Trump trial Archives - The National Pulse

May 28, 2024

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 17: Closing Arguments & Phantom Crimes.

Former President Donald J. Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, handled the defense team’s closing arguments on Tuesday. For over two weeks, a Manhattan jury has heard evidence from prosecutors and the defense alike regarding allegations that former President Trump allegedly made hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as part of an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.

After long days of testimony and some fairly explosive moments in the courtroom, Blanche’s summation began much like his opening argument a little over two weeks ago, stressing that the prosecution cannot meet the burden of proof.

‘THE BURDEN OF PROOF.’

“I started out by saying something that I’m going to repeat to you right now. It’s as true right now as it was on April 22. And that is President Trump is innocent,” Blanche told jurors. He added: “He did not commit any crimes, and the district attorney has not met their burden of proof — period. The evidence is all in.”

The Trump defense attorney stressed the weakness of District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s case. Blanche told the jury, “The evidence should leave you wanting more. You should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen.”

“You should demand more than the testimony of Keith Davidson, an attorney who really was just trying to extort money from President Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election,” the defense attorney added.

ALL ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS.

As he continued his closing argument, Blanche reiterated that at its core, District Attorney Bragg‘s case is one about documents and nothing else. He stressed that the testimony of Stormy Daniels has no bearing on the case or charges. “This case is about documents. It’s a paper case. This case is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago,” he told the jury.

Blanche also stressed that the alleged encounter, according to former President Trump, never even occurred in the manner that Daniels claims.

Shifting back to Cohen, Blanche told the jury they must determine if the former President “had anything to do with how payments to Michael Cohen” were recorded or “booked on his personal ledger for his personal account at Trump Tower.” He reiterated to the jury that at the time, Trump wasn’t even living at Trump Tower but was instead serving as President of the United States and living in the White House in Washington, D.C.

“The invoices were all submitted by Michael Cohen,” Blanche argued. He continued: “You’re going to hear me talk a lot about Michael Cohen today, and that should not surprise you. You cannot convict President Trump of any crime beyond a reasonable doubt on the words of Michael Cohen.”

‘COHEN LIED TO YOU.’

While the defense’s closing began with a plodding start, Blanche finally delivered blows to Michael Cohen as the prosecution‘s star witness. “They were lies. Pure and simple,” he said of Cohen’s testimony. Blanche stressed that no evidence was presented that backed up Cohen’s assertions, and even more damning, there were no credible witnesses presented who could corroborate what Cohen claimed.

“There were key conversations, key interactions that he claimed he had with Dylan Howard, with Keith Schiller, Allen Weisselberg. Those are important,” Blanche told the jury before hamming home: “Keith Schiller, Dylan Howard, Allen Weisselberg were not witnesses in this trial.”

The defense attorney continued, explaining to jurors that to convict, the prosecution would have needed to demonstrate that there were false entries on the payment paperwork and that Trump had intended to defraud. “The records were not false, and there was no intent to defraud,” Blanche stressed.

“Cohen typically wrote ‘for services rendered.’ But here’s the thing, and I don’t even think there’s a dispute about this, Cohen was rendering services to Trump as his personal attorney,” Blanche contended. While acknowledging that invoices were at times stapled to checks presented to Trump to sign, the lead defense counsel added: “General practice is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Cohen lied to you,” Blanche emphasized to the jury, pausing on each word before repeating: “Cohen lied to you.”

CATCH, KILL, & ELECTION INFLUENCE.

Blanche stressed that the alleged “catch and kill” plot with David Pecker and American Media, Inc. (AMI) was anything but. “This is the same thing AMI has been doing for decades. They had been doing it for President Trump since the 90s,” Blanche argued. He added: “This was good business for them — a mutually beneficial relationship with celebrities.”

Noting that AMI’s flagship publication is little more than a supermarket tabloid, Blanche said: “The idea, even if there was something wrong with it, the idea that sophisticated people like President Trump and David Pecker believed that positive stories in the National Enquirer could influence the 2016 election is preposterous.” He emphasized that the total circulation of the National Enquirer in 2016 was just 350,000.

“Millions and millions of people voted in the 2016 election, so the idea that they really thought that this meeting in 2015 at Trump Tower would ultimately influence the election makes no sense,” Trump’s lead counsel contented before continuing: “The idea that the National Enquirer could criminally influence the election by republishing stories that had already been out there in other forms should make you shake your head. It makes no sense.”

Blanche, now showing the jury a PowerPoint presentation, outlined how the alleged “catch and kill” scheme was never discussed during the August 2015 meeting with David Pecker. “It wasn’t even discussed at the time the conspiracy was formed. No financial discussion. No discussion about catch and kill. Think about that,” he said.

‘AN AXE TO GRIND.’

Closing out his summation, Blanche took full aim at Michael Cohen‘s credibility. The defense attorney argued that Cohen had made the payments to Stormy Daniels of his own accord in a scheme to ingratiate himself with Trump in the hopes he’d receive a high-ranking position in the White House. Hitting on Cohen’s motivation to lie to a court again, Blanche argued: “He told you he didn’t want a job in the administration. But that was a lie, another lie.”

“Mr. Cohen had an axe to grind because he didn’t appreciate what President Trump did and did not do for him,” he added. After reviewing the testimony of Cohen’s former legal adviser, Robert Costello, Blanche told the jury: “I don’t know how many lies is enough lies to reject Mr. Cohen’s testimony.”

Next, Blanche reminded the jury of the pivotal moment where he exposed Cohen for having lied regarding his alleged phone call with Trump regarding the Daniels payment. “That was his sworn testimony. It was a lie… This isn’t a little lie. This was a lie about the charged conduct involving Ms. Daniels,” Blanche said, adding: “He told you he talked to President Trump on October 24 at 8:02 PM, updating him about the Daniels situation. That was a lie, and he got caught red-handed.”

“He’s repeatedly lied under oath. He’s lied to his family. He lied to his wife about the home equity line of credit … he lied to his banker,” Blanche said of Cohen, concluding: “He’s literally like an MVP of liars.”

TEN REASONS FOR REASONABLE DOUBT.

In the conclusion of his summation, Blanche laid out ten reasons for reasonable doubt to the jury that he had covered throughout his closing arguments. The list included:

Cohen created the allegedly fraudulent invoices, not Trump;
There’s no evidence Trump knew the invoices were sent;
There is “absolutely” no evidence that Trump had any intent to defraud;
The prosecution has not shown an attempt to commit or conceal another crime;
There is “absolutely” evidence of an agreement to influence the 2016 election;
AMI would have run the doorman’s story no matter what if it was true;
Karen McDougal did not want her story published. Thus, it was not a “catch and kill” plot;
Stormy Daniels‘s allegations were already public well before the 2016 election;
Prosecutors never present anything showing manipulation of evidence;
Cohen cannot be trusted: “He’s the human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”

MERCHAN INTEVENES.

Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan, for the most part, gave the defense enough room to make its case in its closing arguments. However, when Blanche, at the end of his summation, told the jury, “You cannot send someone to prison, you cannot convict somebody, based upon the words of Michael Cohen,” the prosecution was quick to object with an irate Merchan sustaining the objection.

“You know that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate. It is simply not allowed. Period. It’s hard for me to imagine that was accidental in any way,” Merchan said, scolding Blanche for making the “outrageous” comment at the end of his summation.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the judge he believed Blanche’s comments were “a blatant and wholly inappropriate” effort to influence the jury and gain sympathy for former President Trump. Judge Merchan told the court that he’d give a curative instruction to the jury regarding Blanche’s prison comments.

After lunch, Judge Merchan released the instruction: “In the defense summation, Mr. (Todd) Blanche asked in substance that you not send the defendant to prison. That comment was improper, and you must disregard it. In your deliberations, you may not discuss, consider, or even speculate as to matters related to sentence or punishment.”

THE PROSECUTION AT BAT.

Following Blanche’s summation, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass made his closing arguments before the jury. Unlike the defense’s closing, which lasted around two and a half hours, the prosecution announced that its summation would take four to four and a half hours. In reality, it went on for six, with much exasperation felt across the entire court, from jury to journalists, judge to stenographer.

“In his opening, Mr. Colangelo told you that this case, at its core, is about a conspiracy and a cover-up,” Steinglass told the jurors, adding: “We asked you to remember to tune out the noise and to ignore the sideshows. And if you’ve done that, you will see the people have presented powerful evidence of the defendant’s guilt.”

Steinglass’s opening was even slower and plodding than Blanche’s. His summation began with an extensive review of phone records and recall of alleged conversations that Michael Cohen had testified to. “Some of the conversations in this case took place in person, so there wouldn’t be a phone call or recording. The fact that there isn’t a record of a particular phone call does not mean a particular conversation did not take place,” the lead prosecutor told the jury.

THE COHEN PROBLEM.

Steinglass tried to patch some of the holes in the prosecution‘s case that had been exposed in Blanche’s closing. He told the jury that the District Attorney’s case wasn’t reliant on the testimony of disgraced attorney Michael Cohen. “The conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election — you don’t need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit,” Steinglass insisted.

Instead, the prosecutor told jurors that David Pecker‘s testimony — which was by no stretch a slam dunk for Bragg‘s team — was the truly “utterly damning” evidence. “Mr. Pecker has absolutely no reason to lie here; he still considers Mr. Trump a friend and mentor, and yet his testimony was utterly devastating,” Steinglass continued, claiming that Pecker’s words “eliminates the whole notion that this was politics as usual.”

STORMY DAMAGE CONTROL.

Shoring up another weakness in the prosecution’s case, Steinglass next addressed the testimony of Stormy Daniels. “To be sure, some witnesses want to see Donald Trump convicted,” he told jurors before excusing their motivation, stating: “They’ve been attacked by the defendant on social media.”

Continuing, Steinglass defended Daniels‘s credibility, telling the court: “They’ve shamed her. They’ve tried to suggest her story has changed over the years. It has not, at least not in any way that’s significant.” However, Steinglass conceded: “To be sure, there were parts of her testimony that were cringeworthy.”

Steinglass told jurors that some aspects of Daniels‘s story ring too true to have been fabricated. He pointed to the layout of the hotel room and alleged contents of former President Trump‘s toiletry bag.

THE UNDERLYING CRIME?

Once Steinglass believed he had done enough to put out the fires in the prosecution‘s case set by defense attorney Todd Blanche’s closing, he pressed into the core of Bragg‘s case against Trump.

For over two weeks, the prosecution has avoided describing the underlying crime allegedly committed by former President Trump. Steinglass finally broached the subject in his closing, though he still never exactly stated what federal infraction was committed.

“Michael Cohen is understandably angry. That to date, he’s the one who’s paid the price for his role in this conspiracy,” the prosecutor said. In this simple statement, Steinglass insinuated to the jury that former President Trump is guilty of the same crimes as Michael Cohen. However, while Cohen did plead guilty to a campaign finance infraction, his federal prison stint was due to tax fraud crimes he had committed in an unrelated case.

In essence, Steinglasss hoped to confuse the jury into believing the federal tax charges against Cohen were actually regarding the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. “Anyone in Cohen’s shoes would want the defendant to be held accountable,” he told the jury, adding: “and when it went bad, the defendant cut him loose, dropped him like a hot potato and tweeted out to the world that Mr. Cohen was a scumbag.”

THE THIEF.

Shifting back to damage control, Steinglass addressed the shocking revelations that Michael Cohen had stolen upwards of $60,000 from the Trump Organization. “It’s true he was never charged with that. He’s also the one who brought it to everyone’s attention,” the prosecutor told jurors.

“Blanche said Cohen stole $60,000 because it was grossed up. So that means the defendant is trying to have it both ways, right? They’re denying the $420,000 was a reimbursement at all,” Steinglass argued. He continued: “Claiming payment for legal services rendered in 2016. But if that’s true, then there was no theft. He’s getting paid for legal services in 2017. They can call him a thief and claim this wasn’t really reimbursement, but not both.”

MAKING UP A CRIME.

Referring to the August 15 Trump Tower meeting, Steinglass said before the court: “The real game changer of this meeting was the catch-and-kill component. And that’s the illegal part. Because once money starts changing hands on behalf of a campaign, that’s federal election campaign finance violations.”

“Blanche said there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election. It’s called democracy,” Steinglass said before contending: “In reality, this agreement at Trump Tower was the exact opposite. It was the subversion of democracy.”

“Once AMI purchased stories on the candidate’s behalf, those purchases became unlawful campaign contributions,” Bragg’s lead prosecutor said. In an incredibly bizarre moment, Steinglass insisted that the payment made by AMI for the Trump doorman’s false story “was overt election fraud.”

The prosecutor’s assertion mimics that which the American people have already seen with the Congressional Democrats‘ witch hunt against former President Trump over the Russia collusion hoax. They insinuate a crime where there is none and call it election interference. When in reality, the actual election interference is their frivolous prosecution of the former President.

COHEN’S CRIMES OR TRUMP’S?

The next phase of Steinglass’s closing returned to Cohen. Again, the prosecution deployed the strategy of arguing Cohen’s crimes were former President Trump‘s crimes despite never offering convincing evidence that the former President knew of Cohen’s activities.

Steinglass presented the jury with the false paperwork that Cohen had submitted to his bank in creating Resolution Consultants, LLC. The prosecutor told the jury that Cohen had used false business records to open the account. It is important to note that Blanche, in his closing, emphasized that the jury only had Cohen’s word, a serial perjurer, that former President Trump knew of Cohen’s actions.

Pressing further, Steinglass moved through a list of phone calls between Cohen and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. The prosecutor claimed before the court that these calls were evidence enough of the scheme unfolding — though again, Steinglass did not provide evidence connecting Trump to the calls.

Pointing to a single call between Trump and Cohen that occurred before Cohen opened the business account, Steinglass told jurors, “This is damning right here.”

‘BORING!’

When the court took a short break at 5:00PM, former President Trump took to Truth Social to give his review of the prosecution’s closing argument against him. “BORING!” he posted.

NO CRIME? NO PROBLEM!

Following the brief evening break, Steinglass returned to his closing arguments. He asserted the prosecution did not have to prove former President Trump himself knowingly created false business record entries.

“We don’t have to prove that the defendant made and created the false entries himself,” the prosecutor contended before adding that Trump is guilty of creating false business records by virtue of being a part of the “reimbursement scheme. That is causing false entries.”

He next moved to the defense’s claim that the handwritten notes between Weisselberg and Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney did not simply address legal services rendered by Cohen. Instead, Steinglass contended: “They are the smoking guns. They completely blow out of the water the defense claim that the payments [are for] legal services rendered. I’m almost speechless that they’re trying to make this argument.”

Again, the prosecution tried to flip the U.S. legal system on its head. Steinglass told jurors it was the defense who had to prove the notes weren’t regarding reimbursement for Cohen‘s hush money payments to Daniels. It is important to note that in U.S. courts, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

PROSECUTION LOSES THE PLOT.

Pushing past 6PM, Steinglass’s summation continued to meander, almost taking the form of a filibuster. He read extensively from books published by Donald Trump, citing quotes about loyalty. From there, the prosecutor then began reading Trump’s social media posts in an effort to highlight how the former President treats those he views as disloyal.

The prosecution has used the loyalty argument on several occasions to insinuate that Trump didn’t need to direct his employees to commit crimes but rather that he created an environment where they understood they needed to, at times, act illegally on his behalf without his direct guidance. Again, this line of argument does not meet the burden of proof required for a conviction in a conventional criminal trial.

Hitting the final stretch, Steinglass, for the third time in his summation, walked the jury through a timeline of events — perhaps this final time not simply to reiterate his point but to remind them of key points of the prosecution’s case in the event they forgot after nearly five hours of testimony. It is honestly impressive the jury was even awake at this point.

After a series of unwelcome jokes about the length of his closing arguments and almost another hour rehashing the prosecution’s case, Steinglass’s summation ended.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Sixteen trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining as a supporter.

show less

Former President Donald J. Trump's lead counsel, Todd Blanche, handled the defense team's closing arguments on Tuesday. For over two weeks, a Manhattan jury has heard evidence from prosecutors and the defense alike regarding allegations that former President Trump allegedly made hush money payments to Stormy Daniels as part of an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election. show more

May 21, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 16: The Defense Rests.

The sixteenth day of former President Donald J. Trump‘s Manhattan-based hush money trial ended well before noon as defense witness Robert Costello‘s cross-examination by prosecutors concluded, and the defense rested their case after a brief redirect. While Costello’s testimony lacked the fireworks seen Monday afternoon — where Judge Juan Merchan cleared the entire courtroom at one point — the former legal adviser to Michael Cohen delivered a few parting blows to his former client’s claims.

Following Costello’s testimony, representatives for the prosecution and defense met in conference with Judge Merchan for a lengthy debate on what instructions the jury would receive ahead of their deliberations.

COSTELLO PART II.

Costello’s cross-examination by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger continued Tuesday morning. Kicking off her questioning, Hoffinger pressed Costello on whether disgraced lawyer Michael Cohen ultimately retained his law firm. The former federal prosecutor and defense attorney acknowledged that Cohen eventually hired a different firm to represent him.

Hoffinger showed the jury a 2018 email in which Cohen asked Costello to stop contacting him. It read: “Gentleman, Please cease contacting me as you do not and have never represented me in this or any other matter. Your interest and offers to become part of the team and to serve as a contact was subject to existing counsel, Guy Petrillo (cc’d) approval, which was denied.”

COSTELLO AND GIULIANI.

Pressing on, Hoffinger zeroed in on the 2018 Regency Hotel meeting between Michael Cohen and Robert Costello. Cohen previously testified that Costello had asked him during that meeting how he was connected with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

“That’s not true,” Costello replied to Hoffinger. He added that Cohen‘s relationship with Giuliani did come up at a later meeting between the two. Hoffinger went on to confirm with Costello that Giuliani was a guest at his wedding.

The prosecution next presented Costello and the jury with an email on April 19, 2018, in which Costello informed Cohen that Giuliani was joining the Trump legal team. “I am sure you saw the news that Rudy is joining the Trump legal team. I told you my relationship with Rudy which could be very very useful for you,” he wrote to Cohen. Hoffinger also produced an email between Costello and Jeff Citron, where the former wrote: “All the more reason for Cohen to hire me because of my connection to Giuliani, which I mentioned to him in our meeting.”

Costello acknowledged he authored both emails.

MERCHAN’S RULING SNAGS COSTELLO.

Yesterday, Judge Merchan ruled that Robert Costello’s testimony would be limited to rebutting two specific claims made by Michael Cohen and that further elaboration was out of the scope of the trial. The dubious ruling prevented Costello from going into detail regarding his communications with Cohen, allowing prosecutors to undermine Cohen‘s former legal adviser to a degree on Tuesday.

Hoffinger presented Costello with another email in which the latter refers to a “backchannel.” She asked him if he pushed to represent Cohen to serve as a backchannel between the disgraced attorney and former President Donald Trump. Costello denied the accusation.

“That was your email to Michael Cohen?” Hoffinger asked, with Costello replying, “Yes.” Pushing further, the prosecutor asked Costello: “The email speaks for itself, right sir?”

Sensing an opportunity to trip up the prosecution and widen the scope of his testimony, Costello replied, “No, not quite. There are circumstances about that email which I would be delighted to tell you.”

Unfortunately, Hoffinger quickly responded, “That’s alright; let’s move on to the next one.” The exchange earned laughs in the courtroom.

AN EMAIL PROBLEM?

The prosecution continued to hammer at Costello using a series of 2018 emails he sent regarding the possibility of representing Cohen. In a May 15, 2018, email presented by Hoffinger, Costello wrote: “Our issue is to get Cohen on the right page without giving him the appearance that we are following instruction from Giuliani or the president. In my opinion, this is the clear correct strategy.”

Pressed as to the meaning of the email, Costello replied, “No, not to follow instructions but to get everybody on the same page because Michael Cohen had been complaining incessantly that Rudy Giuliani was making statements in the press.”

Next, Hoffinger presented an email authored by Costello on June 13, 2018. “Since you jumped off the phone rather abruptly, I did not get a chance to tell you that my friend has communicated to me that he is meeting with his client this evening, and he added that if there was anything you wanted to convey, you should tell me, and my friend will bring it up for discussion this evening,” he wrote at the time.

“I was encouraging Michael Cohen, as I just explained to you in my previous answer, to express any of his complaints, and he had several, so that I could bring them to Giuliani, and get them worked out, whatever they were,” Costello explained to Hoffinger regarding the email’s contents.

After a few more moments discussing the emails and Costello’s rocky relationship with Michael Cohen, the prosecution ended the witness’s cross-examination.

A BRIEF REDIRECT.

Former President Trump‘s defense attorney Emil Bove engaged in a brief redirect with Costello on the stand. He asked Cohen’s former legal adviser, “Who first used the word backchannel?” Costello told Bove that Giuliani first used the term.

Circling back to the June 13, 2018 email, Bove asked Costello whether he thought he was pressuring Cohen. Bove specifically highlighted a line in the email reading: “You have the ability to make that communication when you want to. Whether you exercise that ability is totally up to you.”

“Was that pressuring Michael Cohen to do anything?” Bove asked. Costello replied: “No, not at all.”

“Did you ever pressure Michael Cohen to do anything?” Bove followed up. Costello responded: “I did not.”

Former President Donald Trump‘s defense team rested after presenting a two-hour case on Monday and Tuesday.

SUMMATION AND DELIBERATION.

After Trump’s defense team rested their case, Judge Merchan dismissed the jury for an entire week. The judge told jurors and counsel that summations — also known as closing arguments — would occur on Tuesday, following the holiday weekend. The jury — barring a dismissal of the case by Merchan — is expected to begin deliberations as early as next Wednesday.

“I’ve considered all the permutation… at the end of the day, I think the best thing that we can do is to adjourn now until next Tuesday,” Merchan said. He continued: “At that time, you will hear summations from the attorneys. Probably Wednesday I’ll ask you to come in … hear jury charge and then I would expect that you will begin your deliberations hopefully at some point on Wednesday.”

JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

Following a lengthy break, counsel for the prosecution and defense returned to the courtroom at 2:15PM for a jury instruction conference with Judge Merchan. Trump‘s defense attorney Emil Bove asked Merchan to include an instruction that any campaign finance violation must be “willful” in nature. He argued that omitting the instruction “would allow the jury to think about the predicate offense in civil terms.”

Matthew Colangelo, representing the precaution, countered: “The plain text of the statute provides that the election law conspiracy occurs when its intended results are executed through unlawful means. There’s no need to add the word willful.”

He added: “The other crime here is the election law violation, which becomes a criminal violation when two or more persons conspire to promote” a candidate for election by unlawful means.”

Judge Merchan, interjecting, noted that the charge of falsifying business records in the first degree “requires that there be an intent to defraud that includes the intent to commit another crime.” While Merchan did not rule immediately on the issue, he did appear inclined to agree with the defense.

Regarding whether the National Enquirer did publish articles and promote Karen McDougal as part of her agreement with them, Judge Merchan sided with the defense and included language about the tabloid’s “legitimate press function.”

CLARIFYING COHEN’S CRIMES.

In another win for Trump‘s defense, Judge Merchan agreed with the former President’s attorneys to strike proposed language from the prosecution that stated Cohen “participated in and was convicted of two crimes.” Instead, the instructions will read that Cohen “participated in crimes.” Removing the reference to “convicted” was important to the Trump team as they did not wish the former President to be implicated in Cohen’s 2018 conviction for tax fraud.

Judge Merchan also appeared inclined to side with the defense regarding language referring to the falsified business records. Specifically, Bove asked Merchan to strike the phrase “a person causes a false entry when…”.

“They could convict based on someone else causing a false entry and accessorial liability — basically causing the causer — where (for example, if) Allen Weisselberg caused someone to do something and then President Trump caused Allen Weisselberg,” Bove contended. He added: “It doubles up on accessorial liability.”

In addition, the defense pushed Merchan to use an expanded instruction on intent. Bove noted, that there is a “significant issue with instructing to the jury that intent to defraud could include defrauding the government and the voting public, based on the facts of this case.” While Merchan did not immediately rule, he appeared inclined to find a middle ground between the proposed defense and prosecution language.

Judge Merchan did rule against the defense’s request that jurors be instructed that hush money payments are not illegal. “I think that to take it to the next level and actually give an instruction to the bench is taking it too far. I don’t think it’s necessary,” he said.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Fifteen trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining as a supporter.

show less

The sixteenth day of former President Donald J. Trump's Manhattan-based hush money trial ended well before noon as defense witness Robert Costello's cross-examination by prosecutors concluded, and the defense rested their case after a brief redirect. While Costello's testimony lacked the fireworks seen Monday afternoon — where Judge Juan Merchan cleared the entire courtroom at one point — the former legal adviser to Michael Cohen delivered a few parting blows to his former client's claims. show more

May 20, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 15: Cohen The Embezzler Get’s Costello’ed.

The fifteenth day of former President Donald J. Trump‘s Manhattan-based hush money trial saw the prosecution‘s case end with a catastrophic admission of theft by Michael Cohen as the prosecution rested its case. Even more troublesome for District Attorney Alvin Bragg was that Trump’s defense team brought Robert Costello, Michael Cohen’s former criminal defense attorney, as its second witness.

Costello, the former Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York, made his career telling juries the truth. Before giving his testimony on Monday, Costello testified before Congress last week that Cohen had repeatedly said to him that he had no evidence against Donald Trump when facing criminal investigation in 2018. On Monday, he told the same recollection of events to the Manhattan jury.

COHEN CONFESSES A CRIME.

The final day of Michael Cohen’s cross-examination by Trump‘s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, ended with the serial perjurer potentially adding a new crime to his rap sheet. Cohen, on the witness stand, admitted to stealing tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump Organization.

In the course of discussing the legal services invoices that Cohen filed with the Trump Organization — allegedly reimbursing him for the hush money payment made to Stormy Daniels — Blanche dropped a bombshell on the disgraced attorney. “You did steal from the Trump Organization based upon the expected reimbursement from Red Finch?” he asked Cohen. The disbarred lawyer responded: “Yes, sir.”

Documents presented by Trump’s defense team show Cohen receiving $50,000 for a payment to a tech company called Red Finch. However, Cohen only paid the company $20,000 and pocketed the $30,000 difference. Cohen testified that while the owner of Red Finch would have preferred his invoice to be paid in full, he was “placated for the time being” with the partial $20,000 payment. The National Pulse reported earlier on Monday that CNN legal analyst Elie Honig described the exchange as a “bomb dropped right in the middle of the prosecution‘s case.”

Cohen claimed he began pocketing the money after being shorted a $100,000 bonus. Cohen’s total theft came to $60,000 when “grossed up” for taxes. It is unclear whether District Attorney Avlin Bragg will consider charges against Cohen, especially considering that he confessed to committing a crime on the witness stand while under oath.

DANIEL GOLDMAN DID PREP COHEN.

In another shocking admission, Cohen acknowledged that he was prepped for cross-examination by Representative Daniel Goldman (D-NY). The National Pulse reported last Tuesday that Goldman admitted during an appearance on MSNBC to having assisted with Cohen’s testimony and preparation for cross-examination by former President Trump’s defense team. Even more concerning is that Goldman is a client of Authentic Campaigns, a Democrat-aligned political fundraising firm where Judge Juan Merchan‘s daughter, Loren Merchan, is a partner. Goldman also served as lead counsel during the first Trump impeachment.

The connections between Goldman and Loren Merchan deepened after it was revealed on Friday that Goldman’s campaign payments to Authentic Campaigns were not sent to their office address but to Loren Merchan’s residential address in Richmond, Virginia. Goldman (D-NY) appears to have sent over $160,000 in checks to the home address of Loren Merchan, adding further credence to claims that Judge Juan Merchan should have recused himself from the case to do conflicts of interest.

BACK TO STORMY.

As the morning wore on, Blanche returned to Cohen‘s payment to Stormy Daniels. “You told multiple people when it first leaked that President Trump knew nothing about the payment, correct?” the lead defense counsel asked Cohen, who confirmed that was the case.

Pressing on, Blanched asked Cohen: “You even called Melania, the first lady, and told her that President Trump didn’t know about it?” Cohen confirmed to Blanche that he had told New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman on the record that the former President was unaware of the payment when it was made.

Cohen went on to testify that he recorded conversations with reports in which he stated that Trump was unaware of the Daniels payment until it had already been made. Blanche asked the serial perjurer if it was correct that he “had told anybody who asked that President Trump knew nothing about the payment at the time.”

“That’s what I said, yes,” Cohen replied.

PRELUDE TO COSTELLO.

The defense’s cross-examination of Cohen began to wind down with Blanche pivoting to the disgraced attorney’s conversations with his then-legal counsel, Robert Costello. Blanche presented the jury with documentation of 75 phone conversations between Cohen and Costello. He asked Cohen if he’d be surprised to know that he communicated with Costello for over nine hours in just two months. “No sir,” Cohen responded.

“So would it surprise you to learn that you actually communicated on the phone, either you calling Mr Costello or Mr Costello calling you 75 times?” Blanche asked again, with Cohen responding: “Seems excessive but possible.” The serial perjurer also acknowledged meeting with Costello several times in person.

MORE MONEY, MORE PROBLEMS.

Moving on from Costello, Blanche again pressed Cohen on his finances. The disgraced attorney said he stopped making money after pleading guilty to tax crimes in 2018. “Did you stop making money when you plead guilty in 2018?” Blanche asked. Cohen confirmed this was the case.

Pushing further, Blanche asked Cohen if he made any income between is incarceration and the publication of his book. Cohen acknowledged he did not. However, since 2020, Cohen testified he’s earned over $4.4 million from his attacks on former President Trump and the Biden government’s lawfare campaign against the 2024 Republican presidential nominee. He said he’s made at least $1 million from his MeidasTouch-hosted Mea Culpa podcast and $3.4 million from the two books he published.

“Do you have a financial interest in the outcome of this case?” Blanche asked Cohen, who responded: “Yes, sir.”

Blanche continued: “Because if President Trump is convicted, that would benefit you personally and financially, right?”

“No sir,” Cohen insisted before continuing: “I talk about it on my podcasts, I talk about it on TikTok, and they make money, and that’s how I was viewing your question. Whether Mr. Trump is ultimately determined innocent or guilty is not going to affect whether I speak about it or not.”

Cohen’s cross-examination ended with a simple question posed by Blanche: “It’s true that you will lie out of loyalty, correct?”

“Yes sir,” the serial perjurer replied.

PROSECUTION GOES FOR BROKE.

Following the lunch break, Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution team went for broke and tried to convince Judge Merchan to delay the trial until Tuesday morning as they tried to recall an expert witness who had already left New York City for Louisiana. Prosecutors moved to add a series of C-SPAN photos of former President Trump and Keith Schiller into evidence, asking it be allowed to confirm the veracity of the photos with their witness, a C-SPAN archivist. Trump’s defense team raised a hearsay objection to the photo and witness.

After reviewing the prosecution’s photo evidence, Judge Mechan said, “I don’t see how the people can get past the hearsay objection.” At this point, a back-and-forth erupted between the defense and prosecution over delaying the trial, with Trump‘s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, telling Judge Merchan that the defense only had a few witnesses who were ready to testify and that they aimed to rest their case shortly after the prosecution potentially.

Eventually, however, the two sides agreed on a process to enter one photo of Trump and Schiller into evidence without the C-SPAN archivist. Michael Cohen again briefly took the stand to confirm the photo. Judge Merchan excluded the other. Following this, the prosecution rested its case.

In hindsight, the prosecution‘s attempt to delay the trial a day was likely in anticipation of the second witness the defense would bring in the afternoon — hoping to buy time to prepare for testimony from the one man who could undercut almost all of Cohen‘s claims.

COSTELLO TAKES THE STAND.

By late afternoon, it was time for former President Donald Trump‘s defense team to mount this case. The first witness was a paralegal from Todd Blanche’s law office named Daniel Sitko. His primary role was to confirm the process by which he compiled the log of phone calls between Cohen and Robert Costello. At this point, everyone in the courtroom had an inkling of who the defense would call next.

Trump’s defense attorney, Emil Bove, stood and announced: “The defense calls Robert Costello.” This was met with an immediate request to approach the bench for the prosecution. During the sidebar, Judge Merchan told Trump‘s defense team: “I do wish that we had discussed this earlier.”

The prosecution asked Merchan to limit Costello’s testimony, with Susan Hoffinger arguing: “They should be restricted to two questions frankly that Cohen testified he didn’t recall. He didn’t recall Costello telling him that he should cooperate against Trump. He didn’t recall the words saying that he said to Mr. Costello that he had nothing on President Trump.”

Merchan eventually determined that Costello could testify on two of Cohen‘s statements but did give Trump’s defense team some latitude on additional topics.

COSTELLO ON COHEN.

Michael Cohen‘s former defense attorney’s testimony was met with a series of furious objections by the prosecution, which sought to prevent the decorated attorney and former federal prosecutor from completely undercutting its star witness. Much of Costello’s testimony repeated what he had already said under oath before Congress last week.

The National Pulse reported last Wednesday that Costello told Congress that Cohen had repeatedly told him in 2018: “I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump.” He also testified that he met Cohen at the Regency Hotel on April 17, 2018, and found the serial perjurer to be manic and suicidal.

As Costello’s testimony in the hush money trial continued, the prosecution challenged his every word with objections. Before the witness could even finish a sentence, Judge Merchan would often sustain the objection. This caused Costello to become annoyed and add a bit of his own commentary to the judge’s rulings, muttering “Jesus” and “Geez” several times under his breath.

After Judge Merchan called the prosecution and the defense to the bench for a sidebar, Costello leaned into his microphone and uttered, “Ridiculous.” Merchan met Costello’s exasperations several times on the stand, asking the witness, “Sorry?”

COSTELLO VERSUS MERCHAN.

Following additional back-and-forths between Costello and Merchan, the judge asked the jury to leave the courtroom. He turned to Costello and said: “Mr. Costello, you’re to remain seated.” Costello audibly sighed and rolled his eyes at the judge.

“I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom,” Merchan said, now visibly annoyed, before chastising Costello further: “You don’t give me a side eye, and you don’t roll your eyes.” He continued: “When there’s a witness on the stand, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say ‘jeez,’ and you don’t say strike it.”

Costello, now as equally annoyed as Merchan, stared the judge down. “Are you staring me down?” Judge Merchan asked before promptly clearing the whole courtroom.

After a brief break, the defense continued direct examination of Costello. After a few more questions, the prosecution began its cross-examination, which was uneventful. Just after 4:30PM, the court adjourned for the day with further cross-examination of Costello set for Tuesday.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Fourteen trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining as a supporter.

show less

The fifteenth day of former President Donald J. Trump's Manhattan-based hush money trial saw the prosecution's case end with a catastrophic admission of theft by Michael Cohen as the prosecution rested its case. Even more troublesome for District Attorney Alvin Bragg was that Trump's defense team brought Robert Costello, Michael Cohen's former criminal defense attorney, as its second witness. show more

May 16, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 14: Michael Cohen, The MeidasTouchers, And a 14-Year-Old!?

The 14th day of former President Donald J. Trump‘s Manhattan-based trial was exclusively dedicated to the defense’s cross-examination of the disbarred serial perjurer Michael Cohen. On Wednesday, Cohen’s former criminal defense attorney, Robert Costello, testified before Congress that his old client had repeatedly claimed to him that he had no evidence against Donald Trump. With most of his Tuesday testimony now in question, Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, zeroed in on more of Cohen’s lies and hammered the prosecution’s star witness over the shifting details of the disgraced lawyer’s testimony.

COHEN GETS MEIDAS TOUCHED.

The morning started with a muddled exchange about when Cohen found out about Bragg’s indictment against former President Trump. Judge Juan Merchan later sidelined much of the questioning and testimony surrounding this as attorneys on both sides struggled to clarify the timeline of events.

Next, however, Blanche entered into the evidence record a recording of the serial perjurer’s Mea Culpa podcast hosted by the far-left website MeidasTouch. Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger objected to the move but was overruled by Judge Merchan.

Cohen can be heard on the podcast recording congratulating Bragg on the Trump indictment. Additionally, Cohen states that he spent countless hours with Bragg. “You never met Alvin Bragg, right?” Blanche asked Cohen.

“Correct,” responded the disgraced lawyer. Again, Blanche, with tightly controlled questioning, elicits another instance where Cohen lied—in this case, to his audience regarding his interactions with the Manhattan District Attorney.

MOTIVATED BY REVENGE.

The next stage of the Trump defense team’s cross-examination of Michael Cohen focused on the serial perjurer’s possible motivations for testifying against his former boss. Blanche hammered Cohen on the latter’s public statements, celebrating the chance Trump could be sent to prison.

“I truly f**king hope that this man ends up in prison,” Cohen could be heard on a podcast recording played for the jury. The disgraced attorney went on to say: “But revenge is a dish best served cold, and you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to my family.”

Blanche asked Cohen if he had ever said his work with prosecutors had helped get the former President indicted. “I took some credit, yes,” he replied. Trump‘s lead counsel repeated his question. “Yes, that’s what I believe,” responded Cohen.

COHEN CAN’T HELP HIMSELF.

“You continued to call President Trump various names on your podcasts and when you’re even doing CNN interviews, correct?” Blanche asked next, and Cohen admitted he did. Cohen was then presented with his April 21, 2024, TikTok post just before the trial began. In the video, Cohen states he has “mental excitement about the fact that this trial was starting.”

Blanche asked Cohen if he knew a paralegal was monitoring his social media. “That didn’t stop you, did it?” Blanche pressed Cohen. “No, sir,” he replied.

Trump’s defense team hit Cohen hard on both Tuesday and Thursday for his lack of self-control and inability to follow instructions. Blanche’s strategy appears to be to illustrate to jurors that Cohen is motivated only by his own self-perception and selfish desires. Beyond his simply profiting from the trial, Blanche is underscoring that Cohen often acts on his own with disregard for how his actions affect others.

LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES.

Again taking aim at Cohen’s credibility, Blanche walked the disbarred attorney through multiple past instances where he was proven to have lied before courts, lawyers, and Congress. “Was that oath that you took every single time, so going back to all the depositions, the same oath that you took Monday morning in this courtroom?” Blanche asked, with Cohen responding: “Yes, sir.”

“And each time you met with a federal agent you were told that if you made a false statement that that was a felony, a federal crime, correct?” Blanche continued. Again, Cohen responded: “Yes, sir.”

Blanche next focused on Cohen’s lies before the House Intelligence Committee in 2017. “There were a couple of different lies?” he asked Cohen, the latter responding: “That’s correct.”

Cohen admitted to Blanche that he had lied under oath to the Congressional committee and lied again when he met with the special counsel in April 2018.

WHOSE FAULT IS IT?

Trump’s lead defense counsel pressed further, again trapping Cohen into admitting that he lied because of what he perceived he should do. “You said you were accepting responsibility for those lies, for lying to Congress. But in fact, you repeatedly said — and even said this morning, and even this week — that the reason why you lied was because of your loyalty to President Trump,” Blanche asked.

“I worked with a joint defense agreement, and we crafted the two-page document in order to stay on message — the message we all knew Mr. Trump wanted, including Mr. Trump’s attorney at the time,” Cohen replied. Blanche followed up, asking the disgraced attorney: “So are you saying you’re accepting responsibility or blaming the joint defense agreement?”

Cohen begrudgingly admitted on the stand, “I accepted responsibility, I read it, and I submitted it to the committee.”

UNTRUE VERSUS A LIE.

Blanche grilled Cohen about whether federal prosecutors threatened him or tried to induce him to plead guilty to a series of 2018 tax evasion charges. “Nobody induced you or threatened you to plead guilty, correct?” Blanche asked Cohen.

“As I stated previously, I was provided 48 hours within which to accept the plea, or the Southern District of New York was going to file an 80-page indictment that included my wife. And I elected to protect my family,” the disgraced lawyer responded. Blanche pressed Cohen again about his characterization of interactions with federal prosecutors.

Cohen responded the second time, “I never denied the underlying facts; I just did not believe that I should have been criminally charged for either of those six offenses.”

Blanche pushed back, asking Cohen if there was a difference between him saying something untrue and stating a lie. “I was using just different terminology,” Cohen replied.

“So it was a lie?” Blanche asked. Cohen responded: “Correct.”

WHAT ABOUT BOB?

Much of Blanche’s cross-examination of Cohen seems to be setting up Robert Costello as — possibly — the singular defense witness. Costello is Cohen’s former criminal defense attorney who has, in recent days, told both Congress and several media outlets that his former client is lying on the stand.

The questioning regarding Cohen’s interactions with federal prosecutors is especially pertinent as Costello testified before Congress directly on conversations he had with his client about the federal tax charges. On Wednesday, The National Pulse reported that Costello said: “I explained that if Cohen had truthful information that would implicate Donald Trump, I could get him out of his legal troubles by the end of the week.” He added: “I emphasized that any information Cohen could give would have to be truthful, otherwise it was useless.”

“Each time Cohen said to me: ‘I swear to God, Bob, I don’t have anything on Donald Trump,’” Costello recalled. He continued: “Cohen must have said this at least ten times because I kept coming back to it from different approaches.”

LYING TO A FEDERAL JUDGE.

Trump’s lead defense counsel next addressed Cohen and the fact that the disbarred lawyer had lied to a federal judge. “You testified under oath at a different trial that you did not commit the crimes that you pled guilty to before Judge Pauley, correct?” Blanche asked Cohen, referring to the latter’s perjury before the late U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley III.

“Correct,” answered Cohen.

Blanche, citing Cohen’s own words, asked the serial perjurer if it was true that he lied to Judge Pauley because “the stakes affected you personally?” Cohen confirmed to Blanche this was true. Pushing further, Blanche pressed Cohen as to why—during his 2019 testimony before Congress—the disgraced lawyer didn’t tell lawmakers he had lied to the federal judge.

“By not telling Congress or the Senate that you had lied under oath, do you believe that you were omitting important information?” Trump’s lead counsel asked Cohen, and Judge Merchan again overruled the prosecution‘s objection.

“I don’t believe I was asked the question,” Cohen said.

BLAME GAME.

As the morning’s cross-examination began its final stretch, Blanche focused on Cohen‘s refusal to take responsibility for his actions. “You blame a lot of people over the years for the conduct that you were convicted of,” Blanche told Cohen. The disgraced lawyer responded: “I blame people, yes.”

Blanche proceeded to rattle off a list of people and institutions that Cohen has pointed the finger at for his crimes over the years. These included Cohen’s accountant, bank, federal prosecutors, federal judges, and Donald Trump. Cohen admitted he had blamed each one.

Observers in the courtroom described Cohen as appearing angry and annoyed as Blanche pressed him on every person he’s blamed and his prior convictions for tax evasion and perjury.

A JILTED LAWYER.

Blanche shifted gears again, focusing on the 2016 presidential transition and Cohen’s disappointment at being left behind in New York City. Blanche asked Cohen if it was true that he wanted to serve as the White House chief of staff. “I would have liked to have been considered for ego purpose,” Cohen responded.

After former President Trump tapped Reince Priebus to serve as his chief of staff, Cohen admitted to Blanche that he was disappointed. Blanche then presented Cohen with texts between the latter and his daughter. In the text, Cohen told his daughter that he was with Trump at that very moment and that “he wants me to go, just not sure the position,” insinuating that he’d be joining the President in Washington, D.C.

This line of question is important because, as others have testified, Cohen was not seriously considered for any role in the White House or approached about a role. Blanche likely intended this inquiry to reinforce Cohen’s penchant for lying, even to his own daughter. Additionally, the moment further proved that Cohen has an almost delusional opinion of himself and his actions.

“Did you express disappointment to Pastor Scott repeatedly that President Trump hadn’t brought you into the administration?” Trump’s lead counsel asked Cohen. The prosecution’s witness responded annoyedly: “Not into the administration — I knew the role I wanted… I may have expressed frustration.”

When Blanche pressed Cohen as to why he needed someone to put in a good word for a role in the White House when Cohen claimed he talked to Trump almost every day, the disgraced lawyer said, “It’s always good to have somebody else advocate.”

PRANKED BY A TEENAGER.

Just before the lunch break, Trump‘s defense team took aim at one of the prosecution and Cohen’s key claims. Blanche presented Cohen with a series of text and call logs that Cohen had claimed were him reaching out to Trump regarding the resolution of the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. Trump’s lead counsel contended that rather than reaching out to Trump, Cohen was actually calling Trump’s bodyguard, Keith Schiller, for help dealing with a series of harassing phone calls he was receiving from a 14-year-old prankster. The texts between Cohen and Schiller appear to indicate that the latter was indeed the case.

However, Cohen insisted to Blanche that the prankster wasn’t all that he discussed on the calls, stating: “I know that Keith was with Mr. Trump at the time and there was more potentially than this.” A skeptical Blanche, noting the short amount of time over which the texts and calls took place, asked Cohen if he really “had enough time to update Schiller about all the [harassment] problems you were having and also update President Trump about the status of the Stormy Daniels situation because you had to keep him informed?”

“I always ran everything by the boss immediately, and in this case, it would have been saying, ‘Everything has been taken care of — it’s been resolved,'” Cohen responded.

LAWYER OR PR GUY?

The post-lunch cross-examination continued with Blanche pressing Cohen on whether he frequently worked to drive positive stories for Donald Trump. Cohen testified that he would often work place positive stories and that Trump would “blow up” if he failed. At this point, former President Trump visibly shook his head “no” as Cohen spoke.

“It was my routine to always advise Mr. Trump because the story that I was going to put out is not the way he would want it. One, it would cause him to blow up at me, and two, it would probably be the end of my job,” Cohen told Blanche. Again, it appears Blanche’s strategy was to portray Cohen as someone who viewed their role as something more ‘connected‘ than it was.

A CAMPAIGN SURROGATE?

In the next series of questions, Cohen was pressed on whether he ever had a role in the 2016 Trump presidential campaign. Former Trump campaign aide Hope Hicks testified earlier in the trial that Cohen was not a part of the campaign but would often try and interfere with the campaign staff.

Cohen testified that while he wasn’t a campaign staff member, he was a “surrogate.” The serial perjurer, however, has not produced any documentation or evidence of this role being in any official capacity.

“Your testimony is the frustration toward you that didn’t come from President Trump; it came from the campaign staffers?” Blanche asked Cohen. He replied, “Correct.”

COHEN FALLS APART.

As the fourteenth day of trial testimony neared its end, Cohen inadvertently may have crushed District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s case. Prosecutors have maintained that the hush money payments were campaign expenditures and not legal fees, as Trump’s only concern was about the Stormy Daniels story’s impact on the 2016 election.

However, when discussing the 2011 blog post marking the first public allegations regarding an affair with Stormy Daniels, Cohen admitted Trump was worried about the impact the story would have on his family. “Fair to say that the first time you heard about that and the story by Ms. Daniels, when you talked to President Trump about it, he said he was worried about what his family would think, correct?” Blanche asked.

“Yes, as well as, of course, for the brand,” Cohen admitted. Blanched continued to press Cohen, addressing his 2021 conversation with law enforcement: “The first thing that President Trump said to you was that his family wouldn’t like that very much?”

“That’s true,” Cohen replied.

After Blanche rehashed additional details of conversations Cohen allegedly had with Trump and other associates, the court adjourned at 4PM with Cohen’s cross-examination set to continue on Monday.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Thirteen trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining as a supporter.

show less

The 14th day of former President Donald J. Trump's Manhattan-based trial was exclusively dedicated to the defense's cross-examination of the disbarred serial perjurer Michael Cohen. On Wednesday, Cohen's former criminal defense attorney, Robert Costello, testified before Congress that his old client had repeatedly claimed to him that he had no evidence against Donald Trump. With most of his Tuesday testimony now in question, Trump's lead counsel, Todd Blanche, zeroed in on more of Cohen's lies and hammered the prosecution's star witness over the shifting details of the disgraced lawyer's testimony. show more

May 14, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 13: Michael Cohen Brings Bragg’s Case To A Disastrous End.

The thirteenth day of former President Donald J. Trump‘s Manhattan-based hush money trial continued with the prosecution’s direct examination of their star witness, serial perjurer Michael Cohen. Much like Monday’s testimony, Cohen and prosecutor Susan Hoffinger spent much of the morning and early afternoon discussing invoices and verbal payment agreements that may or may not have only existed in Cohen‘s head. Todd Blanche handled Cohen’s cross-examination, with the two clashing from the start.

Also of note, court transcripts of a sidebar conversation between Trump‘s defense team, Judge Juan Merchan, and prosecutor Joshua Steinglass revealed that Michael Cohen is the last witness for the prosecution. Previously, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office had indicated they’d be bringing one additional witness after Cohen. With the prosecution’s case coming to a close, they have yet to detail what, if any, underlying crime former President Trump has committed.

The court won’t be in session Wednesday or Friday. Michael Cohen’s cross-examination will continue on Thursday.

A MATTER OF LOYALTY.

Starting the second day of direct examination by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Cohen claimed he had been Trump‘s personal counsel for “approximately 15 months.” When Hoffinger asked him why he lied for Trump, Cohen responded, “Out of loyalty and to protect him.” The disgraced attorney’s insistence on terms like “loyalty” and “respect” is likely why prosecutors focused so much with prior witnesses on Trump’s use of similar terms. Prosecutors had quotes using similar words from several books authored by Trump entered into the evidentiary record.

Much like Cohen‘s recollections of what Trump may or may not have said, his understanding of “loyalty” and “respect” isn’t derived from Trump but is his own. A secondary problem for the prosecution and Cohen’s discussion of “loyalty” is the fact that the disgraced attorney admitted to unethically recording a conversation with his client — over which he may have also perjured himself again.

COHEN ADMITS HE LIED TO CONGRESS.

As the morning wore on, Hoffinger — likely acknowledging her witness’s past inability to be truthful — asked Cohen to address his conviction for lying to Congress. The disgraced attorney explained the circumstances of his perjury charge and sentence. “They dealt with the Trump Tower Moscow real estate project, specifically the number of times that I claimed to have spoken to Mr. Trump about the project as well as the time period for those conversations,” Cohen testified.

Hoffinger next asked Cohen why he lied. “Because I was staying on Mr. Trump’s message that there was no Russia, Russia, Russia, and again in coordination with the joint defense team, that’s what was preferred,” he responded, appearing to mock a turn of phrase often used by Trump when the corporate media brings up the Russia Hoax.

THE TIMELINE STILL MAKES NO SENSE.

During yesterday’s testimony, The National Pulse highlighted an issue with Cohen and the District Attorney’s prosecutors’ timeline of alleged crimes. The alleged hush money repayments made to Cohen were all said to have occurred in 2017, well after the 2016 election, casting doubt on the prosecution’s assertion that the hush money payments were made to influence the election.

This morning, Cohen muddied the timeline even further, testifying that he continued to pressure individuals around both Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal to lie about their alleged affairs with Trump well into 2018. When asked why he continued to work on the Daniels and McDougal stories, Cohen replied: “In order to protect Mr. Trump.”

If the primary concern was the impact the Daniels and McDougal stories could have on the 2016 presidential election, Cohen offered no reason to the court and jury for continuing to work as a ‘fixer‘ on the stories nearly two years later.

NOTHING COHEN SAYS CAN BE BELIEVED.

The disgraced and disbarred attorney spent much of the late morning describing a bevy of instances in which he claims he lied on behalf of former President Trump. District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecutors likely felt they had to go down this path as it would be exposed during Cohen’s cross-examination beginning in the afternoon.

However, Cohen‘s admissions of being untruthful to an almost pathological degree cast a shadow on the remainder of his direct examination. The one-time Trump associate claimed he spoke with the former President regarding the false statement he gave to the media about the hush money payment to Daniels. According to Cohen, he told Trump “that I had paid the money on his behalf without his knowledge because just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean it can’t hurt you and that I did it.”

Cohen then dubiously claimed Trump replied, “That’s good, good.”

STORMY DANIEL’S DENIAL.

In another moment, Cohen may have let slip that many of his actions were of his own accord. He testified that he was the one to inform former President Trump that Stormy Daniels would be issuing a statement denying the affair allegation. When asked by Hoffinger why he was the one who told Trump, Cohen responded, “One to get credit for expressing that I was continuing to ensure that he was protected and stayed loyal. And the other so we could have this matter taken care of.”

Cohen told Hoffinger that Stormy Daniels’s denial statement was false. When asked how he knew, Cohen responded it was because he had written the statement. Again, while his claim may appear damaging on the surface, it reinforces the contention that he is untrustworthy and lacks credibility.

The direct examination of Cohen did not improve from here in terms of bolstering his credibility. When the prosecution submitted his 2018 letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) regarding the Stormy Daniels payment, Cohen was asked why he had lied about the Trump Organization and campaign not having knowledge of the payment. Again, Cohen — without directly implicating Trump — said the letter was meant to be misleading “in order to protect Mr Trump, stay on message, demonstrate my continued loyalty.”

JUDGE MERCHAN’S INSTRUCTIONS.

At this point, Judge Juan Merchan stopped the direct examination to instruct the jury regarding Cohen’s FEC letter and statement. He told the jurors that Cohen’s statement was only admissible in the context of their assessment of the serial perjurer’s credibility as a witness. Merchan continued, instructing the jury that the fact that an FEC investigation into the Trump campaign occurred was not admissible and should have no bearing on their deliberations.

A little over an hour later, Judge Merchan issued a second set of jury instructions regarding Cohen having pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. Merchan said the guilty plea was not to have any bearing as evidence of Trump‘s guilt but could be used to assess Cohen’s credibility.

“Mr. Cohen’s plea is not evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and you may not consider it in determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes,” Merchan said.

COHEN ‘STOPPED LYING IN 2018.’

The prosecution’s direct examination of Cohen wound down just before the court broke for lunch. Hoffinger walked Cohen through how he communicated with other business associates and confidants within the Trump orbit. In addition, the context and whether the recording Cohen had made of his conversation with Donald Trump regarding David Pecker and the McDougal payment was altered in any way was raised again.

“At any time, did you alter or modify the audio recording of your conversation with Mr. Trump as contained in PX246?” Hoffinger asked Cohen. He replied, “No, ma’am.”

The disgraced attorney told the jury that he hasn’t lied since 2018, suggesting that the several criminal cases against him and his subsequent three-year prison sentence caused him to have a moral revelation. “I regret doing things for him that I should not have — lying, bullying people in order to effectuate a goal. I don’t regret working with the Trump Organization,” Cohen said. Again, he stopped short of firmly stating he was ordered to do anything illegal. Instead, Cohen again focused on the need to “keep the loyalty.”

CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGINS.

Former President Trump‘s lead defense attorney, Todd Blanche, handled Michael Cohen‘s cross-examination and the long-expected fireworks kicking off immediately. “You went on TikTok and called me a crying little sh*t,” asked Blanche in an opening salvo. Cohen responded, “Sounds like something I would say.” As Cohen finished, prosecutors frantically objected to the question, which Judge Merchan sustained, striking the question and response from the record.

Blanche’s opening strategy appears to have been to paint Cohen as someone who runs their mouth and still demeans others, undermining his claims to have turned a new leaf.

Taking another shot at Cohen’s credibility and personal investment in the trial outcome, Blanche asked: “Is this trial important to you, Mr. Cohen?” The disgraced attorney answered: “Personally, yes.”

COHEN HAMMERED ON TIKTOK POSTS.

After lunch, Blanche spent a sustained period hammering Cohen on his social media posts throughout the trial. “You also talked on social media, during this trial, about President Trump, have you not?” Trump‘s attorney asked Cohen. The serial perjurer replied: “Sounds correct, yes.”

Addressing Michael Cohen’s TikTok video posts, Blanche asked him if he had referred to Trump as a “dictator douchebag.” Cohen again acknowledged that he likely had. “On that same TikTok on April 23, you referred to President Trump when he left the courtroom — you said that he goes right into that little cage, which is where he belongs in a f**king cage like an animal?” Blanche asked Cohen next.

“I recall saying that,” Cohen responded.

Blanche’s line of questioning served two purposes. One illustrates the extreme degree of hostility Cohen still holds for former President Trump, which could color his testimony as possibly false or biased. The other highlights Cohen’s hazy recollection of recent comments. During the prosecution’s direct examination, Cohen was able to recall — evidently in great detail — conversations between five and ten years old with former President Trump.

A HAZY MEMORY.

“Do you remember in February 2021, you were going on TV talking about the investigation?” Blanche asked Cohen, referring to the District Attorney investigation prior to Bragg’s indictment of Trump. Cohen could not give a concrete response, instead replying: “I go on TV often, so I’m not sure what the topic was.”

Blanche continued to press Cohen, asking him if he had often talked to the press about the investigation. Cohen, again, refused to give a firm answer, stating instead: “It sounds correct.”

The response prompted another terse exchange between Blanche and Cohen, with Trump‘s defense attorney firing back: “I don’t want it to sound correct. Is it correct?” Michael Cohen finally relented, responding, “Yes, it would be correct.”

Zeroing in on conversations Cohen had with his attorney, Lanny Davis, regarding media appearances, Blanche drew Cohen’s memory problems out into the open for the jury: “You testified yesterday about very specific recollections that you have about telephone conversations you had with President Trump in 2016 — but you have no recollection that last month just over a year ago that you promised the district attorney that you would stop going on TV?”

“What I was saying to you, sir, I don’t recall even having these conversations with Lanny Davis about not going on television,” Cohen replied before adding: “I recall the conversations with President Trump at the time, yes.”

COHEN MAKES MONEY OFF TRUMP.

Moving on, Blanche focused on Cohen’s financial motivations for attacking and ostensibly lying about former President Trump. He asked Cohen about his social media activity, specifically his TikTok videos. Cohen testified he spends about an hour on TikTok every night. When Blanche asked if he makes money off his social media posts, Cohen admitted he does but contended, “It’s not significant.”

Continuing the social media theme, Blanche asked Cohen if he uses TikTok to make money. The serial perjurer replied, “Money is made from it, yes.”

“That’s not my question. One of the reasons you do it is to make money, yes or no?” Blanche fired back.

“Yes,” is all Cohen said in response.

OBSESSION.

Cohen’s ‘obsession’ with Trump was the final theme of Blanche’s cross-examination before the court adjourned for the day. Blanche read a series of glowing statements about Trump that Cohen has made over the years. “At the time, you weren’t lying, right?” Trump’s defense attorney asked Cohen. “At that time, I was knee-deep into the cult of Donald Trump, yes,” Cohen responded, adding: “I was not lying, it’s how I felt.”

Blanche asked Cohen if he was obsessed with Donald Trump. “I wouldn’t say obsessed. I admired him tremendously,” Cohen replied. He continued: “I can’t recall using that word. I wouldn’t say it would be wrong.”

Pivoting into a darker form of obsession, Blanche confronted Cohen over claims he now wants to see Trump in prison: “Have you regularly commented on your podcasts that you want President Trump to be convicted in this case?”

“Yes, probably,” Cohen responded.

When pressed further on why he responded with “probably,” Cohen said: “Because I don’t specifically know if I used those words, but yes, I would like to see that.”

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Twelve trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining as a supporter.

show less

The thirteenth day of former President Donald J. Trump's Manhattan-based hush money trial continued with the prosecution's direct examination of their star witness, serial perjurer Michael Cohen. Much like Monday's testimony, Cohen and prosecutor Susan Hoffinger spent much of the morning and early afternoon discussing invoices and verbal payment agreements that may or may not have only existed in Cohen's head. Todd Blanche handled Cohen's cross-examination, with the two clashing from the start. show more

May 13, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 12: Serial Perjurer Michael Cohen Underwhelms and Underperforms – Which He’s Used To.

On the twelfth day of the Manhattan-based hush money trial of former President Donald J. Trump, prosecutors under District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought their star witness, disbarred lawyer and serial perjurer Michael Cohen. For lack of a better description, Cohen’s testimony was underwhelming.

Billed as the man who would pin the still yet-to-be-defined crime on former President Trump — Cohen incriminated himself more than anything.

As he took the stand, Cohen appeared nervous and uneasy — a stark difference from the free-wheeling and, at times, angry Stormy Daniels who testified last week. Throughout the day, it became readily apparent that Cohen was even more of an unreliable witness than previously thought. The disgraced former lawyer — and self-described ‘fixer’ — was unable to produce any convincing connection between Trump and the hush money payments, let alone a federal campaign finance violation.

SERIAL PERJURER TAKES THE STAND.

Susan Hoffinger, one of the prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, handled Michael Cohen’s questing throughout the day. After dispensing with standard procedural questions, Hoffinger and Cohen dove into the start of Cohen’s relationship with Donald Trump. According to Cohen, the two became acquainted after he helped facilitate a co-op board takeover of Trump World Tower. The disbarred lawyer told Hoffinger that he was not paid for his early legal work on behalf of Trump.

Cohen recalled being hired by Trump after doing legal work for Trump Entertainment Resorts. According to Cohen, he was never actually paid the $100,000 in fees for his legal work on the resort project but was instead given a job as an executive vice president with the Trump Organization. “He asked me if I wanted to get fired on the first day if I asked about the bill,” Cohen recalled Trump saying at the end of their meeting. Hoffinger’s line of questioning was meant to specifically direct Cohen to recall this memory, as it served to underscore the terms — or lack thereof — of the repayment agreement regarding the Stormy Daniels money.

COHEN THE FIXER.

As the morning wore on, Cohen began to lean into the ‘fixer’ persona he projected to those on the 2016 presidential campaign and others outside the Trump Organization. He described how he could renegotiate unpaid bills with Trump University vendors. When Trump praised him for his work, Cohen said it felt “like I was on top of the world.”

“With press as an example, they said something that angered him, I would reach out to the press, and I would express to them their need to either redact or take the article down or we would file an action against them,” Cohen testified. He added that he was often aggressive when addressing the problems he believed could impact the former President.

It is important to note that Hope Hicks testified that Cohen’s ‘fixer’ persona was all in his head. The former Trump campaign aide said that Cohen “used to like to call himself Mr. Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it.” Hicks went on to note that Cohen was not supposed to be involved in 2016 campaign issues, but he was prone to going rogue.

When Hoffinger asked if it was fair to call him a “fixer,” Cohen replied: “Yes, some have described me as that.”

A USELESS RECORDING.

Just before the court broke for lunch, the jury listened to a secret recording made by Cohen of himself and allegedly Donald Trump discussing a supposed payment related to the Karen McDougal story. However, as noted in previous witness testimony by David Pecker, the payment was never actually made to McDougal. She had agreed to appear on the cover of Men’s Health instead, which netted Pecker‘s American Media, Inc (AMI) a far better financial windfall. In short, no conceivable crime was committed involving a non-payment to McDougal.

It appears that Bragg‘s prosecutors hope to conflate the handling of Karen McDougal’s accusations with those of Stormy Daniels despite having no recordings of payment details or anything beyond Michael Cohen’s word on the latter. Even then, the recording of the McDougal meeting doesn’t shed much light on what Trump knew regarding the payments.

Cohen can be heard describing the need to set up a shell company while informing Trump he’s spoken with Weisselberg. Trump asked Cohen if they actually had to pay for all of this “stuff.” At no point did Trump say what he was paying for, and when Cohen mentioned “financing,” the former President can be heard asking, with a degree of confusion, what Cohen was talking about.

COHEN’S CREDIBILITY ISSUES.

The disbarred and disgraced lawyer’s credibility has been a top concern heading into his Monday testimony. While on the stand, Cohen contradicted the testimony of David Pecker and other fellow prosecution witnesses on several occasions.

One of the most damning incidents occurred when Cohen described to Trump that the AMI negations with the McDougal payment were going fine. Yet, at the start of the hush money trial, David Pecker testified that when he initially objected to not being reimbursed for a $150,000 payment on a call with Cohen, the attorney became irate and told Pecker that Trump was very angry with him—something directly contradicted by the evidence provided by Cohen himself.

Cohen has been convicted of lying to Congress — for which he served a two-month prison sentence. In addition, the disgraced lawyer was labeled as “perverse” and a “serial perjurer” by a federal judge in March this year.

THE TIMELINE MAKES NO SENSE.

Cohen’s and, subsequently, District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution team’s timeline of events and payments is plagued with internal contradictions. The disgraced lawyer appeared to insinuate that Trump was aware of the Stormy Daniels story much earlier in the election process than any evidence indicates. Cohen testified that Trump only cared about the story’s impact on the campaign and didn’t give much worry about it being embarrassing for him or his family. This directly contradicts several sworn witness testimonies where it was attested that Trump was not preoccupied with the campaign but rather more concerned about the impact the Access Hollywood tape and the Stormy Daniels story would have on his wife and children.

Additionally, Cohen’s timeline of events causes a problem for prosecutors as they need to prove an underlying campaign finance crime. However, per Cohen, the reimbursement payments were not made until well after the 2016 election and were not made from campaign accounts. Cohen testified that Trump had suggested that if the story came out, he’d lose the election, yet Cohen’s alleged financial reimbursements all date to 2017.

COHEN TRIES TO FINGER TRUMP.

Continuing on Stormy Daniels, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger pressed Cohen on details about his conversations with Trump regarding the allegations. After the Daniels story became public just days before the 2016 election, Cohen claims he spoke with Trump, who he says was irate.

“I thought you had this under control. I thought you took care of this,” Cohen alleges Trump said to him. The disgraced lawyer continued, stating Trump told him, “Just take care of it.”

According to Cohen, Trump continued: “Women are going to hate me… Guys may think it’s cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign.” Again, prior witnesses brought by the prosecution, including Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, have directly contradicted this claim. They contend the former President was far more concerned about the impact the Daniels story — like the Access Hollywood tape — would have on his family.

Cohen says Trump told him, “I want you to just push it out as long as you can just get past the election. Because if I win, it will have no relevance because I’m President. And if I lose, I don’t even care.” While Cohen certainly seemed preoccupied with the election, not a single recording, text message, or email presented by the prosecution — outside Cohen’s testimony — mentioned Trump’s concerns about the 2016 race.

NONE OF THIS IS ILLEGAL.

The timeline of events and payments and the 34 charges found in the indictment continue to be an overarching problem for the prosecution. The falsifying business records charges are only enhanced from minor misdemeanors to felonies by an underlying crime.

We’re now on the second-to-last prosecution witness, and District Attorney Avlin Bragg’s team has yet to concretely show what that underlying crime even is. In theory, and from the course of Cohen‘s testimony, it appears the prosecution believes the underlying crime is a conspiracy to violate Federal campaign finance laws. It is important to note that the nondisclosure agreements, the alleged “catch-and-kill” scheme hatched between Cohen and Keith Davidson, and even the alleged hush money payments are all legal — meaning none constitute an underlying crime for the prosecution.

BEING DONALD TRUMP.

Cohen’s testimony is reminiscent of the 1999 film Being John Malkovich, in which the actor’s life is told through the perspective of others who are literally inside his head. Much of Cohen’s testimony is a stand-in for what Donald Trump may or may not have been thinking at various moments in the lead-up to, during, and just after the 2016 presidential campaign.

When the Access Hollywood tape broke, Cohen emailed campaign adviser Stephen K. Bannon, “It’s all over the place. Whose doing damage control here?” According to Cohen, he wanted to “ensure” that Trump was protected. However, at no point does Cohen offer evidence that he was directed by Trump to “ensure” his protection or oversee “damage control” efforts. Again, Hope Hicks testified that Cohen is an individual prone to going rogue and was told that he was not to have a role in the campaign.

A tremendous amount of the prosecution’s case rests on what Micahel Cohen believes, in his mind, he was directed to do by Donald Trump — even though he may not have ever been told directly to do it. In essence, we now know what this case boils down to: the word of a serial and perverse perjurer versus Donald Trump.

show less

Editor’s Notes

Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.

RAHEEM J. KASSAM Editor-in-Chief

Aren’t these trial round-ups great? Make sure you share them with your friends, family, and colleagues who otherwise may be tempted to get their information from less reliable sources

for exclusive members-only insights

Aren’t these trial round-ups great? Make sure you share them with your friends, family, and colleagues who otherwise may be tempted to get their information from less reliable sources show more

for exclusive members-only insights

May 10, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 11: Another Good Day For Trump in Court.

The eleventh day of former President Donald J. Trump‘s Manhattan-based hush money trial was abbreviated, ending before 1PM. Defense attorneys for the former President finished their cross-examination of Madeleine Westerhout, a former White House aide. Despite being a witness called by the prosecution, Westerhout — like many of the prosecution’s witnesses — proved relatively damaging to its case under cross-examination by Trump’s defense team.

Following the conclusion of Westerhout’s testimony, jurors heard from a series of custodial witnesses used by the prosecution to enter new evidence into the court record. These witnesses, themselves, held little bearing on the course of the trial.

Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan, meanwhile, denied a defense motion to issue a gag order on Michael Cohen. The disgraced attorney has made frequent public statements on TikTok against former President Trump. Additionally, Cohen has used social media to profit directly from the trial.

WESTERHOUT SINKS CHECK THEORY.

The prosecution has tried to make much out of former President Trump’s attention to detail. Several of the witnesses brought by the District Attorney’s office have primarily served to establish the approval process for payments, statements, and other documents within the Trump Organization, the 2016 Trump campaign, and the Trump White House. The goal is to portray the former President as someone who pays careful attention to detail and would have either had pre-knowledge or inquired about the nature of the payments to disgraced lawyer Michael Cohen.

However, during her cross-examination, Trump‘s former personal assistant in the White House threw cold water on the prosecution’s strategy. While she did testify that the former President was very detail-oriented, she explained that the busy nature of running the country resulted in Trump often signing checks while he was engaged in other tasks, including phone calls or speaking with aides. This recollection appears to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s assertion that Trump was aware of the purpose of the payments to Cohen.

In a separate moment, Westerhout again reinforced the Trump defense team’s assertion that the former President was motivated to protect his family, not the 2016 election. “My understanding was it would be hurtful to his family,” Westerhout said, noting that the Stormy Daniels affair allegations made Trump “very upset.”

PROSECUTORS GRASPING AT STRAWS.

The prosecution‘s next witness was Daniel Dixon, a lead compliance analyst with AT&T. He testified as a records custodian, specifically regarding cell phone data relating to calls made between Michael Cohen and others. On the stand, Dixon spent most of his testimony establishing the veracity of cell phone call records submitted into evidence by the prosecution. These records allegedly show calls between Cohen and Trump that prosecutors allege revolved around the hush money payments.

Dixon’s questioning by the prosecution was short, though not as short nor as damaging as his cross-examination by former President Trump‘s defense team. Attorney Emil Bove handled the cross, immediately diving into the technical specifications of cell phone SIM cards.

CALL RECORDS REVEAL LITTLE.

Bove asked Dixon if a SIM card “can be pulled out of one phone and put into another?” Dixon responded, “Yes.” He next shifted to the nature of call records, pressing Dixon: “These records don’t reflect the content of these calls?” The AT&T analyst replied, “Correct.”

“You can’t tell from the records themselves who actually spoke?” Bove asked, Dixon again answering, “Correct.”

Casting doubt on the nature of the calls, Bove next asked Dixon: “You’re familiar with the concept of a pocket dial?” The analyst acknowledged that he was familiar with a pocket dial.

The next witness for the prosecution was Jennie Tomalin, a senior analyst with Verizon. Again, the prosecution called the witness primarily to introduce phone call records into evidence. One of the records concerns a call made involving Allen Weisselberg. The prosecution likely intends to bring up these records in later testimony by other individuals.

EVIDENTIARY WIN FOR TRUMP.

Just before the court took a brief break, former President Trump‘s defense attorney Emil Bove objected to a pending evidentiary exhibit by the prosecution. The Manhattan District Attorney‘s office intended to submit into evidence a 1999 interview between Trump and Larry King in which the subject of campaign finance law was discussed.

“There was extensive revisions to campaign finance laws in intervening period both statutory and by the Supreme Court,” Bove argued before Judge Juan Merchan. The defense attorney noted that the former President’s view on campaign finance law dating back to 1999 had little bearing on his views in 2016 or 2017. Prosecutors countered that the specific segment involved Trump’s opinion on the corporate contribution ban, which has been established law since 1907.

After the brief break, Judge Merchan ruled against the prosecution and denied the exhibit entrance into evidence.

MORE CUSTODIAL WITNESSES.

The prosecution next moved to recall Georgia Longstreet to the witness stand. Longstreet is a paralegal with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. While her direct testimony last week and today hasn’t been impactful on the direction of the trial, she — like the phone company analysts — has been used by prosecutors to enter additional evidence into the court record and, subsequently, juror review.

Longstreet testified about the process by which the District Attorney’s office preserved social media posts by former President Trump. Again, her testimony served as a vehicle for the prosecution to continue entering Trump tweets into the court record.

TRUMP’S TWEETS.

Prosecutors focused on a handful of Trump‘s social media posts, primarily from 2017 and 2018. Longstreet was asked to read a 2018 post from Trump regarding disgraced lawyer Michael Cohen shortly after the FBI raided the latter. “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!” the former President wrote on Twitter. Another tweet entered into evidence regarded Paul Manafort — with Trump stating that he felt “very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family.”

Another post entered into evidence as a tweet addressing Cohen‘s monthly retainer and nondisclosure agreement. “Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a nondisclosure agreement, or NDA,” Trump posted on Twitter on May 3, 2018.

TEXTS WITH A TABLOID.

Next, prosecutors began showing Longstreet a series of texts between Stormy Daniels‘s then-publicist, Gina Rodriguez, and former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard. The messages mostly revolved around whether Daniels would talk to the tabloid when she’d talk to the tabloid and if she’d go on the record regarding the alleged affair with Trump.

A series of texts prosecutors reviewed with Longstreet appear to reveal negotiations between Rodriguez and Howard over just how much the National Enquirer would pay Daniels. “I can get 100?” Howard asked Rodriguez. The publicist responded, “Lol,” but followed up with, “Okay, what about 150?” Howard countered, texting back the number “110.” Rodrigues replied to the counter with “125k.” Howard’s next response read, “lol,” though he followed up with “120.” Daniels’s then-publicist replied, “Sold.”

Additional text messages revolved around Rodriguez threatening to sell the story to the Daily Mail as Cohen dragged his feet in paying Daniels.

COHEN’S TIKTOK.

Trump’s defense attorney, Todd Blanche, likewise took advantage of the custodial witness as the prosecution opened the door to discussing and reviewing social media accounts. Blanche asked Longstreet if she’d continued her work reviewing social media posts by individuals involved with the trial. He specifically mentioned posts by disgraced attorney Michael Cohen‘s TikTok, where he raised money off of the trial and continued to disparage former President Trump. Longstreet said that she had not seen the posts.

Moving past the TikTok posts, Blanche pivoted to the context of the communications reviewed by Longstreet. “When Ms. Rodriguez talks about offers from the Daily Mail and the timing of those offers, you have no knowledge of whether she was telling the truth, do you?” Blanche asked Longstreet. She replied, “No.”

“You just read what was written in the exhibit, correct?” Blanche asked the paralegal, continuing: “And that was different … from when Mr. Pecker is asked the reasoning behind text messages, correct?” Longstreet acknowledged that Pecker‘s testimony did contradict what was read from the text messages.

MORE PHONE RECORDS.

The last witness of the day was another paralegal from District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s office. Prosecutors asked Jaden Jarmel-Schneider about the process of a report he prepared on calls between Michael Cohen and former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. Again, Jarmel-Schneider was a custodial witness, which allowed the prosecution to introduce phone call records between Cohen and individuals like Dylan Howard, David Pecker, Gina Rodriguez, Keith Schiller, and Allen Weisselberg.

Jarmel-Schneider’s testimony culminated in prosecutors using the custodial witness to introduce a chart summarizing the 34 business records they allege were falsified. Trump’s defense team objected to this exhibit, but Judge Merchan overruled their objection.

Under cross-examination by Emil Bove, Jarmel-Schneider acknowledged that some of the call records and text messages between various individuals were, in fact, deleted. However, the paralegal did take issue with Bove’s assertion that the missing data was “significant.” On re-direct by the prosecution, Jarmel-Schneider claimed the missing data was still in evidence elsewhere.

MICHAEL COHEN TESTIFIES ON MONDAY.

The court adjourned early, wrapping up just before 1PM. Prosecutors and Trump‘s defense attorneys remained in the courtroom briefly to discuss some procedural matters ahead of Monday’s trial session, where it has been announced disgraced attorney Michael Cohen will testify.

Additionally, Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan quashed a subpoena filed by Trump’s defense attorneys that would have compelled testimony from Mark Pomerantz, an attorney formerly with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Pomerantz, infamously, is one of the architects of the dubious legal theory being used by Alvin Bragg to prosecute Trump. Judge Merchan, in quashing the subpoena, called the request an “improper fishing expedition.”

National Pulse previously reported that Pomerantz refused to answer questions before a Congressional committee about his involvement in investigating former President Trump and whether he broke any laws in the course of that inquiry.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Ten trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining up as a supporter.

show less

The eleventh day of former President Donald J. Trump's Manhattan-based hush money trial was abbreviated, ending before 1PM. Defense attorneys for the former President finished their cross-examination of Madeleine Westerhout, a former White House aide. Despite being a witness called by the prosecution, Westerhout — like many of the prosecution's witnesses — proved relatively damaging to its case under cross-examination by Trump's defense team. show more

May 9, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 10: Stormy Did It For the Money.

As the Trump hush money trial entered its tenth day of testimony, defense attorneys for former President Donald J. Trump continued their cross-examination of pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. Defense attorney Susan Necheles continued to handle the questioning, picking up where she left off on Tuesday. The former President’s legal team continued drilling down on the motivations behind Daneils’s actions, including her decision to sell her story to the National Enquirer.

In addition to Daniels, the court — with Democrat-aligned Judge Juan Merchan presiding — heard from three additional witnesses: Rebecca Manochio, a former assistant to Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, Tracey Menzies, a publishing executive at Harper Collins, and Madeleine Westerhout — who served as former President Trump’s executive assistant at the White House.

After the lunch break and conclusion of Daniels’s testimony, Trump’s attorneys again moved for a mistrial. They filed two other motions pertaining to potential testimony from another accuser, Karen McDougal, and for changes to the court-issued gag order.

STORMY CONTINUED.

The defense’s cross-examination of Stormy Daniels began with Trump’s attorney Susan Necheles pressing the porn star on her motivations for going public with her story. The adult film actress insisted that she didn’t want money from Trump or his company or campaign. Instead, Daniels told Necheles — using puzzling logic — that she sold the story to ensure the public heard it.

“I was asking to sell my story to publications to get the truth out,” Daniels said under cross-examination by Necheles. This response will likely undermine Daniels’s credibility as she’s also acknowledged signing the nondisclosure agreement with the National Enquirer, meaning her story would not be published. Daniels admitted that other news outlets, including Slate, wanted to publish her allegations, but the left-leaning website was unwilling to pay for the story.

PHANTOM THREATS REDUX.

Daniels continued to allude to unsubstantiated threats she and her family received. According to the porn actress, she signed the nondisclosure agreement to create a paper trail and protect her family from the unknown and unnamed individuals threatening them. Additionally, Daniels testified that if she had given the story to Slate or another outlet willing to pay, it would have put a target on her and her family’s backs. Not once did Daniels produce any concrete evidence of threats.

Note that she testified on Tuesday to a previously uncirculated claim that she was threatened to stay silent by an unknown man in a Las Vegas parking garage in 2011. She did not report the incident to police or inform her husband or daughter of the threat. Judge Juan Merchan expressed his dismay that Daniels had raised the story in court with no evidence to corroborate it.

DANIELS YELLS AT DAVIDSON.

A great deal of the cross-examination focused on the various ways Daniels has personally profited from her allegations of an affair with former President Trump. In an especially devastating moment for her credibility, Daniels was faced with a recording produced by Trump’s legal team where her former attorney, Keith Davidson, can be heard speaking with disgraced lawyer Michael Cohen, alluding to her motivations.

Davidson tells Cohen that Daniels “wanted this money more than you can ever imagine.” On the phone call, taped on April 4, 2018, Davidson recalls to Cohen: “I remember hearing her on the phone saying, ‘You — f–king Keith Davidson — you better settle this goddamn story.” According to her former attorney, Daniels called him a “p***y” and demanded he get her a good financial settlement in exchange for the story. He also told Cohen that Daniels told him, “We lose all f**king leverage” if Trump loses the 2016 election.

After being confronted with the phone call recording, Daniels denied having ever yelled at Davidson. “No I did not, actually, I never yelled at Keith Davidson,” she told Necheles.

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!

“When Trump was indicted in this case, you celebrated on Twitter by repeatedly tweeting and pushing merchandise you were selling in your store, right?” Necheles pressed the porn star, driving at the financial motivations underpinning her ongoing attacks on Trump.

“I tweeted about him being indicted, yes. People asked how they could support me, so I tweeted the link to my store,” Daniels responded, attempting to dodge the fact she often used news about Trump‘s prosecution to sell merchandise. Showing the jury photos of Daniels’s social media posts, Nicheles asked: “That was you shilling your merchandise, right?”

“That is me doing my job,” the adult film actress responded.

When pressed if she made $100,000 from a documentary about her life and affair with Trump, Daniels became indignant. She refused to answer directly and snapped at Trump’s defense attorney, stating: “You’re trying to trick me into saying something that’s not entirely true.”

Necheles asked Daniels if she had had an affair with one of the cameramen while filming the documentary. Judge Mechan overruled an objection by the prosecution and directed Daniels to answer the question. The pornographic entertainer acknowledged that she did have an affair but claimed she was separated from her husband at the time.

Daniels was also forced to admit she profited from a strip club tour following her going public with her allegations. The tour was promoted with a photo of Daniels with Trump at the aforementioned Lake Tahoe Golf Tournament, where they first met.

I SEE DEAD PEOPLE.

Moving on from her financial motivations, Susan Necheles entered a line of inquiry that must have had the prosecution regretting their decision to put Daniels on the stand. While the adult film industry isn’t known for employing the most mentally sound individuals, Daniels’s side job as a ‘medium‘ between those living in this world and the one beyond may take the cake. Daniels admitted she tried to pitch a paranormal reality show following her newfound fame regarding her home in New Orleans, which she claims is haunted.

“It was a lot of interesting and unexplained activity,” the porn star explained, though she did admit: “A lot of the activity was completely debunked as a giant possum.” In 2022, Daniels described a “non-human thing with tentacles” that frequented her home and would break items. She claimed the ‘haunting’ negatively impacted her mental health.

Necheles pressed Daniels further on whether she claimed she could speak with people’s dead relatives. While the adult entertainer said she did make such claims, she added that it was “all entertainment.”

STORMY STANDS BY THE STORY.

The over six hours of testimony — over two days — by Daniels came to a close with Necheles pressing the porn actress on whether she made the affair allegations up. Trump’s defense team noted the multiple inaccuracies in her story and the fact that its details have changed over time. The National Pulse reported that a previous iteration of her alleged sexual encounter with Trump insinuated that Danials was the aggressor — something she now denies, insinuating she was, in essence, assaulted.

Defending the shifting details, Daniels insisted that she can’t control what quotes end up in magazine interviews or how the reporter framed events. On several occasions, the porn actress was forced to clarify her prior statements when confronted with her inconsistent recollections.

After the defense team finished its cross-examination, the prosecution engaged in a brief redirect. Daniels was again asked about the unsubstantiated threats against her and her family and if this is what motivated her to sign the nondisclosure agreement. Again, Daniels insisted this was the case.

THE BOOK KEEPER AND PUBLISHER.

Following the marathon testimony of Stormy Daniels, prosecutors moved on to Rebecca Manochio — the former assistant to Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg. Like with other testimony from former Trump Organization financial staff, the prosecution focused its questioning on the check signing process and which company executives can approve payments.

The goal of this questioning by the Manhattan District Attorney‘s office is to insinuate that former President Trump not only signed the checks but was aware of their purpose. Thus far, they’ve presented no actual evidence that this is the case.

Following a brief cross-examination of Manochio, during which she acknowledged she never directly interacted with Trump, Harper Collins executive Tracey Menzies was called to the stand next. Prosecutor Rebecca Mangold handled the questioning, which consisted entirely of Menzies reading sections of a book co-authored by Trump. The prosecution’s goal appears to have been to underscore certain controversial statements printed in the book regarding loyalty and getting even.

Under cross-examination, Trump’s defense attorney, Todd Blanche, asked Menzies if she was part of the team that published Trump’s book. “No, I was not,” she replied. Pushing further, Blanche asked Menzies if she had selected the excerpts read in court. She said she had not.

THE FINAL WITNESS FOR THE DAY.

The tenth day of testimony ended with former President Trump‘s personal assistant at the White House, Madeleine Westerhout, taking the stand. The protection asked Westerhout mostly about check signing procedures, but other topics also arose. When asked about the Access Hollywood tape, Westerhout told the prosecution, “At the time, I recall it rattling RNC leadership.”

“It’s my recollection there were conversations about how to, if it was needed, how it would be possible to replace him as the candidate if it came to that,” Westerhout added.

Westerhout was asked what implements Trump would use to sign documents and checks. She recalled, “He liked to use Sharpies or, I believe, a Pentel felt-tip pen.” She also acknowledged that the former President liked to review and read any document before he signed it. When asked whether Trump and Cohen had a close relationship in the early days of the presidential administration, Westerhout responded: “At that time, yes.”

‘A REALLY GOOD BOSS.’

Trump defense attorney Susan Necheles also handled Westerhout’s cross-examination. When asked why Westerhout later wrote a book about her time in the Trump White House, the former aide replied, “I thought it was real important to share with the American people the man that I got to know.”

She added, “I don’t think he’s treated fairly, and I wanted to tell that story.”

Westerhout told the court that the former President wasn’t nearly as concerned about the Access Hollywood tape as those around him.

“He never once made me feel that I didn’t deserve that job and that I didn’t belong there. Especially in an office filled with older men, he never made me feel like I didn’t belong there. He was a really good boss,” Westerhout told Necheles, adding: “I found him very enjoyable to work for.”

With that, the court adjourned for the day, but not before Judge Juan Merchan considered three new motions by Trump‘s defense team.

JUDGE DENIES MISTRIAL MOTION AGAIN.

Former President Donald Trump‘s defense team again motioned for a mistrial, citing the unsubstantiated, unrelated, and prejudicial testimony from Stormy Daniels. Again, Judge Juan Merchan denied the motion. A second motion to bar testimony from the second Trump accuser, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy Playmate, was vacated as District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s prosecutors announced they would no longer be calling her as a witness. A third motion regarding the extent of the court’s gag order on former President Donald Trump did not receive an immediate ruling.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Nine trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining up as a supporter.

show less

As the Trump hush money trial entered its tenth day of testimony, defense attorneys for former President Donald J. Trump continued their cross-examination of pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. Defense attorney Susan Necheles continued to handle the questioning, picking up where she left off on Tuesday. The former President's legal team continued drilling down on the motivations behind Daneils's actions, including her decision to sell her story to the National Enquirer. show more

May 7, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 9: Stormy Rages.

The ninth day of the Manhattan-based hush money trial of former President Donald J. Trump devolved into a gossip-filled and sordid affair. District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecutors called one of the trial’s most anticipated and controversial witnesses — smut peddler Stormy Daniels. A pornographic entertainer, Daniels alleged she engaged in a brief affair with Trump following a 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe.

Daniels’s testimony was a tale of two different ‘characters’ in the witness box. Throughout the prosecution’s questioning, Daniels presented herself as relatively charming and engaged in gossip about her alleged affair with Trump. Before the court started its day, Democrat Judge Juan Merchan warned the prosecution not to delve too far into details as it could be seen as prejudicial.

The jurors saw a very different Daniels in the defense’s cross-examination. She appeared angry, combative, childish, and vindictive. Arguably, Daniels came across so poorly that she gravely undermined any damage her morning’s testimony inflicted.

PROSECUTION DEFINES DANIELS.

The initial round of questioning focused on establishing professional and biographical details about Daniels. She told prosecutors she preferred to go by her pornographic alias rather than her legal name, Stephanie Clifford. Daniels said she began her career in adult entertainment after misunderstanding a friend who told her she was a “dancer.” According to the smut performer, as an exotic dancer, she could make more in two nights of work “than I could shoveling manure eight hours a day.” As if those were the only two career options before her. The themes of quick and easy money, greed, and selfishness pervaded much of Daniels’s testimony.

PROSECUTION CROSSES THE LINE.

Despite Judge Merchan‘s aforementioned warning to the prosecution, she often strayed into an attempted character assassination of Trump. Daniels testified she met Trump in 2006 at the Lake Tahoe golf tournament. Later, she claimed one of his bodyguards, Keith Schiller, gave her Trump’s contact information after she had declined a dinner invitation. Daniels said her publicist later encouraged her to accept the dinner offer.

What happened next was likely both fictitious and prejudicial. Daniels went into every detail about her meeting with Trump prior to “dinner.” The details she provided can only be described as over the top. It quickly became apparent that the prosecution intended for Daniels’s testimony to smear the reputation of President Trump, rather than asking her to address details of the charges he faces.

For nearly an hour, the court allowed prosecutor Susan Hoffinger to lead Daniels through unverifiable recollections of her alleged conversations with Trump. Finally, even Judge Merchan appeared annoyed with the prosecution and interjected, telling Hoffinger, “The degree of detail we’re going into here is just unnecessary.” After the court took a short break, he added, “When she comes back to the stand, we can move it along more quickly.”

DANIELS GOES OFF THE RAILS.

With Daniels back on the stand, Merchan quickly lost control of the prosecution, witness, and court. Led by Hoffinger, Daniels dove into a personal and graphic description of her alleged liaison with Trump — explicitly against Merchan’s morning orders. Daniels remained engaging, however, with the jury captivated by her story. She often spoke while looking directly at jurors and used hand gestures to further engage with them from the stand.

In a new spin on the affair story, Daniels insinuated she felt there was a power imbalance between her and Trump, also noting that he was a lot bigger than her. While she acknowledged she didn’t feel threatened, the pornographic entertainer insinuated to the prosecution that the encounter wasn’t consensual. Prior public recollections by Daniels never intimated such details.

After another long run of questioning regarding her alleged ongoing contact with Trump following the initial liaison, Daniels told Hoffinger that she was threatened to stay quiet about her affair with Trump by an unknown man in a Las Vegas parking lot in June 2011. She said the incident “scared” her. “He approached me and threatened me not to continue to tell my story,” Daniels told the prosecutor. There has been no evidence offered to suggest this event ever took place. Daniels has admitted she never notified law enforcement or told her husband or daughter about the alleged threat.

It is important to note that in the past, Daniels denied the encounter and affair with Trump entirely. When asked by Hoffinger if going public with her story was to make money, Daniels dubiously replied: “My motivation wasn’t money. It was to get the story out.”

MOTION FOR MISTRIAL.

After the lunch break, attorneys for Trump moved for an immediate mistrial given Daniels’s testimony and the prosecution blatantly ignoring the guidelines.

“I don’t think anybody, anybody, can listen to what that witness said, think that has anything to do with the charges, and the entire testimony is so prejudicial that you run the very high risk of the jury not being able to focus on the evidence that actually does matter,” Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche argued.

Judge Merchan denied the motion. However, he did acknowledge that Daniels’s testimony likely crossed the line. “As a threshold matter, I agree, Mr. Blanche, that there were some things that probably would’ve been better left unsaid,” Merchan said. He additionally chastised the defense for not raising more objections, noting that even he had to step in and cut Daniels off at one point.

“Whether these are new stories or not new stories, the remedy is on cross-examination,” Merchan continued.

The judge did concede that he would be giving the jury limiting instructions regarding Daniels’s claims regarding the June 2011 threat in Las Vegas. While Trump’s legal defense lost the mistrial motion, the objection was necessary to preserve the issue as grounds for appeal.

STORMY GETS CROSSED.

After a brief period of additional questioning by Hoffringer regarding her interactions with Michael Cohen, Daniels’s testimony before the prosecution ended. Next up was Trump’s defense attorney, Susan Necheles, to conduct the cross-examination. Almost immediately, Daniels’s demeanor completely changed. The smiling and chatty porn star became angry and combative when Necheles began her questioning.

Necheles began the cross-examination by questioning whether Daniels had rehearsed her testimony. A now combative Daniels fired back, “No.” Trump’s defense attorney continued, recalling prior comments made by Daniels: “You agreed you were subjected to grueling prep sessions which included brutal mock cross-examination?”

“It is not rehearsing my testimony,” Daniels responded with a raised and angry voice. Necheles asked Daniels if she had been untruthful in her prior statement. “I was incorrect; I did not know what true court would be like,” she answered.

MOTIVATED BY ‘HATE.’

Necheles pressed Daniels about her motivations for speaking out about Trump. “Am I correct that you hate President Trump?” she asked.

“Yes,” Daniels replied.

Pushing further, Necheles asked Daniels if she wanted to see former President Trump put in jail. The pornographic performer responded, “I want him to be held accountable.”

This was a marked change from past statements made by Daniels, including a 2023 interview with Piers Morgan. When asked then if Trump should go to jail, Daniels demurred while referencing unknown crimes he’s allegedly committed against her. “I don’t think that his crimes against me are worthy of incarceration,” Daniels said, while adding: “The other things that he has done — if he is found guilty, then absolutely.”

Moments later, Daniels was asked about her tweets suggesting she wanted to see former President Trump in jail. The pornographic actress laughed about her social media posts. When asked why she found them funny, Daniels quickly covered up for herself, saying it was just the words she had chosen to use in the posts.

VINDICTIVE AND CHILDISH.

As Necheles pushed forward, she next pressed Daniels on her losing a series of lawsuits against the former President, in which she was later ordered to pay his legal fees. “He prevailed, but I was not found to have lost,” Daniels said of the matter, later admitting she still owes Trump about $560,000 in fees.

“You didn’t take any money out of your pocket and pay it to President Trump, did you?” Necheles asked. Daniels replied, “No.”

“You have money, right?” Trump’s defense attorney followed up. Daniels responded snarkily: “We all have money.”

Remaining on the subject of her debts owed to Trump, Daniels acknowledged her authorship of a 2022 social post in which she claimed she’d rather go to jail than “pay a penny.”

The porn star defended her defiance of the court-ordered financial judgment. “My motivation was because I was telling the truth,” Daniels contended.

Necheles next addressed a social media post in which Daniels wrote, “I’ll never give that orange turd a dime.” Trump’s defense attorney observed that Daniels often calls the former President names on social media. Becoming almost childish, Daniels claimed she only called Trump names “Because he made fun of me first.”

DANIELS DENIES ILLEGALLY HIDING MONEY.

Returning to the subject of the money Daniels owes Trump, Necheles asked the porn star and exotic dancer why she failed to report her husband’s finances on the forms she had to submit to the court following its judgment against her. “I won’t fill out information that endangers my family or my daughter,” Daniels replied defiantly.

“Isn’t it true that you’ve been hiding your assets because you don’t want to pay the judgment against you?” Necheles asked Daniels next, and she replied, “No.” Daniels went on to deny having set up a trust in her daughter’s name to hide income, an accusation leveled earlier today by Daniels’s former attorney, Michael Avenatti.

Before the court adjourned for the day, Daniels acknowledged that she had made a lot of money selling her story. When pressed if the most money came in when she discussed “sex,” the porn star at first denied that was the case but eventually acknowledged that she did get more attention when she brought up sordid details.

The trial will resume on Thursday with Trump’s defense team continuing its cross-examination of Stormy Daniels.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Eight trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining up as a supporter.

show less

The ninth day of the Manhattan-based hush money trial of former President Donald J. Trump devolved into a gossip-filled and sordid affair. District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecutors called one of the trial's most anticipated and controversial witnesses — smut peddler Stormy Daniels. A pornographic entertainer, Daniels alleged she engaged in a brief affair with Trump following a 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe. show more

Editor’s Notes

Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.

RAHEEM J. KASSAM Editor-in-Chief

Extraordinary, isn’t it? The difference between our coverage and that of the corporate media

for exclusive members-only insights

Extraordinary, isn’t it? The difference between our coverage and that of the corporate media show more

for exclusive members-only insights

May 6, 2024

William Upton

Lawfare

Trump Trial Day 8: Judge Could Jail Ex-Prez for OLD Posts, as Prosecution Reels From Hope Hicks’s Demolition of Michael Cohen.

Former Trump campaign aide Hope Hicks had some choice things to say about Michael Cohen last week, which bear consideration. During defense attorney Emil Bove’s cross-examination, Hicks took aim at Cohen’s credibility. She told Bove that the disgraced attorney “used to like to call himself Mr. Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it.”

When Bove, who is one of former President Donald J. Trump‘s attorneys in the hush money trial, asked Hicks about Cohen’s role in the 2016 campaign, she threw additional cold water on the prosecution’s assertions. “No, he would try to insert himself at certain moments, but he wasn’t supposed to be on the campaign in any official capacity,” Hicks responded. She added: “There were things he did in a voluntary capacity because of his interest.”

Asked if Cohen was prone to going rogue, Hicks said, “Yes.”

MERCHAN HOLDS TRUMP IN CONTEMPT… AGAIN.

Day eight of former President Donald Trump‘s Manhattan-based hush money trial ended about 30 minutes earlier than scheduled. Judge Juan Merchan gave no reason for the court’s adjournment.

The court’s morning session began with another hearing on alleged violations of the gag order placed on former President Trump by Democrat-aligned Judge Merchan. Once again, the former President was found in contempt of the order and fined $1,000 for the new violation. “I find you in criminal contempt for the 10th time,” the judge said. He added: “Going forward, this court will have to consider a jail sanction.”

“Mr. Trump, it’s important you understand that the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well,” Judge Merchan continued. He added, “The magnitude of this decision is not lost on me, but at the end of the day, I have a job to do.”

But even Democrat legal strategists admitted Merchan’s behavior didn’t stack up, with the judge seemingly rebuking Trump for statements that have been long-deleted.

I don’t get this. If, as Judge Merchan says, all the offending statements were made prior to the imposition of the first fine, why does he say that it’s evident that fines won’t deter Trump? Deterrence doesn’t work retroactively! https://t.co/E8gYk1Nq2Z
— Eric Columbus (@EricColumbus) May 6, 2024

THE ACCOUNTANT ON THE STAND.

Following the testimony of Hope Hicks, the prosecution next brought Jeff McConney, the former controller — essentially the top accountant — for the Trump Organization. McConney has testified twice before in legal proceedings involving Donald Trump —before Judge Juan Merchan in the 2022 Trump Organization tax fraud trial and in last fall’s civil fraud trial against Trump brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Former Biden Justice Department attorney Matthew Colangelo handled the questioning for the prosecution.

The early part of McConney’s testimony was focused on establishing his role and chain of command within the Trump Organization. The former controller told Colangelo that he oversaw the company’s accounting department and Deb Tarasoff, the accounts payable supervisor. Tarasoff would be the next prosecution witness brought before the court adjourned for the day.

WHO CUTS THE CHECKS?

Early on, the prosecution focused on check signing authority. According to McConney, prior to 2017 — when Trump was inaugurated as President — Donald Trump had the signing authority. Once he became President, however, a trust account was formed with Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and Allen Weisselberg having signing authority.

Much of the morning focused on Colangelo and McConney walking through accounting practices, tax applicability to employee reimbursements, and the general ledger for Donald Trump’s personal account. While this was not the most riveting testimony, much of the prosecution‘s case hinges on the contention that the former President directed Michael Cohen‘s actions and understood the nature of the payments made to Cohen from the personal account.

COLANGELO BORES THE COURT.

As the trial neared lunchtime, Colangelo finally began to focus on Michael Cohen — though McConney’s testimony was less than helpful to the prosecution’s case. When asked if he knew Cohen, McConney responded: “He said he was a lawyer.”

The prosecutor followed up, asking, “Did he work in the legal department?” McConney drew audible laughs from the courtroom with his response. “I guess so,” he said.

Next, Colangelo probed McConney on checks cut to Cohen, with the former controller saying that Allen Weisselberg had told him that they needed to get some money to the disgraced lawyer. “We added everything up, and came up with the amount we would have to pay him,” McConney said.

He testified that $35,000 was to be wired to Cohen monthly from Donald Trump‘s account. After reviewing Cohen’s invoices and the payment process for over an hour, McConney testified that he could not recall any further payments after December 2017. The prosecution ended its questioning after entering into evidence the invoices and financial disclosures relating to the payments to Cohen that allegedly covered the money he sent to Keith Davidson.

COHEN ACTED AS A VENDOR.

Emil Bove again handled the cross-examination for Trump‘s defense team. He kicked off the cross, asking McConney how often he spoke with Trump. The former Trump Organization controller said it wasn’t often. The defense attorney moved on to Cohen‘s employment status, asking McConney if Cohen used a Trump Organization account. McConney responded that Cohen did not and instead used a personal Gmail account. McConney explained that this meant Cohen was acting, essentially, as an outside vendor and not a Trump employee.

When Bove asked if McConney knew the nature of Cohen’s legal work or if the disgraced attorney was doing any personal work for Trump in 2017, McConney said: “I do not know.” Following up, when asked about his conversation with Weisselberg, McConney testified that he didn’t know what Cohen was seeking reimbursement for.

TRUMP DIDN’T ORDER PAYMENTS.

Moving on, Bove began chipping away at the core of the prosecution‘s case. Bragg’s team has spent a great deal of time insinuating that the payments made to Cohen were somehow illegal. Bove asked McConney, “These payments were also disclosed to the IRS, correct?” The former controller responded, “Yes.”

Bove, presenting McConney with an IRS 1099 form, asked: “There’s no place on this form to break out payments for legal services versus expenses incurred right?” McConney again responded, “Yes.”

Shifting to Cohen, the defense attorney asked McConney, “And it’s Michael Cohen’s job to figure out how to account for these payments on his personal taxes correct?” McConney once again responded, “Yes.” When asked if he knew whether Cohen had included the payments in his tax filings, McConney replied that he did not know.

In the most important moment, Bove asked McConney: “President Trump did not ask you to do any of the things you described?”

“He did not,” the former controller replied.

STILL NO EVIDENCE.

A brief redirect by Colangelo may have further undermined the prosecution. McConney testified that he merely did as directed by Weisselberg. However, the former controller also said he was never privy to, nor knew of, any conversations between Weisselberg and Trump regarding payments to Cohen.

Despite the prosecution continuing to insinuate that Trump knew the nature of and directed the payments to Cohen, not a single witness that it has brought has been able to establish this assertion. In fact, several of the witnesses, so far, have actually undermined the claim — adding to the Trump defense team’s argument that he thought the payments were, in fact, for legal services and was unaware of Cohen’s agreement with Keith Davidson.

The next witness brought by the prosecution was Deb Tarasoff. Again, despite the prosecution’s efforts, Tarasoff said that Weisselberg was the man who called most of the shots and had the most contact with Cohen. The remainder of her testimony was a rehash of the invoice and check signing process heard in McConney’s morning testimony. After the prosecution finished and the defense engaged in a brief cross-examination, the court adjourned.

You can read The National Pulse’s Day Seven trial coverage here, and if you find our work worthwhile, consider joining up as a supporter.

show less

Former Trump campaign aide Hope Hicks had some choice things to say about Michael Cohen last week, which bear consideration. During defense attorney Emil Bove's cross-examination, Hicks took aim at Cohen's credibility. She told Bove that the disgraced attorney "used to like to call himself Mr. Fix It, but it was only because he first broke it." show more

Editor’s Notes

Behind-the-scenes political intrigue exclusively for Pulse+ subscribers.

RAHEEM J. KASSAM Editor-in-Chief

I know it’s a lot to read, but these round-ups by Will Upton are well worth it

for exclusive members-only insights

I know it’s a lot to read, but these round-ups by Will Upton are well worth it show more

for exclusive members-only insights

Fleccas Talks Podcast Ep 255: We Found the Next Pope

Fleccas Talks Bonusland: Pokey Poke You

Fleccas Talks Podcast Ep 254: Karmelo Anthony’s Team Wants a Race War

Fleccas Talks Bonusland: Rat Death

‘THE BURDEN OF PROOF.’

ALL ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS.

‘COHEN LIED TO YOU.’

CATCH, KILL, & ELECTION INFLUENCE.

‘AN AXE TO GRIND.’

TEN REASONS FOR REASONABLE DOUBT.

MERCHAN INTEVENES.

THE PROSECUTION AT BAT.

THE COHEN PROBLEM.

STORMY DAMAGE CONTROL.

THE UNDERLYING CRIME?

THE THIEF.

MAKING UP A CRIME.

COHEN’S CRIMES OR TRUMP’S?

‘BORING!’

NO CRIME? NO PROBLEM!

PROSECUTION LOSES THE PLOT.

COSTELLO PART II.

COSTELLO AND GIULIANI.

MERCHAN’S RULING SNAGS COSTELLO.

AN EMAIL PROBLEM?

A BRIEF REDIRECT.

SUMMATION AND DELIBERATION.

JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

CLARIFYING COHEN’S CRIMES.

COHEN CONFESSES A CRIME.

DANIEL GOLDMAN DID PREP COHEN.

BACK TO STORMY.

PRELUDE TO COSTELLO.

MORE MONEY, MORE PROBLEMS.

PROSECUTION GOES FOR BROKE.

COSTELLO TAKES THE STAND.

COSTELLO ON COHEN.

COSTELLO VERSUS MERCHAN.

COHEN GETS MEIDAS TOUCHED.

MOTIVATED BY REVENGE.

COHEN CAN’T HELP HIMSELF.

LIES, LIES, AND MORE LIES.

WHOSE FAULT IS IT?

UNTRUE VERSUS A LIE.

WHAT ABOUT BOB?

LYING TO A FEDERAL JUDGE.

BLAME GAME.

A JILTED LAWYER.

PRANKED BY A TEENAGER.

LAWYER OR PR GUY?

A CAMPAIGN SURROGATE?

COHEN FALLS APART.

A MATTER OF LOYALTY.

COHEN ADMITS HE LIED TO CONGRESS.

THE TIMELINE STILL MAKES NO SENSE.

NOTHING COHEN SAYS CAN BE BELIEVED.

STORMY DANIEL’S DENIAL.

JUDGE MERCHAN’S INSTRUCTIONS.

COHEN ‘STOPPED LYING IN 2018.’

CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGINS.

COHEN HAMMERED ON TIKTOK POSTS.

A HAZY MEMORY.

COHEN MAKES MONEY OFF TRUMP.

OBSESSION.

SERIAL PERJURER TAKES THE STAND.

COHEN THE FIXER.

A USELESS RECORDING.

COHEN’S CREDIBILITY ISSUES.

THE TIMELINE MAKES NO SENSE.

COHEN TRIES TO FINGER TRUMP.

NONE OF THIS IS ILLEGAL.

BEING DONALD TRUMP.

Editor’s Notes

WESTERHOUT SINKS CHECK THEORY.

PROSECUTORS GRASPING AT STRAWS.

CALL RECORDS REVEAL LITTLE.

EVIDENTIARY WIN FOR TRUMP.

MORE CUSTODIAL WITNESSES.

TRUMP’S TWEETS.

TEXTS WITH A TABLOID.