances. But befroe interest rates spiked one of my businesses was booming and I had a part time bookkeeper and she kept financial records for ALL my businesses as well as my personal finances.
This is perfectly legal and commonplace for people who own businesses.
ATS – you do not understand either the facts or the law.
You are actually correct it does not matter what account it was drawn on.
Because it would be legal REGARDLESS.
For your analogy to be illegal -your analogy is NOT a good match to the facts, but I will go with it – because it is yours.
Someone would have to be harmed by the payment.
The simplest way for that to occur would be if recording the payment as a business expense reduced the business taxes that you had to pay. That is NOT True in Trump’s case – because Cohen was 1099’s which is the correct manner of dealing with such expenses, and therefore Cohen owed the taxes.
If the business was a publicly traded company – you would be defrauding shareholders.
Regardless if no one is harmed by the payment or recording the payment as an expense – it is legal.
An excellent rule of thumb in trying to determine if something is a crime – is if there is no direct means by which others can be harmed – there is no crime.
Falsifying business records is a crime if it is done to commit fraud. Who was defrauded in the Donald Trump case?
Criminal fraud does not require a victim, or even any actual harm.
All that is required is that the accused committed a misrepresentation of a material fact in violation of a statute.
That is false, A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. In New York, they have a very broad definition, that includes namely, that intent can be established when a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” In People versus Kase: In Kase, the defendant argued that there was no intent to defraud because the instrument in question, an application to transfer a liquor license in connection with the sale of a tavern, did not have the potential to cause pecuniary loss to the State or political subdivisions thereof.
Still, they had to file a false instrument to the government to accomplish this transfer.
In Sosa – Campana: The evidence was legally sufficient to establish the element of intent to defraud, as required for the convictions of identity theft and falsifying business records. When defendant was stopped for a traffic violation and presented a fraudulent driver’s license in the name of another actual person, defendant acted with at least two forms of fraudulent intent, each falling within the plain meaning of “defraud.” Defendant intended to escape responsibility for the violation by causing the officer to issue a summons to the wrong person, and also intended to conceal his additional offense of unlicensed driving. In order to prove intent to defraud, the People did not need to make a showing of an intent to cause financial harm
Still they had to give the false drivers license to the officer.
Trump never submitted this information to the government for any reason. Nor has there been any explanation of who he defrauded. It remains an element of the crime and can’t just be assumed away because the business record was inaccurate.
Even in NY you still have to show that he gave the information to someone and got something in return for the false information.
ATS ALL crime requires Actual harm or at the very least the potential for harm.
The State can pass a law that makes it illegal to drive while DRunk – because that could actually harm other people.
Passing a law that made it a crime to drive after drinking milk would be an unconstitutional infringement on your individual liberty.
Though honestly it is a failure that is even more fundimental that the constitution – it is a Social contract failure.
The purpose of government is to secure your rights.
“All that is required is that the accused committed a misrepresentation of a material fact in violation of a statute.”
FALSE
Any criminal statute that is written as you state above that Does NOT create a crime for the purpose of punishing ACTUAL harm or preventing ACTUAL harm – violates the social contract, the rule of law, individual liberty and the constitution.
When you here the supreme court toss a law because it is Unconstitutional vague, or unconstitutionally broad, that OFTEN means it criminalizes conduct that can not be criminalized.
I would further note that while the majority of people do not understand social contract theory, constitutional theory and law,
They do understand the fundamental concepts of right and wrong, legal and illegal.
Acts of individuals that do not have the potential for actual harm are not crimes.
Most people can cite that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” – but that principle rests of the requirement that people are able to determine right and wrong, legal and illegal WITHOUT familiarity with the statutes.
No one has to read the laws on theft to know that Armed robbery is a crime.
We do not have to teach people what the criminal law is in school, Because humans have an innate understanding of what is right and wrong based on actual or potential harm to others.
This will ultimately factor in the MAL case. There is a closely related principle of law that you can not convict someone of a crime unless they COULD know that their actions were a crime.
That applies int eh MAL case – because as many have argued JW v. NARA is the law and clearly states that presidents can take classified on unclassified material as they leave office and there is not a damn thing NARA or the government can do about it.
But lets say that Smith fights this all the way to the suypreme court and wins. Scotus decides JW V NARA is bad law.
You STILL can not convict Trump – because he had every reason to beleive it was good law prior to the supreme court reversing JW v NARA
I would further note that for something to be a crime – MORE is required than ACTAUL harm of the potential for actual harm
The law divides roughly in 3.
Criminal law,
Contract law
Tort law.
Tort law covers ACTAUL harms where there is no criminal intent.
If I drive over your trash can and destroy – I must replace your trash can. That is tort law.
Criminal law covers both actual harm and potential harm, but nearly all criminal law either requires criminal intent – the deliberate decision to do something that you know IS WRONG, or a complete disregard for the potential consequences of your act.
There are very very few offenses – such as statutory rape, that do not require either criminal intent or serious recklessness.
As a rule of thumb any law that does not require criminal intent must explicitly say so in the law. Otherwise the default is criminal intent is a required element of a crime.
Nor would you ever want a legal system where the legislature could willing nilly create crime that have no connection to harm to others, and no conection to our inante sense of right and wrong.
Who would want to live in a country where the legislature could decide it was a capoitol offence to drink milk and drive.
The statue says: Penal Law § 175.10 reads: “A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
1. You have to identify who is defrauded and what it is they are defrauded out of.
2. You have to identify what other crime was intended.
BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity.
ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity.
3. Donald Trump paid from his trust and personal account. So really, this is not a business record
*** 1. You have to identify who is defrauded and what it is they are defrauded out of.***
Only in civil fraud. Criminal fraud is different. Criminal fraud does not require a victim, or even any actual harm.
All that is required is that the accused committed a misrepresentation of a material fact in violation of a statute.
*** 2. You have to identify what other crime was intended.***
Interference with an election. NY 17-152
*** 3. Donald Trump paid from his trust and personal account. So really, this is not a business record***
The falsified business records in question are not the checks. They were legitimate checks, not falsified.
The falsified records were the falsified entry of the payments into the General Ledger in response to falsified invoices.
The account on which the checks were drawn is irrelevant. But also to clarify the Trust is actually the beneficial owner of the Trump Organization LLC, any checks from that entity are from the owner of the business.
§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more
persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to
a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by
one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Still unidentified is the “by unlavful means.”
That argument is essentially he did something illegal by doing something unlawful (as yet unspecified)
Complete non-sense.
(1) To satisfy due process, “a penal statute [must] define the criminal offense [1] with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U. S. 352 .
“Criminal fraud is different. Criminal fraud does not require a victim, or even any actual harm.”
FALSE.
In nearly all things the SOLE difference between civil and Criminal is Criminal intent.
The deliberate intention to do something to harm others.
You can not commit criminal fraud without ALSO committing civil Fraud.
But you can commit Civil Fraud without committing Criminal fraud.
You are busy trying to construct a legal system that is totally arbitrary – where a crime is absolutely anything that a legislature decides is a crime.
It does not take much intelligence to grasp that such as system will fail rapidly.
” You have to identify what other crime was intended”
That statement is INCORRECT.
The correct statement is that Bragg must charge and convict for the other crime.
A prosecutor may not at trial introduce evidence of a crime that the defendant is not charged for.
This is Why Trump has demanded a mistrial – and though Merchan has denied it, he will lose on appeal.
Merchan despite objections allowed sufficient lattitude that Daniels alleged that Trump raped her.
Walking back that claim is not sufficient.
Instructing the jury is not sufficient
You can not unring that bell
Separately Cohen testified that his Attorney Costello participated in a scheme to induce Cohen into obstruction of justice.
That two was inadmissible.
But worse for Bragg – that seems to be leading to Trump calling Costello as a witness.
Costello just testified before the House on this matter.
Costello is Mad about this claim. and he has the receipts.
Nor is their Fraud.
Fraud and false are NOT synonyms.
All fraud requires several things.
An intentional lie
A duty to be truthful.
Reliance on the lie
Actual harm to those who relied on the lie.
But the claim is that the payoff in the first place was to influence the election. In other words, it depends on a crystal ball reading of what they claimed was Trump’s motivation. And they’re all ignoring the fact that it took place a year after the election.
No, the claim is that it was done to protect the chances of Trump getting elected. To promote the election of Trump.
“No, the claim is that it was done to protect the chances of Trump getting elected. To promote the election of Trump.”
And that is legal.
Influencing an election is legal.
That is precisely what campaigns attempt to do all the time.
There are a FEW specific ways that are illegal – there are SPECIFIC statutes addressing those.
As an example you can not take funds from foreign parties for the purpose of influence an election.
But yuou can take money from donors to buy TV adds to “influence the election”
John Say,
Is it just me or is it not ironic that the same people who claimed Biden’s influence peddling for money was not illegal are now arguing of some illegal election influence by Trump?
And after Bill Clinton, would anyone really cared about Stormy “I see dead people” Daniels?
According to recent polling, most normal people see this trial and all the others as election interference by Democrats.
That’s not what is going on here, and not what Trump’s actions were.
A NOTHING MAN WRITING NOTHING ABOUT NOTHING.
GIVE THE CLOWN SOME CREDIT, HE WORKED VERY HARD ON NOTHING.
@anonymous,
That’s a fantastic analogy! I can see why there’s confusion. Too many Trump apologists don’t have the mental acuity to put it together. It’s not simple and easy to understand. So in their minds it must be all about “getting Trump”.
Good job demonstrating your mental deficiency.
George it is both a piss poor analogy – because the fact pattern is actually pretty far apart – buying a necklace as an example has no connection at all to legal processes while securing NDA’s absolutely does. Nor does buying a necklace through your business have anything to to with buying an NDA through your personal finances.
But worse that that – ATS’s analogy that he CLAIMS is a crime – is not.
You can not buy a necklace or your mistress through your business to evade taxes.
But you absolutely can buy a necklace for your mistress through your business, call it a legal expense, and so long as you properly pay your taxes there is no crime.
It is highly unwise to commingle business and personal finances.
It is illegal for publicly traded companies.
It is a gigantic red flag that will draw IRS agents like flies – because when people intermingle their business and personal finances they nearly always deliberately or accidentally commit tax fraud.
But it is NOT defacto illegal.
“. . . don’t have the mental acuity to put it together. It’s not simple and easy to understand.”
That is the ultimate Leftist smear (which we’ve seen time and again in academia, politics, the media):
Your peasant brain can’t grasp the complexities. The higher mysteries are beyond your understanding because you’re obsessed about NASCAR and beer.
Only we, the Enlightened Ones, can see the truth.
So shut up and obey.
This Leftist assault on the efficacy of man’s mind is always the premise for dictatorship.
Businesses and the government pay out NDAs all the time. They are not illegitimate business expenses.
ATS – you do not get to just make up the law to suit yourself.
You claim that paying for a necklace for your mistress from your business is illegal.
WHY ?
That is actually important. What is legal and what is illegal is NOT based on whim.
It is ACTUALLY perfectly legal to pay for your mistresses neck-lass from a business that you own personally
It is perfectly legal to call it Legal services.
In point of fact it is perfectly legal to pay for ANYTHING from a business that you own,
and to call that payment ANYTHING that you want.
What is NOT legal is to deduct a personal expense paid for by a business that you own from your taxes.
That is not what happened.
So your analogy is fubar.
Cohen was 1099’d for his payments – that is precisely why the “Gross up” notes.
And Cohen was responsible for the taxes on those payments.
I would separately note that paying a lawyer to get an NDA to protect the image of your business is a legitimate business expense – so AGAIN your analogy is Fubar.
The dirty underwear of the police state fascists from both the Soviet Democrats and the Even Biden But Never Trump supposed Republicans are being rubbed in our faces with their whining posts here. And they stink up the place with their posts attempting to justify police state fascism.
Supposing the way that Alvin Bragg and these Soviet Democrat prosecutors have coordinated this late prosecution of Trump with the White House just before the election is legitimate, and the way they have cobbled together “innovative” legal theories to justify the indictments, clearly they don’t object to crime – they object to the fact Trump isn’t at least in prison if they can’t have him dead. They don’t care whether there was a crime or not, the goal is to get Trump, even if they have to play Stalin’s Lavarentiy Beria to do it.
They have no claim to “nobody is above the law” – because Bragg at the same time has not charged Clinton, Obama, and Zuckerburg – all of whom received massive fines from the FEC for campaign finance crimes. Fines that the FEC did not find a basis for when looking at Trump’s campaign finances and spending.
Nor do they care about “American justice”, while their champion police state fascist, Alvin Bragg, and his primary henchman who left Biden’s DoJ as third in command to prosecute Trump, turn a blind eye to violent criminals killing, raping, beating, etc everyday ordinary citizens. Those violent criminals they leave on the streets to prey on Americans – but they’re going to do their damnedest to find a way to convict Trump and hope that will allow Bribery Biden to win… and who cares if an appeals court throws out their convictions afterwards.
Just like Jack Smith previously in 2012 taking out the most dangerous opponent to the Obama/Biden re-election, Governor Bob McDonnell, was thrown out by SCOTUS in a rare unanimous decision, where they called Jack Smith “a threat to the separation of powers in the constitution”. Obama/Biden were safely reelected by then, they didn’t care that SCOTUS afterwards essentially called them police state fascist scumbags.
You can have an emotional hatred towards Trump without demanding and attempting to justify the Soviet Democrats and their police state fascism in going after Trump that would look right back at home in the old Soviet Union, in one of Lavarentiy Beria’s show trials of somebody on Lenin’s enemy list.
Leftist trolls insist an NDA to silence someone is election interference, if you run for elected office.
Of course no such law exists.
But it jarred lose a memory.
The House of Representative created, using taxpayer money, paid of staffers threatening to expose them.
$17,000,000 worth. I don’t remember anyone getting charged with election interference.
On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s. That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress-sexual-harassment/index.html
The trial did not go well for the defense regardless of how much the professor overhyped it.
Blanche did not succeed in provoking Cohen. He remained calm and cool under questioning. His attempt to paint Cohen as a liar was fruitless. Cohen already admits he is. Turley ignores what Cohen can still credibly provide, clear insight on the workings of the scheme and showed Trump knew and was directly involved with the falsifying of the business records. The prosecution provided the documentation Cohen provided the corroboration.
The jury heard that Cohen is a liar, sure, he is. But Turley forgets that these are New Yorkers who also know Trump is a massive liar too. He’s not a victim, he’s just another Cohen to them.
George is here hoping he can overhype the Soviet Democrat claims they have a solid prosecution. He’s going to ignore CNN’s own legal experts saying this was a massive fail – because George knows more about criminal trials than they do.
And George – Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden – claimed Cohen provided “credible clear insight on the workings of the scheme”. Despite the fact his testimony was refuted by multiple other witnesses from the organization… and Cohen’s former defense lawyer who said Cohen repeatedly told him he had absolutely nothing on Trump to offer to prosecutors to save himself.
And by Cohen himself – who got snagged yet again in this latest bout of perjured testimony repeatedly. In one example, after claiming he extensively discussed the NDA with Trump in a phone call, couldn’t explain how he did that when that minute and a half phone call was with Trump’s security concerning prank calls he was getting from a kid.
George is just as believable as Cohen at this point – lying like the massive liar he claims Trump is.
George, George, George… you have anything factual other than BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP! straight from Alvin Bragg’s mouth to your fingers on your keyboard? You’re just one more Missing Link between Stalin and his prosecutor Lavarentiy Beria of “show me the man and I’ll find you his crime or make it up” fame and your fellow police state fascists in these courtrooms.
George – can you direct me to any law or case that says that a businessman must disclose on his check book that money has been given indirectly to a blackmailer? If not, how can the checking account records and ledger be labeled “false”?
Anonymous,
You have been told on multiple occasions and explained to you.
You have already shown you’re going to deny whatever evidence is presented to you.
Thank you for your very detailed and specific analysis. Sure, Cohen’s a liar but Trump is a bigger liar. I don’t think that any of us who were privileged to read your magnificent and prescient insight will ever forget where we were when we read it.
Another Anonymous cowardly Soviet Democrat attempted this sophomoric and feeble canard
Sure, Cohen’s a liar but Trump is a bigger liar.
And if you’re a liar and you’re Trump, that means you’re a criminal – but if you’re a liar and you’re a Soviet Democrat, then you’re not.
And yet… Bribery Biden and Bolshevik Barack are even greater liars while in office – about things that are much, much more important to Americans and national security than anything Trump may have lied about if these indictments are justified.
There’s the Obamacare lies, the lies about not knowing his Secstate was using unsecured devices to communicate classified information for four years, not having anything to do with the FBI decision to give Clinton a pass on indictment while perjuring themselves to FISA to get fraudulent espionage warrants, etc.
But Soviet Democrats and their feeble minions here to be their police state fascist apparatchiks aren’t worried about THOSE lies… it’s Trump’s lies. Including Trump’s embellishments and exaggerations that Soviet Democrats decide to call lies.
Doing so while at the same time they attempt to cosplay they’re completely unaware (or “nothing to see here”) regarding the Obama lies, the Biden lies, the Secretary of State Clinton lies about unsecured and illegal devices for communication with high level classified information, the Adam Schiff “Russia Dossier” lies…
But perhaps, with your magnificent and prescient analysis of Professor Turley’s article… you just sort of forgot about those world class champions of political lying in the Soviet Democrat camp of police state fascists? What moral standard do you use to measure the significance of lies told within the political class?
I was being sarcastic.
Hear, hear!
In the real world we have ways to measure credibility and trust.
Multiple convictions for perjury – are a huge red flag saying BEWARE GIANT LIAR
Most of us have a credit rating – that is a record of our honesty in our financial dealings.
When you made financial agreements with others did you keep them ?
That is what your credit rating measures – litterally.
Success in business is a measure of credibility.
How long do you think McDonalds would remain in business if people could not trust that they would not be poisoned if they bought a burger there ?
Or if somedays your Big Mac tasted like Meat and others it tasted like cardboard.
People do not do business with people they do not trust.
It does not matter if it is billionaires or if it is customers going into mcdonalds.
Even you personally communicate who you trust and who you do not – even if you are not conscious of that by the decisions you make regarding who to do business with.
Trump has never perjured himself.
He has an excellent credit rating.
And people do billions of dollars of business with him.
While you can not admit it because you do not like his politics, Trump is near the top of the list of people YOU trust.
Turley ignores what Cohen can still credibly provide, clear insight on the workings of the scheme and showed Trump knew and was directly involved with the falsifying of the business records.
Except a lawyer by the name of Costello, who testified to the grand jury that delivered the True Bill for this indictment.
Bragg was informed by Costello that Cohen was lying, and Costello has the phone logs, text messages, and e mails, Costello also has his law partner that was in on the conversations with Cohen.
Blanche has caught Cohen in four separate instances of Cohen perjuring himself at this trial. Of course Bragg will ignore all of those. Because Bragg is the one suborning the perjury. Bragg was fully informed of all the falsities in Cohens testimony in front of the Grand Jury.
@Iowan2,
Bob Costello could also be lying about Cohen. He’s been accused of tampering with a jury and is a staunch Trump supporter. Citing him poses credibility problems. He represented Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani. Costello has a bigger incentive to lie because he’s still loyal to Trump. He’s doing what Cohen would do if he still worked for Trump. Lie for him.
“Bob Costello could also be lying about Cohen.”
He could be. The sky could be green.
Costello is a former U Attorny from SDNY with a decades long record.
He served under 7 AG’s – republican and democrat.
“He’s been accused of tampering with a jury”
Correct – by Democrat Rep Dan “da moron” Goldman for testifying to Congress about Cohen while the trial was ongoing in Manhattan.
“You know that coming down here [to Washington, D.C.], outside of that courtroom while that witness is on the stand, to try to impeach his credibility and his testimony is jury tampering,” Goldman told Costello.
If you think that is Jury Tampering – You get a Dunce cap to go with Goldman’s.
If that is Jury tampering – every single person who has talking publicly about this case while it is underway has engaged in jury tampering.
“is a staunch Trump supporter.”
Nope.
“Citing him poses credibility problems.”
Because you say so ?
I
If you are correct Bragg will have no problem impeaching him.
“He represented Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani.”
They are not on his published Client list – but many other high profile people are – republicans and democrats.
Regardless, only left wing nut idiots play this “he represented X” nonsense.
Alan Derschowitz Represented Nazis is he a Nazi ?
Republicans sought to discredit a number of Biden judicial appointments because they represented terrorists.
F Lee Bailey represent the Boston Strangler – does that make him a serial killer ?
“Costello has a bigger incentive to lie because he’s still loyal to Trump.”
Costello has no connection to Trump.
Keep making things up.
” He’s doing what Cohen would do if he still worked for Trump. Lie for him.”
As has been noted – not only is Costello massively credible
He has receicpts.
Cohen waived priviledge as a requirement for his cooperation agreement with SDNY/Mueller.
Therefore Costello can testify to everything Cohen told him.
But I would note that good lawyers travel in pairs. That is to avoid putting themselves into a positiont hat they could have to be a witness against their clients. Everything Cohen Told Costello was infront of another lawyer.
Costello has emails.
Costello has texts,
Costello has phone records.
Costello represented Cohen when he was interviewed by the SDNY/Mueller – he was present and knows what Cohen told them.
He knows what Cohen told the Mueller/SDNY Grand Jury.
And he knows What Cohen told the Bragg Grand Jury.
Just so you are clear – Costello is not merely able to discredit Cohen
His testimoney exposes that Bragg violated the rules of ethics by presenting Cohen as a witness and allowing him to testify to things that Bragg KNEW Cohen would lie about.
John Say,
Excellent take down of the troll!
Well done!
When Cohen lies on the stand, and he corrects his testimony later – such as when Blanche cross examines him – that is still a lie in his testimony, but it is no longer perjury.
There are specific requirements for perjury (as opposed to other crimes of falsification).
You must lie under oath.
You must have the opportunity to correct.
The lie must be material – it must be capable of misleading a trier of facts on an issue of Relevance.
it is not perjury if you correct,
It is not perjury if you lie about something unimportant.
Did you watch the Trial – or are you relying on MSNBC ?
1). Cohen came pre-impeached.
2). Blanche made Cohen walk back several perjuries in his direct.
3). Blanche elicted from Cohen multiple excellent motives to lie – and Cohen confirmed the existance of those motives.
4).Blanche elicted additional unbeleivable claims from Cohen.
Unrelated to Cohen’s cross, in his Direct Cohen testified that his attorny Costello participated in a back channel through Guiliani to Trump to offer Cohen a pardon in return for refusing to cooperate with SDNY/Mueller.
That testimony should not have been allowed in – just as Daniels rape allegation should not.
The prosecution can not put on testimony of crimes not charged.
That is why Blanche earlier demanded a mistrial.
The “Rumor” is that Trump has ONE witness – Costello.
I would strongly suggest finding the video – CSPAN or Youtube of Costello testifying in the house on Thursday.
Cohen is toast. This case is about to get much worse for Bragg.
Costello is not merely going to bury Cohen,
He is taking out Bragg.
Bragg put on Cohen to testify to things that Bragg KNOWS are perjury.
And Costello can prove it and has “receipts”.
While Costello – who is a former SDNT US Attorney and NOT in Trump’s circle has a million times more credibility that Cohen.
Costello represented Cohen in his cooperation agreement with the SDNY
Costello know what he was Told about this matter by Cohen – in front of another attorney from his firm. And in writing and texts and phone messafges.
Costello knows what Cohen told SDNY
Costello knows why Cohen was not able to swing a sweatheart deal with SDNY
Costello knows what Cohen testified to the SDNY Grand Jury.
And Costello is Pissed because Cohen has just falsely accused him of a crime.
Thank you for covering this so honestly, Professor Turley. I have nothing to say except the usual: our modern dems are something history will be utterly and completely ashamed of, and will likely disown altogether. Madness.
He was not being honest. Any reputable legal scholar will tell you what Turley said is garbage.
And yet, a large number agree. Even legal scholars on the MSM are sweating and distancing themself from this circus.
Definitely a bogus trial, reading through the conflicts of interest is incredible and should make any honest person ill, but I unfortunately don’t share the professors confidence in the ability of New Yorkers to know when they are “being played”.
They live in New York. That alone makes their judgment dubious. If they want Trump as badly as they appear to, then I would never put stock in a New Yorkers determination to do the “right thing”. The entire state is a cesspool of corruption and that corruption wouldn’t exist if the people didn’t go along with it.
But still the real issue gets omitted as we focus on the violations of ethics in this politically motivated prosecution, and that issue is we’re all “being played”.
The trial is outrageous, no doubt. The charges make no sense, the entire case makes no sense and that’s by design.
The goal is simple. Keep Americans divided into 2, simple-minded camps at each others throats.
The field is prime for a 3rd party candidate who is not part of the Right Wing\Left Wing corruption, (which is all ONE wing), and the last thing the powers that be want is Americans looking around at 3rd party candidates, like RFK.
They want Americans fully vested in one side or the other. They don’t care which side. As long as you lemmings fall in line behind one or the other, then you’re right where they want you.
As long as you vote for one side or the other, you will not upset the status quo. You will reinforce it.
They know that. So the trial is a major selling point for both sides. It is a vehicle for driving the wedge deeper and keeping Americans at each others throats, distracted by the insane antics of the liberal prosecutors and judges so that ANGER increases on both sides.
There is no two ways about it, and once a man (or woman) steps outside of the Partisan BOX they have the entire country squeezed into, and looks at these events from OUTSIDE the “right wing left wing bubble”, … then its clear the trial is merely another tool in the hands of the UNI-Party to keep Americans divided into the two camps they have everyone pressed into.
So yes, the Jury is being played. So is entire country. Its all a smoke and mirrors show, designed to keep you people right where they have you. You’re all being played. Played by a plastic banjo.
Yeah… we must believe that Republicans want this trial just as much as the Democrats. And they Republicans are exactly like the Democrats in trying to play us.
Now that’s a claim that I would make if I was one of those selling the “uniparty” generic nonsense to play anyone reading that nonsense. Where’s there’s no difference between a Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney and a Jim Jordan or Tom Cotton and Jim Inhofe in the Republican Party. Everyone of them: they want this trial so they can play us; they have that in common along with their membership in the “uniparty”. No degrees of separation whatsoever.
In the normal world many Americans live in, we don’t judge the whole on the actions of the few, and we don’t believe reality is a simple binary choice without any variations of differences between the two binary cases that are put before us.
Of course “they” do. The problem is you don’t know who “they” are. You mistake the players for the producers. While some of the players are willing participants, the producers are suits and ties you seldom see or hear from if ever. We’re being controlled by corporate fascism and oligarchy. You don’t see it because its not easy enough to target. Its much broader and is much more difficult to identify and isolate. Its much easier to draw a line in the sand and say “good guys right side bad guys left side” and so those are the camps they herd you into. And these trials and prosecutions are a side show, designed to keep you riveted to your seat decrying them and your hatred of the left wing. Just like the trials are designed to keep the left wing riveted to their seats cheering them on along with their hatred of the right wing.
You’re both willing dupes. Easily played puppets in the grand theater of political, socio and economic control. And the more grand the spectacle, the more outrageous the prosecution , the more absurd the charges and abuses of power, the more salacious the accusations…. all adds to the captivation of the masses, keeping them focused on each other and not as the old analogy goes, not at who’s “shaking the jar”.
They just keep you little red and black ants, ..in this case blue ants at each others throats. The more you relax, the harder they shake the jar.
Like I said, we’ve become a nation of schmucks. Easily duped, easily played. You let yourself be played. You’re so into the program that you can’t see the forest for the trees. You’re lost inside it and a willing albeit unaware participant.
Which is why you can’t help but continue to frame your responses to me in terms of the left\right constructs they’ve herded you into, as if any communications with you that I have would be in any way based on those artificial parameters. They’re not. I’m well beyond those constructs and if you ever wake the f@#$ up, for real and look around you will be too.
Its like talking to a child about Christmas, listening to them ramble on about Santa. You agree with the child its a wonderful time of year but you know Santa isn’t coming because Santa doesn’t exist. He’s a construct created to keep the kids happy in winter time. He doesn’t exist. There are no elves at the North Pole hammering out toys. But you can’t explain this to the kid, he thinks its all real.
Difference between you partisan puppets and the kid, is the kid eventually grows up and grows out of it.
The defense will file a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution’s case arguing that the prosecution has not proven the required legal elements of the criminal charges. A competent and honest judge would grant the motion. I expect the motion to be denied.
The jury could totally ignore Cohen’s testimony and find Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the paper trail and the testimonies of Hicks, Pecker, and recordkeepers. Trump ADMITTED he paid off Daniels and reimbursed Cohen. He signed multiple checks payable to Cohen to reimburse him. Records containing Weisselberg’s handwriting say that the $130,000 was “grossed up” to cover Cohen’s tax liability, plus a bonus. These records were falsified to make it appear that Cohen was being paid for legal services–so if it was payment for valid legal services, why would his fees be “grossed up” by doubling them? Trump’s lawyers haven’t explained that one, nor did they lay a finger on Hicks, Pecker or the recordkeepers. The reason for falsification of records was to hide the truth from voters, after the Access Hollywood tape became public. Another woman coming forward with a story about Trump luring her to his hotel with the promise of putting her on “The Apprentice” and, instead, having sex with her while his wife and newborn son were at home might have finished off his candidacy.
Where the hell do you get off implying that Judge Merchan is not competent or honest? Cohen admitted he lied and apologized for it. Trump demands that his lawyers do his bidding, so they keep beating that same dead horse–Cohen is a liar–but the records proving the payoff, reimbursement and falsification of records they cannot deny. There is more than enough for the jury to find Trump guilty.
NUTCHACHACHA, put your money (i.e. other people’s affirmative action/welfare/”free stuff” money) where your mouth is.
That’ll have to be a very large fortune, huh?
Gigi, it is possible to conclude some of the facts that you claim – Coehn was NOT paid for “legal services” though that would be accurate.
The records that you cite variously say 3 things. The memo from Weiselberg says reimbursement – which is Accurate. Cohen was reimbursed for prior payments he had made – that is called “reimbursement”. The “Grossed up” notes may float your boat but they are not false nor do they reflect malfeasance. Cohen paid for the Daniels NDA out of pocket in 2016 using his HELOC to hide the payment from his wife. In 2017 he sought to be “reimbursed” for that payment.
I would note that the FACT that the payment was “grossed up” – means that COHEN intended it to be Legal FEEs – not reimbursement for the Daniels payment. How do we know ? Because the reimbursement for an expense is not taxed and therefore does not need to be “grossed up”.
Cohen Paid Daniels – that is a legitimate Expense for Cohen. If Trump “reimbursed” Cohen for that expense, the payment to Daniels and the payment from Trump would cancel for tax purposes and there was no reason to “gross it up”.
The only reason for “grossing it up” is that Cohen – not Trump “owned” the NDA and considered it an ASSET – i.e. Cohen was gambling that Daniels was going to violate the NDA and she would then owe Cohen $1m per violation.
Pass thru expenses are tax deductible. The purchase of assets is not.
The alternate explanation for “grossing it up” is that Much of this payment was to Cohen – not for the NDA but for his own services.
In THAT case for Cohen to Net some specific amount the payment would have to be “Grossed up”
This case is full of lots of arcaine accounting details like this.
You can be fascinated by them, delve into them or you can ignore them.
Because no matter how you spin them they are NOT a crime.
There are two HUGE problems – you can ignore all the details or draw the most negative inference you wish from them.
Trump paying Daniels – directly or indirectly is
NOT A CRIME.
There is a massive legal battle going on over the arcaine details of accounting.
There is not a crime in 10,000 miles.
With specific respect to the accounting. Business records for a private company are private. Neither the state nor the IRS gets them without a warrant or subpeona. The point is – those records are not prepared for the state. They are prepared for the business owners.
In the EnMoron case – James was alteast dealing with records that were prepared for the banks.
While there was no actual fraud in that case James atleast cauld legitimate claim that the records were NOT prepared solely for the Trump organization.
These accounting records are internal records ONLY. Fraud requires trying to decieve someone.
Bragg as not presented any evidence of who was being deceived by these allegedly false records.
There are no tax consequences of how these payments were recorded – the accountant testified that the Trump organization properly reported these payments for tax purposes – and there is no “fraud” there – as Cohen’s 1099 merely says “non-employee compensation”
The only person that this information was being hidden from is Melania. Just as Cohen hid the payments from his wife.
Next unaddressed by you or Bragg is that the allegedly false information is NOT a description of the services, it is a categorization of the services.
Reimbursement does not say WHY you were reimbursed. You could be reimbursed for parking, for meals, for payments you made to others.
All Reimbursement means is I paid for something that was for you, not me, and I expect you to repayme.
Cohen could be asking for reimbursement for hookers. It still would not be false to call it reimbursement.
In the Trump organization these payments were recorded as “legal expenses” not legal services or legal fees. While all through are acceptable. Legal expenses is the most broad it essentially mean all payments to lawyers for anything.
Finally Cohen invoiced as a retainer.
Which again is a broad non-specific catagorization.
The NORM is that a retainer is a prepayment for future services. Though from an accounting perspective even that is far too narrow.
it is common on contracts to retain a portion of the payment for services already performed as a hedge against problems with the work performed.
As an example if I sell you a house – you might retain 10% of the sale price for 90 days to cover possible defects that are found later.
But simply retain means money held either against past services or future services.
Retainer does not tell you the purpose of the services.
So you have 3 different catagorizations of these services – retainer, legal expenses and reimbursement, along with a note that they are to be “grossed up”.
All three of these are TRUE.
If I buy a coat at Target for you – I can record the payment as “clothing”, reimbursement, “winter prep”, personal services
or any number of other catagorizations.
The point is there is not ONE correct way to identify something.
The coat above could be described as a blue coat, a winter coat, a leather coat, outerwear,
The repayment for the coat could be described as clothing expenses or reimbursement.
Even the fact that these payments are not described identically in various places, is meaningless – they are described differently because different aspects of the payment are being addressed.
BTW retainer is actually the broadest catagory – you can not only have a retainer for any purpose, You can have a retainer for both past and future purposes that you do not know at the time of the payment.
You can also have a retainer for NO SERVICES AT ALL – sort of like insurance.
Anyway for all this accounting complexity – there is no actually false statement hiding anywhere,
and there is no crime much less one being hidden.
And that is true even if you beleive every word Micheal Cohen said.
@John Say,
“ Trump paying Daniels – directly or indirectly is
NOT A CRIME.
There is a massive legal battle going on over the arcaine details of accounting.
There is not a crime in 10,000 miles.”
The first part is absolutely correct. The second is not.
There is indeed a crime. The payment to Cohen was not a legitimate business expense. It was categorized as one to hide the pay off to Daniels. That’s falsifying a business record. That’s the crime. I cannot get much simpler than that.
Goerge – we have been through this before:
Yes it was a legitimate business expense.
ATS tried to use buying a necklace for a mistress under the delusion that would so clearly be a crime.
Only his is still WRONG – something far more egregious than Trump has actually done is STILL LEGAL.
It is a very bad idea to commingle business and personal expenses. It raises giant red flags and introduces the possibility of inadvertently commuting tax fraud.
As a general rule – All business expenses are tax deductable – except a few that are not. All personal expenses are NOT tax deductable – except a few that are.
Comingle your business and personal finances and you are highly likely to deduct something you cant.
But if you can avoid that intermingling a business you own and your personal is LEGAL.
You can pay for a necklass for your mistress from your business – you just can’t deducted from your taxes as an expense.
You can even call it a legal expense – so long as you do not deduct it from your taxes.
Your business records (unless you are a public company) are not public record. They are not even defacto available to government.
They are private records – for your own purposes.
Now after proving that YOU and ATS are WRONG about your hypothetical.
The FACT is that hypothetical DOES NOT MATCH.
Trump did NOT comingle business and personal finances.
What he ACTUALLY did is kept his PERSONAL records in the same way as he did his BUSINESS records.
The checks are from personal accounts, the records are personal records.
Keeping personal financial records the same way that businesses keep records is near universal among people with net worth’s over 10M. That is a small percent of people, and still a HUGE number of people.
Gigi – make it appear to WHO ? Who was being deceived ? What Crime was being covered up ?
“The reason for falsification of records was to hide the truth from voters”
Incorrect and obviously so.
Trump has STILL not provided his tax records to the public,
he never intended to.
Further he has no obligation to provide his business records to anyone.
So exactly how is it that Trump is creating false business records to hide information from voters when those records are
private – voters have no right to see them.
Further those records were not created until AFTER the election.
If the purpose of the deception is to hide it from voters in the 2016 election,
There must be an expectation that the voters will see those records and that they will see them PRIOR to voting.
You can argue that ONE of the reasons for paying Daniels was to “hide” the allegation from the voters. That is atleast partly true.
It is also not a crime.
“Cohen admitted he lied and apologized for it. ”
Correct – and then lied again and again and was caught and forced to correct on cross.
“but the records proving the payoff, reimbursement and falsification of records they cannot deny. ”
No one is denying the records.
They are not false,
more importantly they do not cover up a crime.
Lets presume (incorrectly) that the records are inarguably false.
The statute of limitations on that expired long ago, and even then the “crime’ is a misdemeanor of tiny consequence.
The can ONLY be escalated to something more serious if they are covering up another crime.
NO ONE – not even Cohen has testified to the existence of another crime.
Trump has not been charged with this mythical other crime.
A jury can not find you guilty of something that was not even charged.
Of course Merchan is dishonest unethical and incompetent.
The evidence of that is massive.
“There is more than enough for the jury to find Trump guilty.”
Of what – note you are limited to finding him guilty of what he is charged with.
He is charged with falsifying records to cover up a crime.
But he is not charged with some other crime.
John Say,
That right there.
And even the prosecution failed to prove or even mention that other . . . crime.
They rested without stating what it was.
“Where the hell do you get off implying that Judge Merchan is not competent or honest?”
By watching the trial
Gigi, are you harboring Rudy Giuliani? (I know you are)
They’re looking for him, why don’t you just turn yourselves in.
It’s a waste of public funds, and besides I’m missing the NBA Playoffs right now.
https://bocanewsnow.com/2024/05/16/rudy-giuliani-is-missing-last-seen-in-palm-beach-county/
Cohen is damn lucky I didn’t cross-examine him
Ezekiel 25:17
“The path of the righteous man is
beset on all sides by the inequities of
the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.
Blessed is he who, in the name of charity
and good will, shepherds the weak through
the valley of darkness, for he is truly
his brother’s keeper and the finder of
lost children. And I will strike down upon
thee with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison and
destroy my brothers. And you will know my
name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance
upon you.”
How many different ways are there to try to prove Cohen is a liar–he admitted it. He apologized for it. And, his testimony is backed up by the paper trail, checks signed by Trump and records referring to doubling the payoff by “grossing up” the amount to cover Cohen’s taxes. The jury is probably sick of being forced to sit for hours listening to this same BS. And, the cross examination of Cohen started with Blanche making the case all about him–a tactical error that the judge even admonished him for. Are Turmp;’s lawyers hoping the jury will forget the paper trail, checks Trump signed, the “grossing up” comment and Hicks’s testimony because they’ll be so offended by Cohen? Tell us–on whose behalf did Cohen do all of the bullying, lying, bribing of a porn actress and nude model? Whose life was ruined by Donald Trump? Everything Trump touches–dies.
And, you dare to cite the Bible in the context of Trump being put on trial for falsifying business records to cover up an affair with a porn actress–a chronic, habitual liar, serial adulterer, womanizer, racist, xenophobe, homophobe, Islamophobe, who put children in cages, who took children away from their parents to punish them for coming to America to seek a better life, and who nearly destroyed this country’s economy and public health? If God is looking to wreck vengeance, I don’t think Cohen will be first in line.
Gigi, you say more than once today, “Cohen is a liar–he admitted it. He apologized for it.”
You seem fine with that. He said he’s sorry— We should accept/move on.
So if Trump apologized, would you accept/move on? Or is the TDS too deep?
Trump is a sociopath–apologizing would be insincere because he lacks any semblance of conscience. How long would it take to apologize for over 30K lies, especially The Big Lie. Would he apologize for misleading so many people, causing them to distrust our election systems, filing 60+ frivolous lawsuits, ruining Rudy Giuliani’s life and the lives of the other attorneys who got criminally charged? Would he shell out the cost to repair the Capitol and pay wrongful death damages to Ashli Babbitt’s family? Would he apologize to Melania? Why would he-he doesn’t care? Anyway, he never would apologize because he claims it is a sign of weakness.
So, no surprise.
TDS it is.
Poor ‘Gigi’.
Hopefully after that rant, your lithium has kicked in. Could you explain to all of us how you believe a payment could have been made, legally, under an NDA, from Trump to Daniels? Or is your position that there is no possible way that this could have been done under any circumstance?
How many different ways are there to try to prove Cohen is a liar–he admitted it. He apologized for it.
Gigi, you need some help with some life lessons.
Have you ever apologized to someone? I have. The correct way is to apoligize, making clear I take responsibility for my poor behavior . . . but. I also, promise to cease that action that precipitated the need for an apology.
Cohen has said the words, but continues the actions. That signals to everyone there never, really was an apology.
The point is Jonathan, that They don’t even let Democracy have an opportunity to work as it should (a fair election).
The slew of lawfair lawsuits and media bias coupled with the non-stop drumming of their war on the face of Our Constitution, and relentless domination of the World stage, has proven to be utterly worthless.
This trial is but another nail in the palms of the Crucifixion of America.
WE the People are the eyes of GOD.
So we have arrived at the truth.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Merrick Garland, Matthew Coangelo, Alvin Bragg et al. are guilty of criminal corruption, conspiracy to wrongfully convict another, malicious prosecution, subornation of perjury et al., and ethical violations which require the termination of any further exercise of legal licenses and offices by the individuals involved.
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
Over several decades Trump has become a master tactician in practicing “Plausible Deniability” and will probably slip out of most indictments.
This works when a criminal mastermind simply hires employees that are highly unethical or even hiring criminals. Then the boss tells these guys to solve their problems without revealing how they do it.
Since the employees are unethical or criminals, they solve their boss’ problems without implicating the boss.
With Trump’s decades of experience dodging the law, he likely will never be convicted. A similar personality, Richard Nixon, was only caught when secret tapes were found recording the boss.
Tapes had virtually nothing to do with Nixon – the “missing” 18 minutes has now been shown to have been an unintentional erasure by one of Nixon’s secretaries.
Additional information uncovered has exonerated Nixon and further implicated criminal John Dean as the architect of what we know as “Watergate.”
Where is your proof that Trump is a “criminal mastermind?”
The Tape is actually the most damning peace of evidence against Nixon.
As you note there is and never was any evidence to tie Nixon to the watergate burglary.
To this day though I have heard several intriguing theories no one has provided any explanation for the breaking.
It does not actually appear to have been political. The burlars tapped a specific phone and that phone was for a mostly inconsequential secretary.
Regardless we do not know why the breakin occured and we do not know what the burglars were after.
We only know what phone they tapped.
We also know now, and knew then that Haldeman, Ehrlick man, Mitchel and Dean – with Dean having the most significant culpability we involved BEFORE the breakin.
We Know that NIXON did not know about the breakin until AFTER it took place.
The “crime” that Nixon is actually guilty of is obstruction and accessory after the fact.
Nixon elicited campaign donors for money to pay for the defendants lawyers in return for their silence.
That is the ONLY crime Nixon committed regarding Watergate.
But there is zero doubt that he did that.
Good luck, we’re all counting on you.
Another Anonymous coward Soviet Democrat fails at attempting to be a master apparatchik claiming “This is actually American justice – not Soviet justice – that Trump is attempting to escape through ‘Plausible Deniability”
This doesn’t work because the police state fascism is so obvious that this cowardly Anonymous apparatchik defending Bribery Biden and his fellow police state fascist Soviet Democrats falls flat on its vicious, lying, hate filled commie face.
When the Soviet Democrats send their cowardly Anonymous apparatchiks to tell you that it’s Trump who’s corrupt – not The Big Guy, Mr. Ten Percent, with the 150+ Suspicious Activity Reports submitted by banks to Obama’s Treasury Department concerning money laundering and selling the country from the Vice President’s office before Trump ever entered politics – you recognize that as one of the identifying marks of a Soviet Democrat police state fascist.
And this is why these vicious, hate filled police state fascist Soviet Democrat cowards hide behind the username “Anonymous”.
Seems like you know a lot of how the system works. I wonder what secrets you have hid from your wife, boss and kids???
Your TDS is showing. NO one is above the law or beneath it…Let’s hope someone who hates you never gets the power to try to drive you into the ground like the left is trying to do with President Trump. IMHO
If Trump were such a ‘mastermind’
maybe he would have ‘drained the swamp’
instead of helping make it much worse?
Neither Trump nor Nixon did anything wrong.
Nixon did plenty wrong. He undercut Johnson’s peace talks prolonging the war to win an election. Johnson actually considered having him indicted for treason. He got caught trying to cover up his spying on a political opponent, just like Obama is going to face. I haven’t seen anything Trump has done to come close to the Democrats. He made some poor choices first run, I know he will be better this time. The cabal will fall, there will be some life sentences.
Undercut Johnson!
Really?!!!
LBJ conspired with the FBI, CIA, NSA, DNI, JCS, the Mob, J. Edgar Hoover, Allan Dulles, John Foster Dulles, Carlos Marcello, etc., ad infinitum, to assassinate JFK.
LBJ egregiously and flagrantly violated the American thesis, the law, and the Constitution to corrupt elections, engage in vote tampering, buy votes, and ensure that “I’ll have those ——s voting democratic for the next 200 years” through unconstitutional taxation and expenditures on redistribution, the welfare state, and his wholly unconstitutional and communist “Great Society.”
Johnson was a walking, talking legal and constitutional violation and perpetrator of treason against the Constitution and America—the very antithesis of the American Founders—and a prime acolyte of Lincoln’s fellow traveler, Karl Marx.
Geez! America is truly far gone, isn’t it?
Do some research, Nixon secretly dispatched Kissinger to meet with the NV in France, he did this as a candidate not as President. He did this telling the NV that he would be able to negotiate a better deal for ending the war and that Johnson would lose the election. Don’t misunderstand, Johnson was a POS and responsible for thousands of Americans dying for nothing but Nixon was his equal.
What’s the crime? Nixon did some preparatory work as he was soon to formally negotiate with North Vietnam.
RESEARCH – LBJ WAS ON THE VERGE OF INDICTMENT WHEN JFK WAS ASSASSINATED – LBJ WAS CLEARED BY THE ASSASSINATION
Billie Sol Estes stated that Johnson was behind the JFK assassination.
Estes was a Texas wheeler dealer who relied on LBJ to guide him to government deals, then to protect him from being audited. This resulted in the death of Henry Marshall, a US Department of Agriculture official, who was killed by Mac Wallace, Johnson’s enforcer.
Marshall had been investigating Billie Sol Estes’s government grain storage and cotton allotment, telling Estes’ lawyers that these were illegal. Estes met with LBJ and others, and Marshall was soon offered a high paying job in Washington, which he turned down, telling his wife they were trying to shake him off the Estes investigation, and Estes has high placed government officials backing him.
Estes claimed that another meeting was held, with Johnson now washing his hand Marshall, Mac Wallace would have to take care of the situation, as Estes’ dealings could be tied to his political benefactor, LBJ.
Wallace would come upon Marshall inspecting his farm, subduing him to unconsciousness, and then running a hose from Marshall’s pickup truck to the cab. Marshall came to, another struggle happened, with Wallace taking the 22 single shot rifle out of the pickup, and shooting Marshall in the back five times.
Texas county authorities would call this a suicide, but the undertaker saw it totally differently, and advised the wife. A Texas Ranger would take an interest in the case, and eventually Marshall’s body was exhumed, and showed high levels of carbon monoxide levels, with bruises that couldn’t be self inflicted. Still the Texas suicide verdict stood.
Estes would eventually be convicted of government fraud, but not till numerous people associated with his operations had died from carbon monoxide poisoning, including his bookkeeper and accountant. After serving his time, Billie Sol Estes wrote a letter to Texas authorities claiming he had been privy to being at meetings with LBJ and others where the fate of people he knew were decided with Johnson issuing the orders.
Texas authorities never acted on Estes letter concerning LBJ, which also implicated LBJ in the death of his sister Josefa, LBJ, and Douglas Kinser, who while dating Josefa, made the fatal mistake of trying to shakedown LBJ for all his crooked manipulations. Mac Wallace would gun down Kinser in front of witnesses and was convicted of murder, only to receive a five year sentence that was immediately suspended by the judge. LBJ had rented a room in the city for the ten day trial and suspended sentence.
LBJ had the motive and opportunity. JFK didn’t want LBJ on the ticket, but as a courtesy offered the VP to him, which Johnson initial refused, but later accepted. As Jackie Kennedy explained, JFK would have been in a bad position for passing his agenda with spurned Senate Majority Leader Johnson presiding.
LBJ protégé Bobby Baker asked why Lyndon would accept a lesser position. Johnson said he liked the odds, one in four Veeps had become Presidents. Bobby Baker prophesized that Kennedy would never finish his first term alive.
Johnson actions after the assassination showed a President with burying the truth of the assassination, and framing a patsy by the name of Oswald. He hand selected men he could control to sit on the Warren Commission, to get the sort of results that he was used to with Texas justice. President Johnson to cover up his nefarious deeds and the truth of the assassination, by executive order filed away all government files of the assassinations for 75 years.
– https://www.quora.com/What-crime-was-LBJ-being-indicted-for-in-1963?share=1
Or maybe Trump – like most wealthy people, especially high profile one has been aware for several decades that he has a target on his back and has conducted his affairs accordingly.
I know this is hard for left wing nuts to beleive – but people do not succeed, much less succeed in over a dozen different endeavors if they can not be Trusted.
Deutche Bank testified as much in the EnMoron trial.
Nixon BTW was in trouble before the tapes. For reasons that apply to all alleged conspiracies.
No matter how loyal those involved in a conspiracy are, the coverup always gets you. Why ? Because the one thing people can always tell without getting tripped up and conflicted over the details is “The Truth”. While all lies have threads that can be pulled on to unravel the story.
The Watergate Story had been coming apart bit by bit over months before the tapes.
IN ALL these efforts to “Get Trump” From the collusion Delusion forward, it is the allegations that have fallen apart under scrutiny.
Yesterday in DC Attorney Costello – Cohen’s attorney representing him before the SDNY testified to congress.
Cohen released Costello from confidentiality as a requirement for his cooperation agreement with SDNY.
Costello’s testimony before the house was damning of Cohen, and of the Biden DOJ.
Costello is a former US Attorney of repute who served under 7 different AG’s including those of both parties.
He never represented Trump.
He detailed his first meeting with Cohen where he told him point blank. The fact that they have raided your legal offices means they beleive they have you nailed. No judge would have issued such a warrant without damning evidence against you. But SDNY is not after you.
You only way out of this is to provide them what they want against a bigger fish. But it has to be real. If you lie to them, it will come out and you will be worse off than before. So WHAT is it that you have ?
Cohen told Costello ha had NOTHING. Costello explicitly questioned Cohen on the Daniels NDA.
Cohen told Costello that Daniels was just trying to Extort Trump. That Cohen did not beleive Daniels story. That he has decided on his own to buy the story, with the expectation that When Trump was president he could use his personal initiative and loyalty as a means to get prominent job from Trump. That the big deal was NOT the campaign but Melania, that Trump was far more worried about her than anything political. And that Trump had no involvment in the Daniels NDA.
Costello told the house that because Cohen had released him – as required by the SDNYT cooperation agrement that Costello had told all of tis to SDNY, to the Meuller Grand Jury, to DANY, to the Bragg GJ, and that when Cohen falsely implicated Costello in another crime – falsely claiming that Costello was part of a back channel between Trump and Cohen that promissed Cohen a pardon in return for his silence – something that would be obstruction of justice and witness tampering, that Costello was compelled by the rules of legal ethics to inform both Bragg and Trump’s attorney’s that Cohen had lied multiple times under oath.
Bragg is OBLIGATED to report that to the court – The rules of ethics do not permit an attorney to offer testimony that they KNOW is perjured.
Costello has under oath CONFIRMED that DANY KNEW before placing Cohen on the stand that he was likely to perjure himself, and that he could not testify favorably for the proscution without perjuring himself.
There is a further problem with Cohen’s testimony – in that like Daniels he was questioned about an ellicited allegations of a crime that Trump has not been charged with – witness tampering. While this is not as salacious as Daniels wink wink nod nod rape allegations,
It too requires granting a mistrial.
Few beleive that Merchan is honest enough to do so.
But allegedly the Defense will start on Monday after completing their cross of Cohen and their first and only witness is alleged to be Costello.
You can find Costellos testimony before Congress yesterday on Youtube, and probably CSPAN, and Rumble.
Unlike the Bragg Case his testimony there was fully recorded. He was vigorously crossed by Democrats.
Costello is going to be a damning witness. He has impecable credentials, he has emails, texts, phone records, and in some cases eye witnesses to his dealings with Cohen and SDNY and Braggs office.
His testimony before the house was DAMNING. Not just of Cohen but of this entire case.
Again, Mueller/SDNY, and DANY KNEW who they were dealing with when they were dealing with Cohen.
SDNY prosecuted Cohen exclusively on this. They did not do so because their case against Trump was weak. They did so because their case against Trump would have been based on LIES and they KNEW that. Ordinary attornies are barred from presenting perjured testimony.
Cohen was useless to them from the start. That is why SDNY prosecuted Cohen and never used him as a witness in any Case.
DANY under Vance refused this case for the same reason, and even Bragg refused to move forward until pressured – for the same reason.
Braggs case now hinges on the willingness of an unethical judge to submit a case for a non-crime resting on not merely the testimony of a known perjurer, but on known perjured testimony. To a Jury that the hope is biased enough to convict anyway.
Whatever the outcome of this case – it has gone incredibly well for Trump.
The Real Trial in Manhattan has been of Merchan, Bragg, Colangelo, Biden, and the DOJ – not Trump.
And it has gone increddibly baddly.
If as expected this case makes it to a jury – that will also put the people of Manhattan on trial.
We will see if there is one honest man in manhattan.
JohnSay, seems like you should do your own blog.
Not very many people here probably read what you write.
Because you write SO MUCH SO OFTEN, gee whiz.
And he hasn’t a clue that secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and is fully constitutional; he believes that because secession is not prohibited, secession is prohibited, as if that makes any sense. Of course, it does not.
And he hasn’t a clue what a “natural born citizen” is, the SOLE and ONLY definition being in the Law of Nations; the definition he prefers is by a legal authority of the circumstance of the “dictatorship of a monarchy,” William Blackstone, whose SOLE and ONLY reference and perspective was the description of “NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS” of the Crown.
“Plausible Deniability”
Haven’t we heard that expression somewhere before?
Just a little testing post to see if this is deleted.
Earlier I added some comments in a small thread where MAGA posters tried to make the case that Trump is innocent because NDA’s are legal. That thread has disappeared.
I tried to make the point that NDA’s are indeed 100% legal, but that is not the issue.
The issue is that Trump tried to conceal the payment of the NDA as a business expense for legal services.
There is no way that a payoff to a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter can be considered as a legitimate business expense.
The simple truth is that Trump tried to conceal a personal expense, the payoff of an NDA, as a legitimate business expense and got caught.
This earlier post has disappeared.
Is it perhaps because the truth does not fit Turley’s narrative.
Where is your proof Trump “tried to conceal” business payments?
Are you paying attention at all.
Trump paid off an NDA to a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter. There is nothing illegal about that. But this is a personal expense, not a legitimate business expense.
There is a recording of a conversation between Trump and Cohen discussing how to illegally conceal the payment as a business expense, in order to hide the fact that Trump was the source of the payment. The invoices and checks show how they attempted to do that. McConney and Cohen have both testified that this was the plan. A written note from Weisselberg outlines how they went about it.
The plan was to account for the payment to Daniels as a business expense for legal services provided by Cohen. The concealment involved illegally concealing a personal expense as a business expense. They got caught.
You are obviously confused. They were not trying to “conceal business payments” (Whatever that means) as you state. The concealment involved concealing a personal expense as a business expense. That is a crime.
It appears you are not paying attention at all. NDAs ARE NOT ILLEGAL.
Further, invoices are sent by payees, not by payors (Trump in this case). Trump as no control over what a counterparty sends him.
You have demonstrated no crime here.
Again, what is the alleged crime?
OMG. Please give me grace.
I specifically stated that NDA’s are 100% legal.
There is no dispute that Trump payed $130,000 as a settlement for the NDA. That is perfectly legal.
However, that is a personal expense. There is no possible way that paying off a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter is a legitimate business expense.
Trump knew that it was a personal expense and could never be defended as a legitimate business expense. He also wanted to conceal the fact that he had paid the settlement at all. So he and Cohen cooked up a conspiracy to make it look as though the payment was really payment to Cohen (not Daniels) and that it was a payment of legitimate legal expenses. That way there was no paper trail back to Trump.
That is the crime of falsification of business records, and they got caught.
You have not described a crime. Do you understand this?
It appears you do not – unintentional misclassification of an expense IS NOT a crime.
There is zero evidence that Trump intentionally classified it in this manner.
So again, what crime are you alleging here?
It is not a matter of “unintentional misclassification of an expense”
The problem is that it was classified at all.
Paying off a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter is not a legitimate business expense in any circumstances whatsoever. It has absolutely nothing to do with running the business.
There is no business expense classification for paying off a porn star.
It is a personal expense. If Trump simply put $130,000 in hundred dollar bills in a briefcase and delivered it to Daniels there would be no problem, no crime, no trial. The fact that they tried to hide it as “legal expenses” is the crime.
Trump and Cohen conspired to cook the company books to make it look as if the payment was a legitimate expense for legal services, so there would be no paper trail of the payment being made at all.
That is the crime of FALSIFICATION OF BUSINESS RECORDS.
Incorrect, there is no intentional falsification of business records (see above for requirements).
So again, what crime are you alleging here?
The cowardly Anonymous police state fascist here to attempt to pimp for his fellow Soviet Democrat police state fascist Alvin Bragg responded with this lie
Are you paying attention at all… There is a recording of a conversation between Trump and Cohen discussing how to illegally conceal the payment as a business expense, in order to hide the fact that Trump was the source of the payment.
That is a lie – and if you were paying attention to the trial rather than just regurgitating lies – you’d know there was no recorded conversation. No such phone call has been played during the trial for the jury to hear? Why not – if the recording you claim does exist – rather than being another one of your lies?
Can explain why Bragg while prosecuting this case has decided to hide that recording from the jury – just like he attempted to hide Cohen’s texts to Trump’s security that showed the phone call Cohen made that day was less than a minute and a half long. And it was about Cohen complaining and asking for advice regarding prank phone calls he was getting from a 14 year old kid.
Your post is a reminder of what Lyin’ Like A Proud Biden looks like.
Now… speaking of concealment… your blatant lies aren’t doing much to successfully conceal the corruption that is clearly obvious in this trial.
Amid the confusing jumps in time and narrative from Mr. Cohen, Mr Blanche called into question one critically important detail – a phone call made by Cohen to Trump’s assistant Keith Schiller on 24 October 2016.
Cohen has claimed that it was during this call he spoke with Trump (who was either given the phone by Mr Schiller or placed on loudspeaker – we don’t know which) and told him that he had paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 in hush money on his behalf.
Mr Blanche pointed out that Cohen’s phone records showed the call was less than a minute and a half long. Blanche said this called into doubt Cohen’s testimony that he extensively discussed the non-disclosure agreement with Trump during this call. Blanche showed the jury a number of interactions showing Cohen was in contact with Mr Schiller about a different issue at the same time – namely that he was receiving harassing phone calls and texts from a 14-year-old child.
“That was a lie – you did not talk to President Trump at all on that night, never mind extensively on anything; you talked to Keith Schiller about what we just went through,” he said.
Cohen replied, saying that based on his records, he believed he spoke with Trump about the Stormy Daniels matter.
“We are not asking for your belief,” Mr Blanche responded.
“This jury does not want to hear what you think happened.”
Trump paid off an NDA to a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter.
NOT in evidence. Even Stormy admitts there exists a big blank spot in her memory. Not caused by drugs, alcohol, or involving Trump. That discounts all of Stormy’s testimony about being with Turmp.
Trump did not have sex with the Doorman either, but the Doorman signed an NDA.
The indictment never touches on any election law.
NDA’s are legal
I hope you get well soon.
Another cowardly Soviet Democrat police state fascist hiding behind the username Anonymous tried justifying the police state fascism of the Soviet Democrats with this lie
The issue is that Trump tried to conceal the payment of the NDA as a business expense for legal services. There is no way that a payoff to a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter can be considered as a legitimate business expense.
Unless your name is President Bill Clinton and you’re paying off women you raped in the White House, of course (as just one example).
The real issue is that police state fascists are laying these charges for an NDA payment made AFTER THE ELECTION WAS OVER. While Bragg claims it was before.
The real issue is that the police state fascists are claiming these payments were made with campaign funds – when they were made with private funds.
The real issue is that the FEC, federal prosecutors, and prosecutors prior to Bragg looked and said “there is no crime here”. Bragg invented one (that he can’t identify)
The real issue is that statutes of limitations have expired, but “special exceptions” have been allowed by a corrupt Soviet Democrat judge to allow Bragg to proceed.
And now Bragg and his corrupt Soviet Democrat prosecutors have not only been coaching witnesses for their testimony – but suborning perjury from them. Doing so while hiding exculpatory evidence from both their corrupt judge, the jury, and the defense because the hidden texts from Cohen reveal that he has perjured himself yet again in his testimony claiming he “extensively discussed” the NDA with Trump in a phone call. A phone call that cross examination exposed was less than 90 seconds long, and mostly concerned Cohen complaining to Trump’s security about prank calls he was getting from a 14 year old.
These cowardly Anonymous police state fascists posting here to support Bribery Biden and the Soviet Democrats are only Americans by accident (if in fact they are) – their heart, mind, and corrupt soul reek with the stench of the old Soviet Union.
Stormy Daniels signed a letter denying the false allegation of an affair.
No affair has ever been proven.
No charges of criminal accounting violations were ever filed within any conceivable or otherwise creative statute of limitations.
The FEC denied any pursuit of hypothetical election violations.
There is no there there in your there.
Daniels denied an affair, meaning an ongoing relationship.
A 2 minute quickie in a hotel room is not an affair.
A denial is not “a 2-minute quickie” or an affair.
A denial is a nothing.
The whole “case” is a nothing.
There is no there there in that nothingburger.
That’s really the hill you choose to die on?
A pedantic examination of the word “affair”?
It’s really not nice to reveal the idiocy of an idiot in public.
But thanks just the same.
Iowan2… this cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat has been a heavy breather for playing semantics like what ‘an affair’ means since President BJ Clinton said under oath “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’, is…”
EXCEPT…there is NO proof that he even was with the porn star sexually…so he was paying to have the story squelched…which happens every day of the week…she appears, on top of being morally bankrupt, a lying woman who smells $.
OK Brain Child??? What should he have classified the record as? I mean he could have used Hillary’s “Bimbo Eruption pay off” But something tells me that wouldn’t have gone over well either.
The fact that the record was classified in any manner is the crime.
There is no legitimate classification in business records for payments to a porn star to keep quiet about a sexual encounter.
The crime is not HOW it was classified. The crime is that it was classified AT ALL !!!!!!!!!
Au contraire my anonymous friend, this NDA could absolutely be a legitimate business expense. Trump has always maintained that no sexual encounter took place, Daniel’s recollection has been all over the place. She’s claimed in interviews that nothing happened, now she’s claimed that she “blacked out”. But it really doesn’t matter. What we really have is an NDA masquerading as an extortion payment. One thing she did manage to mention during her testimony was that the SHE thought this meeting might get her onto the Apprentice. I would say that when she testified that she thought this was a business meeting, that turned into something else…that she can’t prove, that the NDA absolutely became a business expense. I’m under no obligation to believe Daniel’s testimony in total, I can pick and choose whatever parts I want, or none of it at all. IMHO, she is the worst witness of all. She has repeatedly lied, she has extorted money, she was paid under an NDA and breached it. she’s peddled her story to anyone that would listen, changing it several times along the way, she’s stated that she despises Trump for some unknown reason, and worst of all, she owes Trump a substantial amount of money.