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.
Louis Gossett Jr. won an Academy Award for his acting as Drill Instructor Gunnery Sergeant Foley in the film An Officer and a Gentleman. Sadly Judge Merchan is not acting.
Trump apparently has been kept busy and alert by having a coloring book and some papers to shuffle. He’s been falling asleep a lot lately.
And your comment is at the elementary-school level . . . particularly as Trump is full of energy compared to the dementia-addled corpse that goes by the name of Joe Biden. Trump draws 100,000 people in deep-blue New Jersey, whereas FJB and with his slurring gibberish and surly contorted face draws 23 people on a good day.
I actually felt bad for Biden when he was losing his battle with his salad (and on camera) at the Correspondent’s dinner.
Whatever will the lamestream media do when the Trump era ends?😢
While your credibility is poor, what does it matter if you are correct.
This trial has been a farce. Every time the prosecution puts on testimony that has anything to do with the actual crime they are alleging – Trump is no where to be found. I do not mean in the courtroom – I mean in the evidence.
Cohen is writing invoices and sending them to Trump tower – Trump is in the WH.
Trump signed checks that are Fedexed to the WH and say – “Pay to the order of Micheal Cohen” nothing else.
Accountant Connely enters transactions as legal expenses based on Cohen’s invoces, Weiselburgs notes, and his own judgement.
There is no campaign finance violation
There is no false business records,
but most important – there is no Trump anywhere near an alleged crime in this case – much less a real one.
Sure Trump is bored. This is unfortunately a deadly serious farce.
@John Say,
Trump’s involvement is in the evidence including Cohen’s testimony. The defense tried to suppress a still from C-SPAN showing Trump with the individual Cohen mentioned in his testimony.
The denials and obfuscations don’t change the facts of the case. This is why the defense tried so hard to discredit Cohen.
Trump micromanages everything that is important to him. He was aware of the stormy Daniels story. He was aware of Cohens intention to prevent it from getting out. He knew exactly why he was signing those checks. The defense made a major blunder when they tried to accuse Cohen of taking reimbursement money for himself instead of calling it a legal expense. It’s not supposed to be a reimbursement.
Putting Costello on the stand was clearly a mistake. Professor Turley admitted it was a risky choice and it certainly ended up harming them. Costello clearly would have made a negative impression on the jury.
George you say: “Trump micromanages everything that is important to him.” This is a rather meaningless statement. You don’t know what is important to Trump at any particular moment and you don’t know how closely he follows the progress of things important to him.” He may have considered Ms. Stormy to be relatively unimportant or he may have delegated to Cohen the unpleasant business of dealing with her demands so that he could concentrate on getting elected President. You can’t create facts out of your assumptions.
Professor Turley,
You gloss over arguably the most powerful piece of evidence against Trump, because it points directly to the charges at issue in the case: Weisselberg’s handwritten notes laying out the specific system for reimbursing Cohen and grossing up his income for false tax purposes – all on the very front of a bank statement for Cohen’s shell company that paid Daniels through her attorney.
Cohen became the second witness to identify Weisselberg’s handwriting on that piece of paper, which contradicts one of the defense’s key promises made to jurors during opening statements. “The $35,000 a month was not a payback to Mr. Cohen for the money that he gave to Ms. Daniels,” Blanche told jurors when trial began on April 22, 2024.
Cohen’s admission that he stole at least $30,000 from the Trump Organization, before that amount was grossed up for his taxes, heightened the disconnect in Blanche’s opening statement. The theft of the money only makes sense if jurors accept that Cohen falsely claimed a reimbursement that he wasn’t entitled to from RedFinch, an IT firm he hired to rig online polls for Trump before his candidacy. Cohen paid only $20,000 of that $50,000 expense — unseemly enough, in a “small, brown paper bag” filled with cash to RedFinch’s owner John Gauger — but the ex-Trump fixer falsely claimed he paid for the entire thing.
“So you stole from the Trump Organization, right?” Blanche asked Cohen.
“Yes, sir,” Cohen answered, simply, before explaining later in the day that he felt angry and entitled to the money because Trump slashed his bonus.
But Cohen’s account of his unprosecuted theft from Trump hinges upon a proposition the defense does not accept: That Cohen received reimbursements for campaign-related and other expenses, not compensation for valid legal expenses. In so doing, Cohen arguably cheated both his employer and the tech firm in a way that corroborates the state’s theory of the case.
Wow, the amount of wasted energy for that nonsense could probably power an EV for at least a couple of blocks…
Anything specific to respond to? Or just a culture-driven and fact-free response?
…. redfinch and polls? Before Trump’s candidacy? Before?
Here’s a re-enactment of Micheal Cohen speedrunning the destruction of the prosecutions case.
https://youtu.be/VQmfviYfcUI?si=Nmu1be-o3rl08-jK
Apparently on Oct. 24th, the day Micheal Cohen claims he spoke to Trump about paying off Stormy Daniels, Cohen only had two phone calls listed
One that went to voice mail
The other was at 8:02 PM
Cohen admitted under cross-examination that he didn’t ACTUALLY speak to Trump at all, he instead spoke to Keith Schiller about reporting some dumb 14 year old who was prank calling him.
In case you are interested in discussing the legal aspects of the prosecution’s argument, I would direct you to United States v. Goldman: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/439/337/1578437/.
This case clarifies that an overstatement of income may result in prosecution for tax fraud.
By characterizing the reimbursement payments to Cohen as legal fees, the Trump Organization necessarily caused Cohen to report the amount as income, subject to tax on Cohen’s return. But, the repayment to Cohen of the funds paid to Daniels would simply not be regarded for tax purposes as “income.” The payment was a straight dollar-for-dollar reimbursement of a purely personal expense (whether related to Trump’s marriage or to his campaign).
It was therefore false for Cohen to then tell tax authorities that he received $130K in “income.”
Cohen sent an invoice.
It is the attorney’s responsibility to take care of his own books, not the client’s responsibility to make sure the attorney files a correct tax return.
BugAnon.
1) Regardless of how the payments were structured, we don’t know how Cohen characterized this money when he filed his tax returns.
2) Did the IRS challenge the reporting of his income for 2017?
3) If the 130k in expenses was treated as income, wouldn’t that inflate Cohen’s tax liability? The IRS should be overjoyed.
And what you wilfully overlook is the statute of limitations for this issue has long expired. It was adjudicated by the federal givernment as a non-crime anyway.
You are too dumb to insult
sweet burn bruh.
That really drives the intellectual discussion on this blog.
The probelm with your argument – aside from the fact that Micheal Cohen saying “that is a lie” does not make anything in the world an actual lie, is that the key evidence you are citing – is Weiselbergs notes.
NOT Trump’s notes. Weiselberg has not testified. Nor will he. If he were forced to in front of Merchan he will take the 5th.
Why – Because Merchan in prior cases has made it clear to Weiselberg that given the slightest chance Merchan will send him to jail for the rest of his life. Weisleberg has the strongest argument for not saying a word of anywone in the world.
Without Weiselberg – there is no way to tie his notes to Trump.
You think they are smoking gun proof. They are not.
But even in some fictional world where they were – they have not been connected to Trump.
And Trump is the defendant – not Weiselberg.
This claim that Cohen somehow corroborates the case is both factuallly and legally absurd.
The opposite is actually true.
The FACT that Cohen got away with deceiving Trump PROVES that Trump did NOT have the deep involvement in Cohen’s activities that Cohen has claimed. Otherwise he would KNOW that Cohen was cheating him.
That Trump did NOT know that Cohen was cheating him means Trump did not know what Cohen was upto except int he broadest sense.
The prosecution has two HUGE problems – aside from Cohen’s larceny there is not a crime in 10,000 miles of this case. And that is if you think Cohen is a saint. The 2nd is they have not tied Trump to ANY of the charges.
Cohen’s testimony Absolutely PROVES that his invoices are FRAUD – His fraud not Trump’s.
They ALSO PROVE that Trump was unaware of HIS FRAUD and likely unware of much of what Cohen was up to.
Sumarizing all the testimony:
Trump like other politicians, celebrities and high wealth individuals works with NAtional Enquirer to kill unfavorable stories and place favorable ones. They do do for personal, professional and political reasons.
It is all legal.
While there is no evidence of this – it is reasonable to assume that Cohen was tasked by Trump to deal with unfavorable press.
There is no evidence that Cohen was told how to do that. That was HIS responsibility.
Though there is some evidence suggesting that Cohen actually did this on his own for the purposes of ingratiating himself with Trump and Melania.
Cohen killed stories and negotiated an NDA with Daniels. The NDA is between Daniels and Cohen – not Trump.
Cohen paid for it – not Trump.
After the election Cohen sought payment for the NDA and other serivces he performed prior to 2017, as well as for ongoing services that he provided during 2017. Some of which were not yet performed – that is how retainers work.
There is no evidence – beyond Cohen’s word that Trump had any involvement in any of that – EXCEPT signing the checks.
And we now know that Cohen lied to the Trump organization about the work he actually performed.
In the end you have no crime – while several crimes were alleged in testimony, none of those were charge nd Trump is not on trial for any of them, and the one crime actually charged – requires another crime – which has not been charged, and as alleged is not a crime, and not in the jurisdiction of the prosecutor.
And what do you have regarding Trump ?
No evidence that he knew much about what Cohen was up to – legal or not.
No evidence that he was involved in the legal acts that Bragg calls illegal.
“The FACT that Cohen got away with deceiving Trump…”
Wow, if trump was so easily deceived, let’s make him President.
@anonymous,
“But Cohen’s account of his unprosecuted theft from Trump hinges upon a proposition the defense does not accept: That Cohen received reimbursements for campaign-related and other expenses, not compensation for valid legal expenses. In so doing, Cohen arguably cheated both his employer and the tech firm in a way that corroborates the state’s theory of the case.”
+100!
George – You create confusion by joining the phrases “campaign-related” and “other expenses”. There were no campaign expenses. There were other expenses, esp the blackmail payment to Stormy. That was reimbursed as part of the $420k payment. So, Cohen did steal money from Trump, and that is not inconsistent with the defense’s theory of its case.
It wasn’t false tax purposes since they issued a 1099 indicating compensation
Since cohen knew the amount was being grossed up, he can’t claim it was a reimbusement
Charge conference
Judge Merchan as agreed to a statement presented by the Defense.
IF the NDA’s would have been used even if Trump was not running for office, then the payment cannot be considered a campaign donation
I cant cant tell of Merchan is starting to consider his reputation after a blistering appellate overturning of Mechans case.
He’s being….a judge.
Merchan’s reputation is already bad. Even if he lives to be over 100 I doubt he can clean all of the stain. But he might avoid making it worse. If he dismisses the case he won’t have the judges of a court of appeals rolling on the floor and laughing as they read the briefs and transcripts. He must already be wondering about that risk.
The days of prestige, titles, honor and legacy are long gone. Now it is all about immediate gratification, power and treating others like ewes
🐑🐑🐑
True, because in the name of ‘equity’ so many of the ‘honors’ are hollow.
Estovir,
Well said.
Those of us who still hold to those values use them to judge the actions by those who indulge in immediate gratification, power and the treatment of others like ewes. Try as we may to protect those weaker from their abusers, sometimes we cannot.
When were the days of prestige, titles, honor and legacy?
When people actually did something, Churchill, Fleming, Salk, Sgt. York, Washington, Grant, Lee, Longstreet and many more.
Young,
He has all the evidence (rather zero evidence) that a crime was committed. A directed verdict would end this. But the outside chance of being able to refer to PDJT as FELON Trump, is an emotional talisman they cannot resist
Iowan,
True, they are salivating at the thought of calling him a felon just as Pelosi was overjoyed to call him impeached a couple times, but how long did that last?
As I think about it – a mistrial based on Daniels is his best out. He can blame others and claim Trump would have been convicted otherwise. While avoiding an appellate beat-down.
John,
Something like that. The media is alive with with all corners of media asking a simple question. After all the trial coverage, exactly what crime Am I supposed to rooting for. I want a conviction, PLEASE give something to root for.
It is stark, Merchan may get his conviction, but he knows the decision to reverse is going be taught in law schools for a century, and that is going to hang around his neck like a millstone.
Iowan2,
He has already tarnished his reputation as a partisan hack for the DNC.
USF,
That is true, but the stink of a blistering appellate overturning of his trial may exceed any available remediation.
According to Brad Smith, this is not the standard. Motivation is not relevant. Campaign expenditures are payments of a kind that could only be made for the campaign, such as renting venues, buying advertising, hiring staff, etc. Under the law, campaign funds cannot be used for other matters, even if they benefit the campaign, and are intended to benefit the campaign. There is nothing about an NDA that makes payment to secure it a campaign expenditure. Campaign funds could not have been used for this purpose. The test is the objective one of whether it COULD have been made without regard to the campaign, not the subjective one of whether it WOULD have been.
Daniel,
Well said and a great display of logic.
Campaign funds WERE NOT used for the NDA.
The NDA and everything related to it is not admissible.
There is no charge of any election crime.
Personal expenditures of a candidate are unlimited and do not require reporting.
dual purpose expenses are not considered campaign expenses. And even if everything I said was wrong – it is still not a crime.
The NDA is not admissible at all absent Bragg charging a crime related to it.
Which is outside Bragg’s jurisdiction Congress has made it clear that Campaign Finance law is the EXCLUSIVE domain of the FED and federal goverment.
If the NDA is admissible – then Trump MUST be allowed to put on his experts regarding Campaign finance law.
I beleive that you are correct that Merchan is starting to have second thoughts.
If Trump is convicted – Merchan’s conduct will be front and center in ALL appeals.
There are probably a dozen different reversable errors in this case so far.
The left has already lost badly in the court of public opinion – which it by far the most important in this case.
The worst case scenario for Merchan right now is a REALLY weak conviction – where the jurrors come to some compromise verdict to address possible holdouts.
That gives Bragg the weakest win possible, and means the Appleate court will be looking at a case even a biased jury had difficulty swallowing.;
Conversely at this time Merchan’s best possible outcome would be a hung jury. There would be no embarrassing appeal, and there would be no retrial. A hung jury allows left wing nuts to claim there was some substance to the case, and again Merchan faces no further embarressment.
But Merchan does NOT control the jury.
What he controls is himself.
Granting a directed verdict(or a mistrial) –
actually undermines the claims that he is biased – even though he is clearly, and precludes the apeals courts reaming him a new ahole.
Right now he can blame it on Cohen and Daniels.
He can write a long scathing opinion saying Trump is a crook over and over, but blaming Cohen for lying constantly, or Daniels for sudddenly making #metoo claims. and or he can blame Bragg.
I think the Daniels related mistrial option is his best course. That allows him to say that But for Daniels alleging new and unrelated crimes, he would have been able to get Trump convicted.
Regardless, I think there is a real possibility of MErchan tossing this if he can blame someone else and write an oppinion that makes Trump look bad anyway.
It has nothing to with being MAGA. I haven’t voted for Trump and won’t but its clear that NY is attempting to railroad him on stupid charges. If you can’t admit that regardless of your party preferences then you are part of the problem in this country.
Lost by 3 million votes in ’16, 7 million votes in ’20.
And likely 11 million votes in 2024.
Ok Hillary!
Right now the polls show him leading by 7m votes.
That is of critical importance. It is also another reason Trump is campaigning in states like NY and NJ that he will likely lose.
While the constitution only requires winning the electoral college – as Trump did in 2016 and almost certainly did in 2020.
Fraud is much easier and less likely to get caught in a close race,
AND the courts as we saw in 2020 are not going to take interest in fraud claims when you lose the popular vote.
That is not supposed to matter. But it does.
Trump is going to campaign in alot of bluish states – he partly did that because he was trapped in NYC,
But he is also doing it because he has the Electoral college locked.
And Biden must lead in the popular vote to win the EC through fraud.
“Lose”
That word does not mean what you think it does.
Only in the MAGA alternate reality universe does “lose” really mean “win”.
I seem to remember something about a woman named Kellyanne, I think, who had something to say about “alternative facts”
This is a common theme in MAGA world. Up is down, black is white, night is day.
1st grade vocabulary and innumerate. You go be you.
Only in the MAGA alternate reality universe does “lose” really mean “win”.
And yet, in this very universe, he won the election.
Thank you so much for proving my point.
It is so much fun, and so easy to taunt you MAGA morons.
I was talking about 2016, where you said he lost. I disproved your point. I said he won, which he did. Or are you the one in an alternative universe where Trump did not win the 2016 election?
If by taunt you mean revealing you are a complete stoner, then well done…
Thank you so much for responding !!!!!!
This is so much fun, and it doesn’t cost me anything.
I would be willing to pay good money for so much fun !!!!!!!!!
It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.
Judge Juan Merchan is totally corrupt, harboring foreign allegiances, and is a direct and mortal enemy of American exceptionalism, the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
____________________________________________________________________
“Succumb in Every Battle or Know The Enemy”
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
According to reporters at the scene, Trumps team motioned for a Directed Verdict because the state literally didn’t prove anything about its case.
Judge Merchan’s response was basically
“Well, if Cohen’s lies are so unbelievable then it won’t fool 12 New Yorkers! huurrr durrr,”
Ridiculous. Completely ridiculous. By that logic why even have directed verdicts at all? Merchan is a moron and a subpar judge at best.
The issue is NOT about beleiving Cohen. A directed verdict is justified because if you beleive Cohen’s FACTUAL claims (as opposed to his opinions), 100% – there is still no crime.
This is not about who do you beleive – though why would anyone beleive Cohen.
It is about whether bragg has presented any evidence of the crime charged, that was committed by Trump.
He has not.
If you are a left wing nut you can BELEIVE Trump committed a crime.
But there is no evidence – not weak evidence, NONE AT ALL tying Trump to the crime charged.
Sigh. And they have rested their argument. There are no words for the absurdity of this sheet; it wastes all of our time, our money, and in a period when our country is on fire. These are the absolute, most spoiled of brats; aristocracy needs to see how meaningless their privilege actually is, and I really hope the rest of us stop giving them even a heartbeat’s worth of consideration. Absurd. Ridiculous. Shameful.
Let us pray we do not have to relive Robespierre. I’d like to think we are better than that in 2024, but the modern left is gasoline insanity waiting for a struck match. After everything that has occurred since 2021, they just might get it, and they aren’t going to win anymore than their forebears in other revolutions. Disgusting and utterly transparent, all of it, and if people could have been even a teeny bit more conscious – avoidable. No words left. Our modern dems are no longer to be taken seriously in any capacity. Let us proceed as though they don’t exist, as they have done to us since 2008.
It is up to the jury.
What a lot of words signifying nothing.
Not if the judge doesn’t let it get to the jury. Merchan may decide he has been humiliated enough and grant the motion to dismiss.
Not gunna happen.
David, evidently you don’t have enough court experience to know that neither you nor anyone else knows until the decision is made. That said, you are likely right since this man seems unusually twisted.
Seems to be quite a competent judge from what I read in The New York Times.
David: “from what I read in The New York Times.”
+++
Good Lord! NYT is your suthority? You could write for Babylon Bee.
Dershowitz, Liberal, Harvard professor, with 60 years of trial experience including many trials, doesn’t share the NYT opinion.
Merchan is smart. But he is also corrupt. That is NOT the same as competent.
I don’t see any evidence that Merchan is smart.
DBB not so sure.
Merchan actually loses face if this goes to a jury and they acquit or hang.
He also risks near certain severe spanking by an eventual appellate court for running a disastrously biased trial for a case that never should have gotten to jury selection.
Merchan is corrupt and biased, but he is among the smarter of AntiTrump judges.
I think that you are correct that the odds favor his letting this go to a jury – but only barely.
I am inclinded to think he grants the Daniels mistrial request,
That allows him to blame others the best.
That allows him to pontificate that But For Daniels introducing a #metoo moment to the case Trump would have been convicted.
Judge Juan Merchan. Yes, we all should. He’s nuts.
Not nuts, evil liberal POS.
I can’t help but wonder how long the New York bar has allowed this Merchan person to act like this from the bench.
Many things strange and wrong in the New York legal system. One genuine benefit of even bad law is predictability so one can shape one’s conduct to minimize risk. But predictability seems to have left the New York legal system and that is dangerous to its business community and nearly everything else.
Merchan’s behavior is not all that unusual. Lots of judges – including many republican judges I know are petty tyrants.
Oh boy another trump trial
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/21/are-you-staring-me-down-judge-merchan-becomes-an-oddity-in-his-own-courtroom/
oops
https://www.france24.com/en/culture/20240521-trump-campaign-vows-to-sue-over-blatantly-false-biopic-the-apprentice-after-cannes-premiere
“Are you staring me down?”
“No, your Honor; I’m paying attention in disbelief”
Hear, hear!
👍☝️
This is what the professor said yesterday, and it’s interesting that he was making predictions before Costello’s cross examination was fully completed.
“ JONATHAN TURLEY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY: Well, I put on social media this morning from the courtroom that I thought there was an interesting line of questions coming from the defense. It seemed to me they were laying the foundation to call Costello. The biggest problem with calling Costello is there’s an email which refers to Giuliani wanting to create a back-channel to Cohen. And that meant if you called Costello that would open that aspect of the case to the prosecutors.
Many of us felt that was not worth doing. I think they waited to see how that went on examination with Cohen. I think they felt comfortable that they could blunt that with the prosecutors. So they are going to call them. I’m one of those risk-averse defense attorneys. If I think I’m going to win a case, I’m going to stop. I think they’ve won this case. The problem is, this is not an ordinary case. So my view is even if there was a conviction, it would have to be overturned at this point. This is a man running for president.
Quite frankly, Costello is a kill-shot witness. You only call him if you want a kill shot at trial, that you feel that you need to make sure that doesn’t result in a conviction even though I think it is going very well for the defense. And It went very well today for the defense.”
Yes, the biggest problem with Costello according to the professor is going to be his own emails. Today the prosecution did just that. They effectively impeached Costello using his own emails. How could Turley declare that Trump won the case when the trial is not over and Costello’s cross examination wasn’t finished? That’s pretty bad. Obviously it didn’t go very well for the defense today.
May we put you down as a “guilty?”
Alrighty then!
So stipulated.
You’re down.
Oh, and how ’bout that testimony of the FEC head that it found no violation?
Oops! Juanito refused to allow it in.
That Colombian Banana-Republic injustice is just what Obama ordered through Garland, Colangelo et al.
It is getting very stale being told what supposedly happened at the trial by left wing nuts – and then checking to find – nope, did not happen.
Costello has testified there was no back channel, there was no offer of a back channel, That his advice to Cohen was to roll on Trump if he had anything to offer SDNY. And that Cohen said – I have nothing.
Cohen and Bragg are deliberately misconstruing a text out of context – Costello has over 100 texts and emails from/to cohen that paint a radically different context.
I know you left wing nuts like to pretend that anyone that ever undermines any of your delusions is some right wing nut in the Tank Trump supporter, But Costello was an AUSA at a time that meant something. That it meant integrity and non-partisan.
While Donald Trump is certainly no Christ-like figure, the modern Democratic party is doing everything they can to channel the Roman Empire from 2000 years ago, with the Leftists playing the role of the Sanhedrin. They’ve already gotten their Barabbas’ with cashless bail and emptying prisons. Merchan is playing the role of Pilate (my apologies to Pilate) and he’s not going to do anything other than what the Sanhedrin demand. If he defied them, he’s no friend of Caesar (Biden).
my apologies to Pilate
True, Pilate did not want to crucify him, he just feared the people more. I doubt the same can be said of Merchan. Nor did Pilate have a daughter who was raising millions of shekels off the case. Now, for an account that includes a large heaping of dramatic license:
I doubt the same can be said of Merchan.
For sure. He’ll be protected by the Romans (Regime).
Olly, Yet another lesson can be drawn from Rome where politicians resorted to lawfare.
Once Caesar ended his command north of the Rubicon he would become subject to the jurisdiction of Roman courts where he was certain to be prosecuted unjustly. He tried to negotiate a reasonable way to return but his enemies were convinced they almost had him in their clutches. He chose to cross the Rubicon with fast moving elements of his army. He was going to be destroyed by little laws so he broke a very big one by bringing any part of his army out of their legal jurisdiction north of the Rubicon. We know what happened.
One funny thing was that Pompey had previously boasted that if Caesar defied the senators all he, Pompey, would have to do is stamp his feet and thousands of soldiers would rally to him. As Caesar made a rapid advance south someone, maybe Cicero, asked sarcastically if Pompey shouldn’t stamp his feet now. Instead he fled east where he had greater resources, but still lost.
Young, if only learning from history were a thing.
Olly, quite true, sadly, quite true. At least a fair number of posters here are well informed or interested.
One thing that should be learned from history is that when you destroy legal norms to attack an opponent they are not there to protect you if your opponent is stronger, smarter and angry
If Caesar had crossed the Rubicon as only a citizen he would have been destroyed by lawfare. If he crossed with his army it would be civil war and destruction of the republic.
He crossed with his army and explained that the Roman Republic was already dead.
Now I wonder if our republic is already dead. The Left pretends to be afraid of Trump but they should worry instead about his successor.
Caesar and Cromwell are looking better as events unfold.
One thing that should be learned from history is that when you destroy legal norms to attack an opponent they are not there to protect you if your opponent is stronger, smarter and angry.
Young, that is so true. The best quote I’ve seen referenced on that is from the movie A Man For All Seasons. Hat tip to Mespo.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Great quote! It is something the Democrats and those in our administrative agencies would do well to keep in mind.
Apparently Turley’s claim that Costello, the “killshot witness” for the defense succeeded in making the case for Trump. Obviously he was wrong. Costello did not perform as expected. No jury would see Costello as a credible witness, not after behaving the way he did.
Turley is a staunch supporter of civility and decorum. Costello was nowhere near that example. But Cohen was. That distinction will not be lost on the jury, not after that sad performance by Costello. We’ll see the professor remain silent about the failure of Costello being a “kill shot witness”. He did more harm to Trump’s defense than Cohen could.
The judge’s behavior was intolerable and outrageous — biased and unprofessional — illegal.
@marklevinshow
“Juan Merchan will go down in history as one of the most appallingly dishonest and disgraceful judges ever. It is now clear why he was assigned the Bragg case. The fix was in long before the trial began. And he’s not done. The jury instructions will be horrendously poisonous. His contempt for the justice system is without parallel. To this day, I don’t believe we know the full extent of this man’s conflicts and corruption, including the outside influences and communications. What we do know is bad enough. The question now is whether there will be at least one honorable, courageous, and patriotic juror who will refuse to participate in this Stalinist-Biden sham of all shams, and say no, I cannot and will not go along with this; my country is too important to me to join in killing it. Let’s pray so.”
Judge Merchan been watching too many DeNiro films.
” You wanna piece of me, Costello?”
Things learned from this trial:
-Judge Juan Merchan is in over his head
-how Harvard law products behave, right Alvin?
-with the repeated references from multiple sources to a ‘trial that would never happen in any other jurisdiction’, is it any wonder why people are leaving NY? Rampant crime and a corrupt legal system. But the views are good, the restaurants nice (if you can tolerate the muggings, the homelessness, the graft and the stench).
Hell hath no fury like a judge stared down.
https://www.unlockmen.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/judge.jpg
Everyone keeps attacking the judge. Why? Because the case is not going well for the defense. Trump attacks the judge all the time and his followers do the same. Never mind the merits of the case and the poor performance of the defense witnesses.
The fervor and strong pushback against the judge and the prosecution signals that the prosecution does have a strong case against Trump. So far everything points to a conviction and that has Trump supporters feverishly attacking the judge and the court to try to undermine its legitimacy. Because it’s very likely that the jury will find Trump guilty. We’ll find out next week if that is indeed going to be the outcome.
George I hope they are paying you for your posts.
You really can’t be that dumb.
Trump’s defense wanted to call an expert witness to refute the allegations that there’s an FEC component to these crimes.
The key point Bragg was supposed to make to tie this all together.
Merchan is toast unless he tosses the case.
If this hits the appellate court… there are so many points that would cause this to be tossed, the judge should be up on charges.
(Yes, Election interference fits and he can’t use his role in this case as a judge acting within his rights as a defense.)
Too fscking funny.
-G
@ Ian Michael Gumby,
The defense WANTED to call an expert witness, so why didn’t they? All they had was a grand total of two witnesses. The prosecution had 20.
The trial is not about the FEC component. That’s not what the trial is about. I’m sure you knew that. The charges against Trump are for falsifying business records. The prosecution did a good job building the framework for their arguments early on and corroborating it with witnesses. The defense was so worried about Cohen’s testimony that they spend a lot of time and effort to discredit him by calling him a liar and an untrustworthy witness. Problem is the prosecution made that point early in the trial and it undermined the defense’s argument. Blanche was left meandering from one topic to the next trying to make Cohen look bad. But Cohen calmly and honestly admitted he has lied in the past and does not deny what he’s been accused of.
Already the defense made a big mistake today. They unwittingly admitted in court that the payments were reimbursements instead of legal fees. Blanche asked Cohen if he took $30,000 in REIMBURSEMENT money and Cohen said “yes. But they have been arguing all this time that they were not reimbursements but legal fees. If they were legal fees why would Cohen “steal” the money from Trump. Oops. The defense seems to have made a huge mistake and doesn’t seem to be aware of it except to keep eyed court observers.
I believe that was reimbursement money for the work that the POLLING company was owed. Cohen testified that he took part of the monies that were SUPPOSED to have gone towards the $50,000 the company had apparently claimed it was owed for services rendered.
“…falsifying business records. ”
George, the testimony indicates that Trump paid Cohen from his personal checking account. NOT, from a business account. So, which business records were falsified?
. The charges against Trump are for falsifying business records.
That’s a misdemeanor pea brain
Dumb, stoned but also dumb.
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.
Alan Dershowitz said:
For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually threatened to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again.
That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and to raise a defense.
It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused of doing.
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly improper and unlawful to strike his testimony — testimony that undercut and contradicted the government’s star witness.
Michael Cohen’s ex-attorney contradicts Trump ‘fixer’s testimony, gets ripped by judge in fiery scene at hush money trial
The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.
Because the Judge wouldn’t let him testify?
Yes, that’s just one of the reasons why they have more avenues to appeal while Bragg hasn’t even made a prima facie case.
People are attacking the judge because he is on the side of the prosecution. He wants to see Trump convicted.
@anonynous,
No, they are attacking the judge because the case is not going well for the defense. Professor Turley and other Trump defenders are trying to minimize the damage by delegitimizing the court and the judge.
If one could talk sense to a trump supporter, there would be no trump supporters.