Below is my column in the New York Post on the meltdown of Michael Cohen on the stand in the Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump. In a trial careening out of control, Judge Juan Merchan seemed to be furiously working to just get the matter to the jury as fast as possible. Judge Merchan seems in open denial of the legal farce playing out in his courtroom. He is only the latest person pulled into the vortex of the swirling corruption around Michael Cohen.
Here is the column:
The completion of the testimony of Michael Cohen left the prosecution of Donald Trump, like its star witness, in tatters.
In the final day of cross-examination, Cohen admitted to committing larceny in stealing tens of thousands of dollars from his client.
Even more notably, he admitted to the larceny on the stand — after the statute of limitations had passed. There will be no dead felony zapped back into life against Cohen, as it was for Trump.
Cohen clearly has found a home for his unique skill as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer.
It was not the first time that prosecutors looked the other way as Cohen admitted to major criminal conduct: In a prior hearing, Cohen admitted under oath that he lied in a previous case where he pleaded guilty to lying.
If that is a bit confusing, it was just another day in the life of Michael Cohen, who appears only willing to tell the truth if he has no other alternative.
The result is truly otherworldly. You have a disbarred lawyer not only casually discussing lies and uncharged crimes, but prosecutors who proceeded to get him to remind the jury that he is not facing any further criminal charges.
If any one of those jurors had stolen tens of thousands of dollars, they would be given a fast trip to the hoosegow.
Yet Cohen then matter-of-factly said he plans to run for Congress due to his “name recognition” — the ultimate proof that it does not matter whether you are famous or infamous, so long as they spell your name right.
As a legislator, Cohen would have the unique ability to say he will not be corrupted by Congress — because he came to Congress corrupted.
While most members wait to take office to commit felonies, Rep. Cohen would show up with a self-affirming criminal record.
He could then take one of the few oaths that he has not previously violated as the Honorable Rep. Michael Cohen.
At the end of the day, Cohen is the ultimate shining object for prosecutors to use as a distraction from the glaring omissions in their case.
Prior witnesses testified that Trump’s payments to Cohen were designated as “legal expenses” not by Trump but by his accounting staff.
Moreover, Cohen admitted that he worked for Trump for years in his murky capacity as a fixer. References to payments as a retainer were approved by Allen Weisselberg, a retired executive with the Trump Organization.
The “legal expense” label was a natural characterization for a lawyer who was paid monthly and was on-call as Trump’s personal counsel.
In any other district, this case would never have been allowed in trial. It certainly now should be facing a directed verdict by the court.
Indeed, with any other defendant, a New York jury would be giving a Bronx cheer in derision.
Even CNN hosts and experts have admitted that this case would never have been brought against another defendant or in another district.
That is what Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is counting on.
The biggest problem facing the defense is not the evidence, but the judge: Judge Juan Merchan seems to be channeling George Patton’s warning, “May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.”
Merchan has not given any indication that he is seriously considering a directed verdict, which he should clearly grant before this goes to the jury.
Merchan’s rulings have largely favored the prosecution, including some rulings that left some of us mystified.
Judge Merchan continues to allow the jury to hear references to campaign-finance violations that do not exist.
After gutting any use of a legal expert to testify on the absence of any such violations, the judge allowed the jury to hear Michael Cohen state that the payments to Stormy Daniels were clearly campaign violations.
All that Merchan would offer is a weak instruction telling jurors not to take such statements as proof of a violation.
The alleged campaign-finance violations allowed Cohen to try to implicate Trump. However, it is doubtful that Trump could have been convicted on such a charge in any other venue.
It is precisely what the Justice Department tried and failed to do with John Edwards, a Democratic candidate.
After that unmitigated failure, the Justice Department dropped this theory of hush money as a campaign contribution.
Indeed, after reviewing the Trump payments, not only did the Justice Department decline any charges but the Federal Election Commission did not even seek a civil fine.
On Monday, Judge Merchan’s orders became even more inexplicable when Cohen’s former attorney Robert Costello took the stand.
Merchan immediately started to sustain a flurry of prosecutors’ objections as Costello basically accused Cohen of multiple acts of perjury.
At one point, Costello — one of the most experienced lawyers in New York and a former prosecutor — exclaimed that one of the judge’s rulings was “ridiculous.”
The judge chastised Costello and even challenged him: “Are you staring me down?”
In fact, it was hard not to stare. What is happening in the courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan is anything but ordinary.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
It is time to stop referring to the judge, prosecutors, and trial with any sort of respect or reverence.
This is a political show trial to go after the leader of the of the opposition party.
Any American should be terrified and disgusted at this spectacle.
Question for progressives, what other countries, that have political show trials of the opposition leader, would you choose to live?
I have never voted Trump, but I may this time. The progressive/democrat America is not America where I want to live.
Its about “are you staring me down” & “are you talking to me”
“LAWFARE: Cohen admitted he would negotiate settlements for one amount and report them to the Trump Org at significantly higher amount – he would keep the excess (this is embezzlement/theft).
DA Bragg was aware of his crimes and refuses to prosecute him for them. Instead he’s prosecuting Cohen’s victim for failing to itemize the payments made to his embezzler.
You can’t make this up. The prosecutor wants to jail Trump for over 100 years for failing to properly account for the payments illicitly billed by Cohen.
Biden’s number three official in the DOJ negotiated a deal with Michael Cohen to get him to plead guilty to Federal Election Campaign crimes – crimes that, ironically, Cohen did not commit. That DOJ official then left his top DOJ job to join the NYC District Attorney’s office to prosecute Trump. He is trying to use Cohen’s FEC guilty plea to allow him to prosecute Trump for a business record misdemeanor with an expired statute of limitation as a felony. The fix was in from the start.” @amuse
Lawyers who have a long history with Judge Merchan have described him as “very touchy,” i.e., easily offended. That touchiness is born of self-doubt and a lack of self-esteem.
Exhibit A: “Are you staring me down?”
Something must change in our present legal system (run amuck). Who is accountable for the millions wasted by the government on such bizarre and frivolous cases? If I were a NY taxpayer, I would be furious. I am livid regarding the reckless federal spending. A government employee couldn’t make it in the private sector.
In the college of business in my university, there was a sign above the bulletin board (in jest). There are three kinds of accountants, those can count and those who can’t.”
They bring this bizarre case and at the same time catch and release hardened, violent criminals and put them, unpunished, back on the street to menace innocent citizens.
Is this part of a larger scheme to breakdown Western civilization? When it becomes so chaotic and surreal, will they offer communism and loss of personal freedom as the solution? Mmmmmm…..I wonder. It is either this or we are living in an idiocracy.
Tissue?
“A government employee couldn’t make it in the private sector.”
Correct.
“President” Joe Biden has never had a real job. What “good” has Biden ever done? Only sucking the gub’ment teet for 50 years while massively (and corruptly) enriching his family and friends.
Trump is clean as a whistle compared to Joe Biden — and all the rest of them.
It is capitalism which is the motive force behind this corruption which you accurately describe.
Merchan channeling Caine Muitney
Or the Feldenstein trial in Judgment at Nuremberg.
“Again, when you’ve lost Wolf Blitzer, you’re dealing with a true implosion of the prosecutor’s case.
Here’s what should happen now in cascading order:
1) Judge Merchan should order a directed verdict in Trump’s favor.
2) Failing that, the jury should acquit.
3) Failing that, the NY Appellate Division should reverse the conviction.
4) Failing that, the New York Supreme Court should reverse the conviction.
5) Failing that, the US Supreme Court should reverse the New York courts.
No way a possible conviction survives appellate review at this point. All the Dems are playing for is having roughed up Trump enough with female swing voters to keep Biden in the White House.
That’s the whole cynical game. Americans should be appalled.” @JeffClarkUS
____________________
Yes, Americans are appalled.
The Communists are quite pleased with Comrade Merchan.
Next case “randomly” assigned to Comrade merchan is Steve Bannon.
Merchan needs to be investigated for criminal conspiracy.
Thus far in this “trial” no prosecution witness has come forward to establish that Donald J Trump had anything to do with how the business records — 11 invoices, 11 checks, 12 general ledger entries — were classified. He did not give anyone direction to call those records “legal expenses.”
There is ample evidence that others at a much lower level in the company made all those decisions.
Further, if the categorization as “legal expenses” was not correct there is no evidence as to what it should have been.
Payments to a lawyer pursuant to an invoice from a lawyer being classified as “legal expenses” seems quite ordinary and appropriate regardless of what the payments to the lawyer were for.
There is no there there.
JLM
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
Merchan vs Costello is no contest
It is common knowledge, NY Judges (All Dem run metropolises) are not on the bench because they graduated first in their class. The Trial Lawyers are by far the Smartest lawyers in town. Very simply, because that’s where the real money is.
Merchan is reacting out of fear. He has zero chance of lasting 90 seconds in a debate with Costello.
Merchan is terrified of Costello, and sick about not being able to get his dead horse of a case across the finish line.
There is no document crime.
Even if it were, there is no crime in executing a NDA. = No coverup.
Leave it up to people that have never gone to law school, nor passed the Bar exam, and litigated cases to comment about the intricacies of the legal profession.
But don’t judge them harshly. Their provenance shows that they skipped all of the above-referenced subtleties, and instead went to their local DMV, paid five dollars ($5.00) and accordingly duly obtained their license to practice law and/or comment authoritatively about legal matters.
Ain’t we lucky!
The only reason that you’re a lawyer is that you can’t do math.
I don’t know if it’s a legal argument, but argument as the defense would be, given the star witness for the State is not believable, a liar and a thief….there’s no justice in leaving Trump’s fate to a New York City jury. New York City doesn’t like Republicans and they loathe Trump. The State has no evidence Trump committed a crime so why should his fate be left to a jury that very well could hate him enough to love the chance to send him to prison? That’s not justice
@BixbyBill,
It’s a jury of his peers. Trump was a long time NYC resident and NYC residents are well acquainted with Trump’s shenanigans. The law is that he shall be judged by a jury of his peers. Trump made the mistake of committing his alleged crimes in the city where everyone knows him. That’s unfortunate, but it’s also how the law works for everyone including Trump.
The state has evidence he committed a crime. It was introduced early in the trial and corroborated by 20 witnesses. The defense only produced two witnesses, one of which became combative and disrespectful in court and earned him an admonishment from the judge. I get that Trump supporters will do everything they can to spin this as positive as possible, but it does not look good. The level of hype and mischaracterization in support of Trump signifies just how bad it is for Trump. If Trump stood a very good chance of being acquitted and he had a solid case there wouldn’t be a need for so much hype and denigration of the judge and the prosecution. Cohen has been attacked and denigrated so much because his testimony does pose a threat to Trump. A lot o people dismissed Cohen’s testimony as insignificant. If it was there wouldn’t be a big effort to discredit him from multiple pundits and legal experts like Turley.
The law is that he shall be judged by a jury of his peers
George is so ignorant, he has no idea, Change of Venue is a real legal pathway.
@Iowan2,
Can’t change the venue when there’s no reason to. Trump’s alleged crime was committed in NYC. The law requires he be tried there. Trump made the mistake of committing the allege crime in NYC. That’s his fault. Not that of the judge, jury, or the prosecution.
Cohen admitting he committed larceny should be no surprise. The professor keeps forgetting that Cohen is no different than Trump. That’s why Trump hired him, because he thinks like him and behaves like him. Cohen gained immunity from persecution for those acts in exchange for his testimony against Trump. That’s how it works. It’s unsavory and wrong, but sometimes you have to have an incentive to speak freely.
I don’t believe Merchan will grant dismissal. There’s no way that could happen since the evidence and more than 20 witnesses testifying to corroborate the documentation and events established a clear intent to falsify records for the purpose of maintaining Trump’s chances of getting elected.
testifying to corroborate the documentation and events established a clear intent to falsify records for the
ALL the Prosecutions witnesses testified to the opposite.
DJT gave zero direction to his accounting staff as to how to catagorize invoices from Cohen.
So, no., There is zero evidence if the documents being false. There is zero evidence Trump was involved in the accounting in any way.
@Iowan2,
No, they did not testify to the opposite. Cohen clearly stated Trump was aware and knew what was going on. He signed the checks and text messages to Cohen showed Trump was fully aware of what was going on. Trump did not want the Stormy Daniels story to get out because he was clearly concerned about how it would affect his election bid.
Denial is handy when you’re ignorant of the facts. The evidence is clearly corroborated by Cohen and even Weisselberg who is in jail for perjury. The documents already show they are falsified. The purpose of the payments were not for legal services. Cohen attests to that and he’s the one who admitted in court they were not for that purpose. That’s why the defense is so focused on discrediting Cohen as a liar. Because he’s the one who orchestrated the whole thing with the blessing of Trump and Weisselberg who his now in jail for perjury, for lying. Trump surrounds himself with liars and supplicants because they mirror his most important value, lying.
Cohen clearly stated Trump was aware and knew what was going on
Cohen, DJT, Trump accounting dept. Thats a ven digram Cohen has never been a part of.
According to George, the day to day work of the accountants is known to Cohen, because Cohen ‘claims’
“Trump was aware of what was gong on”
That’s a statement so broad it is rendered meaningless.
It is actually contradicted by at least two of the prosecution witnesses.
This is how George sees things. Woe Trump employees in accounting, testify they properly recorded the checks, and DJT never interacted with anyone in accounting. George says Cohen disagrees. But Cohen offers zero testimony to support his conclusion. Cohen has been caught already in four separate lies in his testimont so far.
According to George, That makes Cohen the superior witness cancelling out the People in the room doing the work.
@Iowan2,
You clearly were not paying attention. Trump’s own accountants verified that Trump was aware of what was going on. Any payments of $10,000 or more always get the nod from Trump before being disbursed. He decides if the money is spent or not. Emails, text messages and witnesses like Cohen and Weisselberg put Trump squarely in the know. Trump is not going to be unaware of why he’s giving $450,000 or anything of that significant amount. Remember, he’s a serial cheapskate he has to have full control of his money and why it’s spent. Trump’s defense just admitted Trump knew they were reimbursements instead of legal fees a little while ago.
First degree falsification of business records — the actual charge in this case — requires proof that it was done in the furtherance of a crime.
In this instance — using your words — “maintaining Trump’s chances of getting elected” is not a crime.
JLM
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
The records were also months later after election
@jminch2011,
It is a crime if he engaged in falsifying business records to avoid reporting the expense according to campaign finance laws. When he chose to falsely categorize the payments as legal fees when there were no legal services provided he did so to avoid reporting the payments as a payoff to Stormy Daniels. The crime, even if it was a misdemeanor at first is still a crime. That’s how it became a first degree falsifying of documents.
Falsified records months after he was elected maintained his chance of getting elected?
NDAs are legal. Campaign funds cant be used for them and there was no campaign funds used
Whoa, talk about twisting the facts. Professor Turley forgets who is also a lawyer should know that court decorum is important. He is the same person who holds civility to very high standard. Ignoring Costello’s behavior which is what got him in trouble in the first place clearly shows the professor’s paid bias towards Costello. It was Costello whose behavior and court room antics, an obvious piece of showmanship for Trump, got Merchan angry. No judge should tolerate that kind of behavior in their courtroom and he did exercised control when he cleared the room of jurors and reporters to deal with Costello’s disrespect. Turley conveniently neglected to mention that Costello openly told the court reporter to strike a statement when only judge Merchan can do that.
I expected the professor to mischaracterize yesterday’s events because he’s paid to. Nothing wrong with that, but it is certainly not a very good attempt.
Cohen’s admission of stealing thousands from Trump is not relevant to the case. He freely admits it, which again shows he’s being honest about his transgressions. It still leaves the impression that while he may be a liar and an all around opportunist just like Costello, at least he knows and understands the importance how first impressions can influence a jury. This is where Turley fails to recognize its importance. Cohen openly and calmly admitted he lied in the past and did so because that is what Trump values, it’s important to him. He remained calm and collected throughout questioning. To a jury that first impression is all that matters. On the other hand, Costello came out combative and disrespectful and contemptuous towards the judge and the court. Within minutes judge Merchan was admonishing Costello and warned him about his behavior and kindly reminded him about court room decorum. Something Turley should be very aware of. Turley values civility and order. Costello demonstrated none of that. But we know he’s paid to ignore that so that he can paint Costello in the best light possible. It’s obvious his description of Costello does not match his performance in court. We’ll see how he behaves on the stand today. Will he be more respectful and keep to himself or will he continue the show for Trump and possibly undermine his defense?
It still leaves the impression that while he may be a liar and an all around opportunist just like Costello,
What a blatant lie. You just like Cohen lie, when the truth would be to your benefit.
There is nothing in Costellos long history in the law to prompt any person to call him a liar.
@Iowan2,
“ There is nothing in Costellos long history in the law to prompt any person to call him a liar.”
Yes there is. The prosecution did that a while ago. The showed the jury Costello lied about his previous testimony using his own emails against him.
Dershowitz, who was in the courtroom, also has said that Merchan’s rulings sustaining the objections to Costello’s testimony were absurd.
Daniel,
And that is why Merchan had the court cleared of the press. Costello was making Merchan look bad.
@Daniel,
Why would they be absurd? Dershowitz was not privy to the restrictions placed on the questioning of Costello. So how would he know they were absurd?
Judge Merchan restricted the question to the case and not about Costello’s grievances against Cohen. When the defense and Costello proceeded to violate the restrictions the prosecution correctly objected and Merchan sustained them. BOTH the defense and prosecution agreed to the restrictions during a sidebar prior to Costello’s testimony. THAT is why Merchan’s rulings on the objections proper. Dershowitz is just spouting legal BS in Trumps name. He’s there to support Trump. Not to offer his objective legal opinion.
The judge has lost control of his court and of his case. I say “his case” because he clearly has a dog in this fight. With the collapse of Cohen’s testimony, Merchan is faced with two choices: either a directed verdict of acquittal, or perpetual infamy as the judge who perverted justice for the purpose of political revenge. His consternation came through in his personal battle with Costello, who is not only capable of further destroying Bragg’s case, but is also a highly competent attorney who, by contrast, shows up the Bragg-Cohen-Merchan slapstick. Buck up, judge! Or enter history as one of these three stooges.
I am curious to see, how ‘effective’ upon the Jury, Costello’s affront of being honest about the situation and then Judge Merchan suddenly clearing the Jury box and Courtroom to have a private side-bar pow-wow. Merchan could have simply kept cool, dismissed the Jury to the Jury Room, then had a meeting of the Counsels en camera, while the gallery waited. Now the mystery is, What was discussed when Merchan held the Counsels at bar.
I think the Jury is wise to Costello’s Honesty of that moment.
Costello was not being honest. Neither was the defense counsel. Costello deliberately ignored the judge’s restrictions to question only about the case. The defense also ignored the judge and proceeded to violate his order. So the prosecution’s objections were valid and correctly sustained by Merchan.
It was the blatant contempt and disrespect Costello showed to the judge that set him off. It’s HIS court room and no judge would tolerate that kind of disrespect and contempt from a witness, any witness for that matter.
Ever since I first saw Michael Cohen on CNN, I Trump was GUILTY – of hiring him for anything, especially lawyer.
The next person who hires Cohen should be immediately sent to jail and fined – no trial needed – just read these transcripts.
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”, Judge Juan Merchan (2024).
Clearly, a brilliant jurist, legal scholar, and eminent political hack. Since his assignment, fully understands and embraces the intent and purposes of the prosecution.
Juan Merchan on the bench is about as competent as the likes of a Stevie Wonder at a gun range. Only a damn fool idiot with poor judgement would hand him a loaded weapon. That would be Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
This judge is obviously not coherent. Why are no ethics charges being filed against him.
That was a great comparison/analogy!
“… Yet Cohen then matter-of-factly said he plans to run for Congress due to his “name recognition” — the ultimate proof that it does not matter whether you are famous or infamous, so long as they spell your name right. …”
So tell us Jonathan, When are You running for Congress? That missive seems to have suggestive and subliminal foreshadowing written into it. 😀
Since Judge Merchan like to make contempt citations, is it ok to call him contemptable?
It’s OK for you and me to call him whatever we like. We’re not parties to the case, so we’re not under his jurisdiction. But parties to the case should refrain from doing so until after it’s over.