Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!” - CONVICTED!!

[New Turtle]

The defense is gonna try to call an eggspurt witness, a former FEC official who would talk about the laws regarding campaign contributions and whether or not the defendant broke any. Judge says probably not, and if so, witness will be limited to giving general information and nothing about interpretation of the law. He will rule on it before next session or at the beginning on monday.

[Kendra]

Dumb question, but who is paying for the airfare, meals and other travel expenses? We the taxpayers? The taxpayers for the district they represent? I can't imagine they are paying out of their very own personal wallets...

[neonzx]

Dumb question, but who is paying for the airfare, meals and other travel expenses? We the taxpayers? The taxpayers for the district they represent? I can't imagine they are paying out of their very own personal wallets...

I was wondering the same. Who is funding these congress critters?

[SuzieC]

Another dumb question but I'm seeing bits and pieces of hints on the Internet that Cohen's testimony was disastrous on cross and/or that he "flipped" or something something. Anyone else seen this stuff?

[bob]

Another dumb question but I'm seeing bits and pieces of hints on the Internet that Cohen's testimony was disastrous on cross and/or that he "flipped" or something something. Anyone else seen this stuff?

E.g., Newsweek: Michael Cohen Had His 'Knees Chopped Out' on the Stand: Legal Analyst:

Former Donald Trump attorney and "fixer" Michael Cohen had his "knees chopped out" by the defense on Thursday while on the stand, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig said.

* * *

Newsweek senior reporter Katherine Fung has been in the Manhattan courtroom following the former president's trial and also noted the cross-examination moment. Trump attorney Todd Blanche brought up an October 24, 2016, phone conversation Cohen allegedly had with Trump through the phone of Keith Schiller, Trump's longtime bodyguard. Cohen said in his testimony that they discussed Daniels, saying that the matter was resolved. Cohen then added that he did not remember if Trump was on speaker phone or if Schiller passed the phone directly to the former president.

"You did not talk to President Trump on that night, you talked to Keith Schiller about what we just went through!" Blanche said to Cohen, Newsweek's Katherine Fung noted on X, as Blanche mentioned a text message that shows Cohen texted Schiller the phone number of a 14-year-old who was sending him harassing phone calls. Cohen said in his testimony on Thursday that he did talk about the teenager with Schiller, but that he also spoke to the former president about Daniels.

Honig said Blanche's cross-examination of Cohen was "devastating," as the alleged phone call Cohen had with Trump goes to "the heart of the allegation" against him.

"I don't think I've ever seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically as what just happened with Michael Cohen," Honig said. "I've certainly seen very effective cross-examinations of cooperating witnesses. I've seen aspects of their story cut into and called into question, but this goes to the heart of the allegation here, that phone call on October 24. And it looks to the jury ... that that was a devastating moment."

"For completeness":

But former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade told Newsweek on Thursday when asked if this was a pivotal moment for the defense, "No, it probably was the highlight of an otherwise unremarkable cross-examination, but I think this is an example of losing sight of the forest for the trees."

McQuade continued: "We all misremember details of things that happened years ago, but we tend to remember the big picture matters. My bigger takeaway is that this is the cross-examination the prosecution likely expected. That's why they saved Cohen for last, and previously showed the jury documents and provided the testimony of other witnesses so that they knew the story even before Cohen came in to testify. The value of his testimony was to provide context and to connect the dots, but otherwise, all the evidence was already there. No doubt in closing the government will agree that Michael Cohn is a despicable liar, but that this is who Donald Trump chose to associate with, and so that's who's left to tell his story. Whether this evidence is enough to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt will ultimately be up to the jury."

Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg of Florida also told Newsweek when asked about Cohen's testimony, "I think prosecutors did enough to build a firewall around Michael Cohen to mostly insulate him from the expected attacks on his credibility. Cohen is an imperfect witness, but there has been enough corroboration for his core claims for a jury to reach a guilty verdict."

[SuzieC]

Hmmm. Thanks.

[much ado]

Another dumb question but I'm seeing bits and pieces of hints on the Internet that Cohen's testimony was disastrous on cross and/or that he "flipped" or something something. Anyone else seen this stuff?

I looked around and found this MSNBC video that says Cohen "flipped". That title is mostly click-bait in my opinion. And this video was published yesterday, before Thursday's cross. So I'm just posting it because it may be the source of the "flipped" rumor. Or not.

Trump trial ends with star witness flipping — see Ari Melber’s courtroom breakdown

[SuzieC]

That's what I saw. Blanche may have scored some points in his cross but I see absolutely no evidence that Cohen "flipped."

[much ado]

That's what I saw. Blanche may have scored some points in his cross but I see absolutely no evidence that Cohen "flipped."

Yeah, agreed.

[New Turtle]

It's all gonna depend on how the jury sees it, and what the jury instructions say.

[Suranis]

Your media has gone into a "pump up Trump" frenzy again.

[realist]

You mean crap like this?

UST IN: CNN legal experts are now saying Cohen may derail this entire case after he became so aggravated during his testimony today. Cohen went on a rant calling the Judge in his case “corrupt” and essentially saying everyone is corrupt except him.

He also went on to say that although he’s lied in court before, he’s not lying this time, even though he still says he doesn’t believe he’s guilty to a crime he confessed to.

The prosecution really dropped the ball with Cohen. He was the last person that should’ve been involved in this case at all. When CNN sides with Trump, you know you’re wrong.

When can we expect public apologies?

https://x.com/travis_4_trump/status/179 ... DBXL494ocA

[sugar magnolia]

Another dumb question but I'm seeing bits and pieces of hints on the Internet that Cohen's testimony was disastrous on cross and/or that he "flipped" or something something. Anyone else seen this stuff?

E.g., Newsweek: Michael Cohen Had His 'Knees Chopped Out' on the Stand: Legal Analyst:

Honig said Blanche's cross-examination of Cohen was "devastating," as the alleged phone call Cohen had with Trump goes to "the heart of the allegation" against him.

"I don't think I've ever seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically as what just happened with Michael Cohen," Honig said. "I've certainly seen very effective cross-examinations of cooperating witnesses. I've seen aspects of their story cut into and called into question, but this goes to the heart of the allegation here, that phone call on October 24. And it looks to the jury ... that that was a devastating moment."

Honig also said

The fact that Michael Cohen so obviously and over the top is consumed by hatred for Donald Trump, and wants him in prison, is celebrating and is selling T-shirts is outrageous. We sort of take it for granted because this has just been Michael Cohen‘s public persona for the last five, six years. This should be a bonanza for cross-examination,” Honig said Wednesday after hearing the Trump team’s questions for Cohen.

before Cohen was cross-examined, which indicates to my IANAL brain that he holds some bias and might not be the best observer.

[p0rtia]

Honig loves the spotlight. I mean, more than most.

[bob]

before Cohen was cross-examined, which indicates to my IANAL brain that he holds some bias and might not be the best observer.

And all of that is excellent fodder for cross-examination. Whether defense counsel landed the "he's biased therefore unreliable" is both subjective and ultimately for the jury to decide.

And to paraphrase a former defense secretary: You don't go to trial with the evidence you want; you go to trial with the evidence you have.

Yes, Cohen is a flawed witness, but the prosecutor seems to have concluded his downsides are outweighed by the value of what he can bring, that is, tying the defendant to the conspiracy.

And, more broadly, many witnesses in criminal trials are problematic criminals. Because, unsurprisingly, criminals tend to hang out and commit crimes together.

[sugar magnolia]

before Cohen was cross-examined, which indicates to my IANAL brain that he holds some bias and might not be the best observer.

And all of that is excellent fodder for cross-examination. Whether defense counsel landed the "he's biased therefore unreliable" is both subjective and ultimately for the jury to decide.

And to paraphrase a former defense secretary: You don't go to trial with the evidence you want; you go to trial with the evidence you have.

Yes, Cohen is a flawed witness, but the prosecutor seems to have concluded his downsides are outweighed by the value of what he can bring, that is, tying the defendant to the conspiracy.

And, more broadly, many witnesses in criminal trials are problematic criminals. Because, unsurprisingly, criminals tend to hang out and commit crimes together.

My point was to Honig being biased, not Cohen, so take his opinion for what it might be.

[chancery]

[Suranis]

The Daily Mail story flashed up on my Microsoft feed "Is this the moment that will acquit Turnip in hush money case?"

[Reality Check]

If Trump skates it will be because he bribed Alan Weisselberg.

[sterngard friegen]

The indictment isn't very good. I see no conspiracy charges, no New York RICO charges, no charges of attempt. It's all "bad documents."

I am quite disappointed.

My whine has aged like a fine wine.

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[p0rtia]

So I read--and then skimmed--through Cohen's testimony. Takeaways:

- Boring as hell. This is a function of Blanche jumping from topic to topic without even trying to make any point other than "you lied, didn't you!" He never stayed on one topic for more than ten minutes; he intentionally avoided anything resembling chronological order--or categorical order; he repeated himself ad nauseam as he circled around.

- He never got close to asking about the payoff, the contract, or the reimbursement plan. He asked hundreds of questions about the mean things Cohen said about fuckhead, and about his habit of recording conversations with reporters, and about all the prosecutors and investigators didn't believe him because, lies. It wasn't ill about 3 PM on Thursday afternoon that Blanche finally asked a few questions that made you think, "Aha! Now he's going to start debunking the prosecutions evidence!" This was the widely reported contradiction of one of Cohen's phone calls to fuckhead. But after he's accomplished that--he leaped forward to Cohen's life in prison and how he was trying to cut a deal to shorten h is sentence (gasp).

- If I'm on the jury, I'm thinking, "You have nothing to contradict the documented evidence, so you're trying to make a pile of all the times Cohen lied, to prove he's a liar liar pants on fire, as if that would counterbalance all that documented evidence. And you're acting like a bully to do it. Don't insult my intelligence."

Quotes from Blanche's opening:

"Here is what I expect that you will learn happened: President Trump, for years, built a very large, successful company. He employs thousands of people. It's a purely private company. Not like AT&T or FedEx, publicly traded. And when he became President in 2017, he put up a wall between himself and his company, as the People just alluded to. He put his entire company in a Trust. He did this so that he could run the country, and he wouldn't have anything to do with his company while he was President."

Has not been established or even discussed to date.

"Now, you just heard the People's theory about that $35,000, that it really wasn't a monthly retainer, that Michael Cohen was actually trying to cover up with President Trump the payback of this $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, who also goes by Ms. Clifford, Stephanie Clifford.

More significantly than that, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to learn that this was not a payback. The $35,000 a month was not a payback to Mr. Cohen for the money that he gave to Ms. Daniels."

No discussion of any of that in the cross of Cohen so far. I mean, even Blanche refers to it as a reimbursement to Cohen during his cross.

FTR: Here's what Blanche said about Stormy in his opening. Twisty phrasing to avoid saying what went down, with the insinuation that it was all about the Apprentice; that the Apprentice was the entitiy that brought up the subject of stormy being on the show:

"I expect Ms. Clifford/Stormy Daniels will testify. She is, similarly, extremely biased against President Trump. You will hear that he met her several years ago in 2006. I may have said 2008 earlier. In 2006, some 18 years ago. Then, at the time, as some of you may remember, President Trump was running a very popular TV show called The Apprentice, which was looking -- always looking for new opportunities and had a series of communications with Ms. Daniels. But, ultimately, it did not work out."

And this on Pecker (which is not what happened when Pecker took the stand):

"But, I encourage you to listen over the next couple of days -- well, listen to the whole trial, but certainly over the next couple of days when you hear Mr. Pecker testify about this supposed catch and kill. Listen to what he says about his motivation to sell magazines, not surprising, and whether it really is a catch and kill, and whether what the People just told you lines up with what the witness is going to say on that stand."

Still betting on a hung jury, but that has to do with human nature, and not this pathetic showing by the defense.

[SuzieC]

Thank you. Pathetic showing by the defense vs. Sterngard's pathetic showing by the prosecution. We'll know soon enough who is right. I vote for pathetic showing by the defense.

[realist]

I still have no idea how they get to the underlying crime without Weisselberg’s corroborating testimony.

Even if he lied and or took the Fifth, I still say better than the nothing, it seems to me at least, they presented in that regard.

[bob]

I still have no idea how they get to the underlying crime without Weisselberg’s corroborating testimony.

The underlying crime is state election fraud, and I believe Cohen's testimony is sufficient (but not the strongest) for that.

[Kendra]

I don't have a link, and too lazy to look it up, but I heard reported that an email went out that court is starting earlier tomorrow to get things moving. Shoot me if I'm wrong