Michael Cohen Takes Center Stage in Trump's Hush Money Trial

[Danderman123]

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"In short, the prosecution proved what everyone already knew: Daniels asked for money, Trump told Cohen handle the matter, Cohen paid Daniels, and Trump reimbursed him.
 
What is disturbing here to an old lawyer who’s proud of his profession, is that the Manhattan District Attorney dedicated seven years, countless thousands of lawyer hours, and many millions of dollars to bring a case that (as a class 5 felony) equivalent in seriousness to the unlicensed sale an ounce of weed or hitting your ex’s car door with a hammer.
 
So relatively minor, yet they still can’t seem to prove it."

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

 

All of that just to hide the affair with Stormy Daniels just before the election.

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

All of that just to hide the affair with Stormy Daniels just before the election.

It’s not that the prosecutors are incompetent. They’re experienced and skillful. They just don’t seem to have any relevant evidence.  They don’t seem even to be trying to fit evidence into the specific charges.  Why?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

[Danderman123]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

It’s not that the prosecutors are incompetent. They’re experienced and skillful. They just don’t seem to have any relevant evidence.  They don’t seem even to be trying to fit evidence into the specific charges.  Why?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

They are doing a wonderful job of laying out how Trump tried to hide his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

[Yellowtail]

37 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

They are doing a wonderful job of laying out how Trump tried to hide his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

The obvious, but disturbing, answer is that there is none, but for political reasons they want a guilty verdict, notwithstanding the law. Juries sometimes find it difficult to follow unfamiliar statutes with multiple elements. When they can’t, prosecutors hope they may rely on the prosecution’s big picture—Trump stole the 2016 election and covered it up—rather than niggling details like the actual elements of the crime. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

[Danderman123]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The obvious, but disturbing, answer is that there is none, but for political reasons they want a guilty verdict, notwithstanding the law. Juries sometimes find it difficult to follow unfamiliar statutes with multiple elements. When they can’t, prosecutors hope they may rely on the prosecution’s big picture—Trump stole the 2016 election and covered it up—rather than niggling details like the actual elements of the crime. 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

Michael Cohen pled guilty to a campaign finance violation that Trump tried to cover up with bogus accounting.

 

Easy to understand for everyone but you.

[riclag]

biden has announced he will comment on the case, he will try to spin the case and claim the American system of justice works! Most right minded people see it differently!

The federal system refused to charge the case.

The federal election commission refused to charge the case.

The NY dem trial court charged the case by   political prosecutors & a political judge  .

Truth be told “The Manhattan court docket says its the

People of the State of NY v DJT” , not the American system. 

Trump’s sham ‘hush money’ case is a trial that has exposed New York’s corrupt justice system

https://nypost.com/2024/05/25/opinion/trumps-hush-money-case-puts-on-trial-the-morals-of-new-york/

 

Edited May 26 by riclag

[jerrymahoney]

Brad Smith: What I would have told the Trump jury
May 20, 2024 10:01 pm

 

Smith said. “To use an example I’ve often used, it’s not a campaign expense if a businessperson is running for office and his businesses are getting sued, and if he goes to his company lawyers and says, ‘I want to settle these lawsuits against us. We’ve got some wage employment lawsuits and a woman is alleging sexual harassment. We’ve got 36,000 employees, but we’ve got these three complaints and the press will make a big deal about them. So I want you to settle these.’

 

And the company lawyers say, ‘No, these are great cases we should win. We shouldn’t settle them.’ He says, ‘I don’t care. I’m running for office. I don’t want press stories on it. I want you to settle them quietly.’ Well, he cannot use campaign funds to pay that settlement, even though he is clearly doing it for the purpose of influencing his campaign.”

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3011093/brad-smith-what-i-would-have-told-trump-jury/

[Skipalongcassidy]

On 5/21/2024 at 4:13 PM, spidermike007 said:

Kind of amusing that a trial of the most dishonest man in history 

Here is a good argument against your claim as the most dishonest man in history... he is being surpassed by merchan...  

I was inside the court when the judge closed the Trump trial, what I saw shocked me: Alan Dershowitz

The trial's judge was 'an absolute tyrant'

By Alan Dershowitz New York Post

Published May 21, 2024 7:00pm EDT

 

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said Monday that Michael Cohen's admission to stealing from Donald Trump was "more serious" than what Trump is alleged to have done.

 

I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France, Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.

But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the courthouse yesterday.

The judge in Donald Trump’s trial was an absolute tyrant, though he appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to be ruling against the defendant at every turn. Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.

KEY TRUMP WITNESS, 'ROLLS-ROYCE' OF EXPERTS NIXED AFTER JUDGE 'RESTRICTS' TESTIMONY

 

But when the defense’s only substantive witness, the experienced attorney Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan’s rulings, the court went berserk.

Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom of everyone including the media.

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.

The judge’s threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and petty.

Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant.

 

The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased reporting of partisan journalists.

But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.

I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind to observe his deep failings.

Even when journalists do report on courtroom proceedings, their accounts must be taken with a grain of salt. When you watch CNN or MSNBC, you generally see an account of a trial that never took place.

 

They spin the events so much that reality is totally distorted.

 

I experienced that distortion firsthand yesterday, when I saw one of my former students and research assistants, a CNN legal analyst named Norman Eisen, during a break and went over to him and asked him about his family. We chatted for a few minutes in the most friendly way.

But NBC, the Daily Beast and other media decided to make up a story about the event. They claimed that I had a spat with my nemesis, rather than a friendly conversation with a former student. Their account was made up, yet it was circulated through the media.

To his credit, Eisen wrote to the media to correct the account, saying that the person sitting next to him would confirm the media’s false reporting. I doubt we will see a retraction.

 

This minor incident is simply the tip of a very large and deep iceberg of false reporting about the trial that can only occur because the proceedings are not being televised.

There are television cameras in the courtroom, and they record and transmit every word, but not to the public; only select reporters in the overflow room see what the cameras transmit.

There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any trial, should not be televised live and in real time. Allowing the public to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness. As Justice Louis Brandeis wisely said a century ago, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

biden has announced he will comment on the case, he will try to spin the case and claim the American system of justice works! Most right minded people see it differently!

The federal system refused to charge the case.

The federal election commission refused to charge the case.

The NY dem trial court charged the case by   political prosecutors & a political judge  .

Truth be told “The Manhattan court docket says its the

People of the State of NY v DJT” , not the American system. 

Trump’s sham ‘hush money’ case is a trial that has exposed New York’s corrupt justice system

https://nypost.com/2024/05/25/opinion/trumps-hush-money-case-puts-on-trial-the-morals-of-new-york/

 

The FEC specifically stated that they didn't pursue the case because Michael Cohen pled guilty.

 

The Feds pursued the case, and convicted Michael Cohen.

 

The Feds labeled Trump Conspirator #1, but didn't indict Trump because he was a sitting president.

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Michael Cohen pled guilty to a campaign finance violation that Trump tried to cover up with bogus accounting.

 

Easy to understand for everyone but you.

"If Trump is convicted, appellate courts will focus on the law and the evidence.  They will raise these and unless they decide to stretch the law beyond all current authority, they will likely reverse. 

 

But that’s irrelevant, because prosecutors will still have their verdict before the 2024 election.  It’s honestly appalling for any lawyer to feel like he has to write that.

 

Frank Snyder is Executive Professor of Law at Texas A&M University School of Law."

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3011093/brad-smith-what-i-would-have-told-trump-jury/

 

[Danderman123]

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"If Trump is convicted, appellate courts will focus on the law and the evidence.  They will raise these and unless they decide to stretch the law beyond all current authority, they will likely reverse. 

 

But that’s irrelevant, because prosecutors will still have their verdict before the 2024 election.  It’s honestly appalling for any lawyer to feel like he has to write that.

 

Frank Snyder is Executive Professor of Law at Texas A&M University School of Law."

 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3011093/brad-smith-what-i-would-have-told-trump-jury/

 

Trump is just a victim.

[BobBKK]

Let's get this straight - a porn star and a convicted liar are the principal witnesses? You could not make this up - now Cohen admits to stealing $30k? This is a farce.