#TrumpTrial started earlier than I did today. Grabbing coffee, starting THREAD HERE🧵1/… #Trump#legal
Here’s the list of Trump’s allies attending his trial today:
AG Alan Wilson
Rep. Eric Burlison
Rep. Andrew Clyde
Rep. Mary Miller
Rep. Keith Self
John Coale
Alan Dershowitz
Will Scharf
Steve Witkoff
Bernie Kerik
Kash Patel
Vernon Jones
Jerry Kassar
Chuck Zito
Out in the hallway, Trump (blue tie today) addresses the pool reporters with general complaints about the case. He says he should be out campaigning. Lather, rinse, repeat, as I like to say.
It's an early day: both parties are already seated at their respective tables. Just before he sat down, Trump mouthed "how are you" in the direction of the prosecution team.
Pool photographers enter and snap away at Blanche and Trump, frowning as they usually do.
The prosecution has already raised the issue of Trump's every-changing entourage—and the involved security details that accompany some of the case of characters—with the judge on May 16.
Next issue: defense exhibits. Hoffinger says the prosecution was objecting to two exhibits, but now it's down to one, which she has a hearsay objection on.
It's defense exhibit 1005: an email from Costello's partner (Citron) to Michael Cohen following their initial communications.
Blanche says the email is direct impeachment against what Cohen testified on direct and cross on Tues/Thurs.
BLANCHE: We're not offering this for the truth but impeachment.
MERCHAN: It would be the truth of the statement you're impeaching him with right?
BLANCHE: It depends on how he answers
MERCHAN: But how he answers it at that point the cat's out of the bag, the jury has heard it.
Hoffinger rises for the counterargument: Citron's opinion is not an impeachment of how Cohen felt the meeting went, and whether it's impeachment or not, it's still hearsay. This doesn't disclose what was in Michael Cohen's mind about how he felt the meeting went.
Merchan remains firm. He mentions there's actually two layers of hearsay, and at this moment he's not going to let it in.
Nowhere in this email does it express Mr Cohen's state of mind...this is double hearsay, Merchan says with some finality.
Understood your honor, Blanche says, and mentions that he'd like to ask him questions about it and dozens of other emails.
Merchan also mentions that, as Bove knows, the prosecution does not have to prove the object offenses beyond a reasonable doubt:
Bove continues to argue his case, but Merchan maintains that the witness would be presenting the law with the authority of a legal expert—one relying on SCOTUS opinions and other legal opinions, which would not be appropriate.
BOVE: What makes this case different is the predicate for the 175.10 charge (the NY state election law) is it's only unlawful if there is unlawful activity. Otherwise, it's just agreement to win an election.
👉🏼After Merchan cuts in, Bove waves his arms and continues to try to argue, but Merchan calms him down, and says "relax."
"I'm going to be consistent with my earlier rulings," Merchan says, reminding Bove that the People initially had 4 theories, and he ruled against one of them.
Bc the expert witness is a lawyer, law prof, and former FEC commission, his entire experience in understanding how these terms apply/are defined is based on interpretation, Colangelo says for his last point.
Merchan maintains his ruling.
That's done, and Blanche asks to approach about a "scheduling issue."
As we wait for the morning to resume, I overhear a reporter in the gallery say, somewhat dejectedly: "Well, it looks like we're going to be here for another week."
For Necheles and Habba, perhaps the real treasure of the first criminal prosecution of a former president is the friends we make along the way.:
Via erica orden
We are taking a 10-minute break. As they exit the courtroom, Alina Habba and Susan Necheles are walking side-by-side with their arms around each other.
@GottaLaff NFL I miss Katie Phang’s reporting. McBride interjects his opinions way too much, and focuses on pointless details like what reporters are whispering to each other or the color of somebody’s tie. I guess being snarky is his brand, but I’m not amused.
Spotted in the men's room during the break: one of Trump's favorite legal scholars, Jonathan Turley.
And we're back.
Merchan asks for one side to draft some instructions, then the other to "do the red line," and says If the two sides can agree on the definitions of these terms that's all the better. Also mentions his preference to keep it as simple as possible.
18/ NOTE: Needless to say, because of my late start, I haven't read any of your replies since yesterday. I'll do my best to catch up at some point. ALSO: Please remember to use NFL (Not the hashtag... Not For Laffy) so I can easily skip those replies when I'm live posting.
How about prosecutors, how many times have you met with them?
COHEN: More than a dozen
BLANCHE: So like more than 12, but 20 times?
COHEN: It's possible.
Cohen says he met with prosecutors as recently as 10 days ago.
What's a question you were asked last week that you were hearing for the first time Blanche asks, but Cohen isn't sure. How about documents, you reviewed those in prep with prosecutors? That's correct, Cohen says.
When they asked you questions on direct examination last week, you'd heard those questions before during prep?
Some of them. There were many questions that I had not heard before, Cohen says. But he can't recall a specific example of a question he hadn't heard before.
Around the time, Blanche says, Cohen was dealing with some significant restructuring of his taxi medallion business, and an issue with a loan or sale related to an investment property of Cohen's.
So basically, a lot going on.
More going on in Oct 2016: Cohen's work with the diversity coalition; working closely Pecker on another issue about iPayments(?); helping Tiffany Trump with a photo extortion issue.
Recall during Keith Davidson's testimony, he described Cohen around this time as frantic and "pants on fire."
Cohen himself also said that he would field up to 100 calls a day at this time.
It ain't easy being a fixer.
Blanche pulls up B130, a text from someone named Carrie on 9/28/16—further communications on the taxi medallion issue I believe. B132 10/13/16 email, a medallion acquisition proposal.
All of this seems to further the point that Cohen was a busy bee in Oct 2016.
Trump's team is really trying to direct jury's attention to way Cohen interacts with journalists & prosecutors
The unstated theme here is that everyone's all wrapped up in a big conspiracy against the former president.
As always, there's an odd line of questioning as Blanche probes Cohen's business deals in Oct. 2016—the same time he was working on the Stormy hush money deal.
Trump's lawyer explores how Cohen was working on his taxi medallion side gig. Let's see where this goes
@GottaLaff
NFL
Misdirect, obfuscate, gaslight. Repeat for the remainder of the trial, never addressing the actual charges and evidence, banking on confusing at least one juror into not convicting Trump.
Blanche questions Cohen about text messages related to his taxi medallion business, which have not been entered into evidence — and therefore, aren't shown to the jury.
Explainer:
The defense has latitude to show the witness information to refresh his memory, even if it hasn't been formally entered into evidence.
Blanche asks about Friedman, to whom Cohen leased his taxi medallion, and, separately, the owner of Resolution Consultants, with whom Cohen was also in touch around this time.
Again, all this seems to suggest that Cohen had many irons in the fire around this time.
Q: During that time period, do you recall having issues with Freidman bc of his financial situation?
A: Bc of the entire taxi industry financial situation.
Blanche says he's not interested in talking about the entire taxi industry, but I, for one, would love to do just that.
Just before a brief sidebar, Blanche was asking about Cohen finding Freidman a lawyer
Back to the iPayments litigation (which we had spoken about during Pecker's testimony)—Cohen says he attempted to settle that litigation in part out of a friendship with Pecker.
Blanche explores what else Michael Cohen was up to on the week of Oct. 26, 2016, the day that he executed the payoff to Stormy Daniels through his shell company.
Blanche asks Cohen more about his work with Pastor Scott, the Tiffany Trump blackmail issue—all of which was happening the week of 10/24/16.
We zero in on two calls between Trump and Cohen on 10/26/16: Cohen testified the reason why he wanted to speak to Trump on that day was to get approval for the payments.
Do you remember what Trump was doing on that day? Blanche asks, but Cohen doesn't remember. Blanche shows B168
BLANCHE: Do you remember that morning that Trump was going to sit down for an interview with ABC News? Does it ring a bell that it was going to be with his entire family too, including Melania?
Objection—sustained, but Blanche asks again, objection again—sustained.
Klasfeld:
👉🏼The last sustained objection, by Justice Merchan, was more emphatic if a little annoyed that his prior rulings apparently had been ignored.
With all that going on, why focus on Stormy Daniels?
Because it was important to me, Cohen says.
Was fixing Tiffany Trump's situation important to you? Wouldn't that be someting you would update her father about?
Important yes, but no updates no, Cohen says.
My recollection was that I spoke to Trump about Stormy Daniels because that was what he tasked me to take care of, and that's what I had been working on, Cohen says.
Blanche's line of questioning here with Michael Cohen appears to be trying to create the impression that Cohen had a lot going on in late October 2016. OK! Not sure where that lands for anyone.
We get closer to the heart of the matter: the meeting btwn Trump, Weisselberg, and Cohen about the "retainer agreement" and the reimbursement structure.
We're getting some great imagery of Cohen the fixer: answering and placing dozens of phone calls a day, running around town with a brown paper bag filled with tens of thousands of dollars in cash.
Trump defense counsel Todd Blanche elicits from Cohen that when he took a "reimbursement" from the Trump Org for payment to a company called RedFinch, he was ripping off the Trump Org. He had only paid RedFinch $20k, but he was "reimbursed" $100k by Trump Org for the payment.
👉🏼Blanche is yelling at Cohen about it, Cohen is calmly and repeatedly affirming that yes, that was him stealing from the Trump Org.
Back to the money that Cohen pocketed, Blanche launches at Cohen: Have you paid back the Trump Org the money that you stole from them?
No sir, Cohen says.
The Red Finch subplot has moved to center stage right now.
During the convo with Weisselberg to cover up the $130k payment, Blanche asks, you lied to him about how much you owed to Red Finch? (Blanche asks twice)
Correct, says Cohen.
Had there been a meeting about a retainer agreement, it would have only been between attorney (Cohen) and client (Trump).
🤦🏻♀️Another question, but a confused Cohen screws up his face and asks Blanche to rephrase, but it's so mangled that Blanche just withdraws the question.😂
Closing arguments in Trump's New York criminal trial will begin the Tuesday after Memorial Day — May 28 — Judge Merchan says, to ensure there are not multiple days between summations and deliberations.
WHICH SUCKS because I'll be in the car on my way to Canada, which will make it REALLY hard to do any live posting.
The defense submits B260 into evidence, 1/31/17 email response from Weisselberg to Cohen, re Note and mortgage modification agreement for Trump Park Ave condo—Thank you. You never stopped on for a bro hug. Anyway please prepare the agreement we discussed so we can pay you monthly
Now we're talking email signatures: starting in 2017, Cohen signed his emails as he always had, except instead of personal attny to the CEO of Trump Org, it was to the president of the United States.
You told everyone about your new role?
Well, not everyone, says Cohen.
You told TMZ? (Yes) You gave a little scoop to the NYT? (Yes) You announced it on Hannity? (Yes)
McB: While technically not everyone, I think it's fair to say he told most people. Cohen was a fixer—and a gossip.
And is one of the things you did as Trump's attorney help Trump find attorneys to work a case? Correct.
You recall doing that in Jan. or Feb. in 2017? Yes, sir.
For example, there were reporters making defamatory statements about Trump...it was part of your job to help w/ that? Yes, sir.
There were legal filings in that case? Yes.
You helped with the filings? I reviewed the documents, yes.
You recall helping Trump serve subpoenas on government agencies? No, sir.
You recall working with Mr. Kasowitz about serving subpoenas? Blanche asks again. Cohen says he received an email related to those matters.
Press:
Blanche: You worked on a real lawsuit, with filings due, with Marc Kasowitz, right?
Cohen: Yes
Blanche: Show B-237. Subpoenas of the State Department? Did you do something on this?
Cohen: Yes, sir.
Blanche: In May 2017 Robert Mueller was appointed
65/ Okay, I'm back, I triumphed over Mr. BlowDryer once again, time to catch up.
Via Katie Phang:
BLANCHE: In May 2017, [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller began his investigation, did that affect your relationship [with Trump]? COHEN: It did not
BLANCHE: Later in the year did it affect your relationship? COHEN: Yes.
as blanche cross-examination of cohen stretches on, some members of the jury are looking a little glazed over. some still watching blanche intently, but some of them starting to yawn, look around the courtroom.
Katie's Sidebar:
From inside of the courtroom, we're getting reporting that the jury is having a tough time staying alert for this cross-examination by Blanche. Jurors are rubbing their eyes, shifting in their seats.
I don't blame them. Once again, Blanche has lost the plot here. With cross-examination, you get in and get out. Dragging it out for more hours doesn't make any sense.
At some point in time, you'd expect the Prosecution to get up and object to the questions being "asked and answered," and yet, I'm thinking that the Prosecution is reading the room (more specifically, reading the jury box) and letting Blanche just be all out there boring them.
BLANCHE: How much were you paid in 2017 by Trump personally? COHEN: 9 checks, $35,000 a piece
BLANCHE: The other two came from the Trust? COHEN: yes
BLANCHE: you continued to get paid all 12 months, correct? COHEN: Yes sir
BLANCHE: That was the agreement that was struck? COHEN: yes sir
BLANCHE: you also did a ton of consulting work in 2017?
COHEN: I did consulting work, i don't how to define a little or a lot, i had consulting clients, 6 in total, I made $4 million
BLANCHE: You told Pres Trump you had 6 consulting agreements? COHEN: i did not specifically tell mr trump that, no
BLANCHE: at some point he found out? COHEN: I believe so
Blanche is running Cohen through all of his consulting clients, emphasizing for the jury how much Cohen made off of his relationship/connections to Trump.
72/Me: Sorry this is disjointed. Trying to find threads on Threads is impossible, ironically.
Phang:
BLANCHE: You told multiple people that Pres Trump knew nothing about the payment? COHEN: Yes sir
BLANCHE: you called Melania and told her trump didn’t know about it? COHEN: No, not that I recall.
@GottaLaff it seems there’s like 3 attached then you need to go back to account to find next three. That’s what happens to me when I tried to read Katie Phangs
BLANCHE: Were you told you should keep that quiet? COHEN: Not that I recall, no sir BLANCHE: Putting aside whether you were told that, you didn’t keep it quiet? COHEN: I did not
BLANCHE: You spoke to [Maggie] Haberman and told her Pres Trump did not know about it and you said that on the record? COHEN: yes, on the record
BLANCHE: You told anybody who asked that Pres Trump knew nothing about the payment, you told reporters, friends and family? COHEN: correct
Now Blanche is asking Cohen about Robert Costello:
BLANCHE: On April 17th you had a meeting with Costello and Citron? COHEN: yes they came to me, i don’t recall how long. BLANCHE: You had multiple communications with Mr Costello over the next several months? COHEN: 10 calls, maybe a few more BLANCHE: after first meeting, a few days later, costello followed up and said he spoke to someone you’d asked him to speak to? COHEN: Yes sir
As of last week, Robert Costello has indicated to NBC News that he has not been requested to testify, but that he was willing to do so.
Could we see Costello take the stand? I don't think it would be good for Trump for Costello to testify.
Costello's communications with Cohen are not good for Trump: i.e. "Sleep well, you've got friends in high places" and Rudy Giuliani is a backchannel to Pres. Trump)
Cohen testifies that he did ask Costello to have Rudy Giuliani find out why "the matter ended up in the SDNY and in particular who in Main Justice approved this," as Costello wrote to Cohen in an April 23, 2018 email.
On May 15, 2018, Cohen reads from an email that he wrote to Costello, copying Citron: "As I have stated in the past, when the right time comes, and now is not the right time, we will advance our conversations regarding the issue."
BLANCHE: Would it surprise you to learn you communicated with Costello 75 times? COHEN: It seems high but possible BLANCHE: would it surprise you to learn there were multiple calls that lasted over a half hour COHEN: No sir BLANCHE: that you spoke over nine hours with Mr. costello, would that surprise you? COHEN:: No sir BLANCHE: A Memorial day weekend call that lasted an hour and a half? Do you recall weekend calls that lasted a long time? COHEN: yes sir
BLANCHE: Based on your recollection did you initiate more calls or did Mr. Costello? COHEN: to the best of my recollection, “I believe Mr. Costello reached out more to me”
BLANCHE: Those nine hours of calls that you had, how many times did you meet in person? COHEN: once or twice I believe
BLANCHE: You understood those were privileged conversations? COHEN: yes sir, in anticipation of potential representation
BLANCHE: The fact that you did not sign an engagement letter did not mean those calls and meetings were not privileged? COHEN: correct
EXHIBIT B1013 JUNE 14th email at 11:44am EMAIL FROM COHEN TO COSTELLO "Trump’s campaign to discredit Michael Cohen is already underway”... "Since we are sharing this morning…they are again on a bad path"
BLANCHE: You were talking about Trump and his team trying to discredit you? COHEN: Correct
BLANCHE: You decided to cooperate shortly thereafter? COHEN: correct
BLANCHE: in the time you spoke with Costello to now, there was a change in whether trump org was paying for lawyers? COHEN: correct BLANCHE: what happened that caused you to write to Costello? COHEN: There were significant invoices being sent to Trump Org for payment and payment was not being paid in accordance with the invoices
BLANCHE: you wanted Costello in June 2018 to communicate to Giuliani that nonpayment was becoming an issue? COHEN: Yes sir
just before a ten minute morning break, trump defense counsel todd blanche lets the world know that there is a proposed TV show called "The Fixer" based on Cohen's life... that has not yet been picked up. (call now! operators standing by!)
Blanche notes that his journey has included near-daily attacks on Trump.
McB:
Back to Cohen's role as personal attorney to Trump:
You Trump trusted you? Yes. His family trusted you? Yes. His wife trusted you? Yes.
Part of your job was to give him counsel and discuss legal issues with Trump?
When did you view your attorney-client relationship w/ Trump as ending?
Objection—sustained.
Now some math from Blanche: Going back to the $420k you were paid, Blanche restarts, the "Stormy Daniels payment" was $130k and the $20k to RedFinch adds up to $150k, and the remainder was grossed up + the bonus.
You didn't claim that $35k on your taxes—objection, sustained.
Trump defense counsel Todd Blanche attempts to ask Michael Cohen about whether he paid taxes on the 35k/month payments he received from the Trump org to reimburse him for the hush money, etc.
Prosecution objects -- sustained.
Blanche asks to approach the bench. Bench conference.
We resume discussing the exorbitant amounts of money Cohen made during much of the past decade, 👉🏼as an underpaid, overworked press corps has to report it.
Q: If Trump is convicted that would benefit you personally, financially?
A: No sir.
Q: Then what is your financial interest in this case?
His personal interest, Cohen clarifies, is that he talks about the case on his podcast and TikTok.
Blanche asks again: would you financially benefit if Trump is convicted?
👉🏼"It's better if he's not, for me, because it gives me more to talk about in the future," Cohen says unironically, getting a respectable laugh from the press.👈🏼
92/ NOTE: ANY TYPOS OR MISTAKES ARE THEIRS, NOT MINE. I WON'T CORRECT, THAT'S UP TO THEM, AND I ADD CORRECTIONS WHEN THEY MAKE THEM.
McB:
Blanche asks: Isn't it true that you're willing to lie under oath if it affects you personally? and mentions that Blanche testified to that previously. But Hoffinger objects—sustained.
BLANCHE: Revenge is a dish best served cold? COHEN: Best served cold
BLANCHE: You meant it when you said it then and when you said it now? COHEN: yes sir
BLANCHE: This trial affects your personal life? COHEN: yes sir
BLANCHE: you also have said to this jury but i want to make sure I understand, that you would lie under oath out of loyalty?
OBJECTION SUSTAINED
BLANCHE: when you lied to congress, you said you were lying out of loyalty, correct? COHEN: Correct
BLANCHE: it’s true that you will lie out of loyalty, correct? COHEN: Yes sir
BLANCHE: Your testimony remains that notwithstanding everything you said over the years, you have a specific recollection on the phone with then-candidate Donald Trump about the Stormy Daniels payment? COHEN: yes sir, no doubt
No further questions from Blanche. Michael Cohen’s cross is over.
BLANCHE: do you have a financial interest in the outcome of this case.
COHEN: yes
BLANCHE: because if trump is convicted, then that will benefit you financially?
COHEN: no.
BLANCHE: then what is your financial interest? ... 1/2
COHEN: i make money by speaking about it, but whether trump is innocent or guilty is not going to affect whether i speak about it or not.
BLANCHE: (heated) the question is whether a CONVICTION benefits you.
COHEN: (firmly and loudly) the answer is no. (more quietly) if he's not, it gives me more to talk about in the future. (audible reaction in the courtroom).
2/2
She starts with Blanche's question about whether Cohen testified falsely in Congress in 2019—did you testify truthfully in Congress in 2019? (Yes, ma'am, it was 2017 when he lied, his initial answer was a mistake.)
Another clarification: defense asked whether Cohen discussed other matters with Trump on 10/26/16, in addition to the Daniels issue. He didn't have a "specific" recollection of other matters, but he does remember the Daniels matter bc it was important to him (yes ma'am.)
Trump: I was supposed to be in a different state this morning and the judge actually decided to call it early…. I’m not allowed to have anything to do with politics because I’m sitting in a very freezing cold courtroom. It’s very unfair
Back to RedFinch, we get more info on why Cohen hired them: a CNBC poll regarding the most famous businessman "in like the last century"—at the beginning of this poll he was polling toward the "very very bottom." Through the acquisition of IP addresses, RedFrinch said they 👉🏼create an algorithm to raise Trump in the polls.
The prosecution has started its redirect examination of cohen. it is fast paced and punchy. hoffinger moving cohen quickly through...
-- the $420k was not for legal services
-- cohen spoke with trump about the stormy scheme in october 2016
-- payments to redfinch for artificially boosting trump in a "famous business people" online poll at CNBC
Ongoing. Jury's heads are all up, watching Cohen closely.
CNBC canceled the poll anyway, so Trump didn't want to pay RedFinch because he didn't feel he got the benefit of what the funds were supposed to go to despite achieving #9 in the poll thanks to RedFinch.
"I was angered because of the reduction of the bonus," Cohen says, who said keeping that extra cash was "almost like self help." Though he admits it was wrongful.
In one of the many paradoxes of the trial, Michael Cohen's admission, under oath, that he stole $30,000 from the Trump Org may be damaging to the defense.
It was a falsely claimed reimbursement, and Team Trump's position is that the money wasn't a reimbursement. In fact, with grossing up, Cohen acknowledged that he stole significantly more than $30,000 from the Trump Org.
But Trump's lead lawyer Todd Blanche spent a significant amount of his cross suggesting the money was all for legal work—and said that explicitly in his opening. To be clear:
Cohen admitting that he stole from his employer hurts his credibility — but it also is entirely inconsistent with the theory of Trump's defense about what the money was and how Cohen got it.
As we wait for sidebar to end, the RedFinch figure keeps changing.
Exact figure aside, it seems that if your boss is known for not paying his bills, everyone under him will get what they can while the getting is good. Tone at the top kinda thing.
Another line from a Cohen statement—"The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone"—which Cohen calls untrue.
Now to the question about whether the outcome of the trial affects Cohen personally:
"It may feel like you're on trial...but are you on trial here?" Hoffinger asks. Objection—sustained.
Is your liberty at stake? No ma'am. Is your wife's liberty at stake? No ma'am.
😂Snooze Alert 😴 Though it is no longer news: Trump's eyes are closed.
Q: When you submitted each of your 11 invoices to the Trump Org for services rendered pursuant to the retainer agreement, was that true or false?
A: False.
We lather, rinse, repeat for the vouchers and stubs.
Prosecutor, Susan Hoffinger, is giving a masterclass on how to conduct a Re-Direct Examination of a witness. She’s cleaning up Cohen’s answers from cross only in the critically important areas and moving things along at a great pace.
Cohen signed a waiver agreement and submitted it to SDNY prosecutors in 2019, and we see that waiver agreement displayed on screen now.
Cohen reads from it.
At the time, Cohen had waived his attorney-client privilege w/r/t communications with Costello, though at the time he didn't really think such privilege existed, in order to answer questions.
😴It appeared Trump was fully out a few minutes ago and just woke up. His head was tipped back so far that he would have been looking at the ceiling when he opened his eyes.
Now Hoffinger asks about the time when Cohen caused his attorney to submit fake cases in his filings for early termination of supervised release.
McB:
Now back to when Cohen provided fake cases to his lawyer thanks to hallucinations made by Google Bard, which he had to use bc he didn't have access to Westlaw. ...Who among us.
Cohen explains, again, that he went on the AI site Google Bard to research cases. It gave him cases that looked legitimate, and he sent the cases to his lawyer to incorporate into the document.
woah: prosecution has a photo that shows on 10/24 Trump WAS INDEED with Schiller just minutes before the call Cohen said he had with both of them! Which Blanche had sought to refute.
133/ Wow! More happened after they broke for lunch. McB:
Jury excused, Merchan wants to discuss whatever matter they were addressing in sidebar.
Steinglass discusses 417A and B, photos of Trump and Schiller on evening of 10/24/16 to dispel any doubt that they were together then—evidence which defense objected to admitting.
134/ Me: This is what Andrew Weissmann was referring to above.
McB:
Blanche is up to push back: we never asked or implied that Schiller was or was not with Trump on that day, instead we argued that the phone call that was made to Schiller was about a different topic.
Further, Blanche says, both photos have the same hearsay problem—"That was argued and that...your honor didn't go with us"—it's inadmissible hearsay, he repeats.
Steinglass and Blanche are locked in argument about how to characterize parts of Blanche's argument—whether he was making a relevance argument or something else.
It's a meta-argument, and it's grinding on.
Merchan says he's not concerned about the relevance issue, but wants to look into the hearsay issue (the discussion of which we'll pick up after lunch).
At long last, we are dismissed for the long-promised, slightly delayed and deferred, lunch.
@GottaLaff@mastodonmigration I have to suspect they're playing to their client and not the court for these missteps.
Trump says "IDGAF whether you think it's a good idea, I'm the boss!" and another lawyer's reputation gets thrown in the toilet by the world's worst client.
Trump wanting to have the day off for Barron’s graduation gave the DA an extra day they used wisely, digging up video footage of Trump w/his bodyguard Schiller at almost the exact time Cohen said he called Schiller to speak to Trump. It will be the 1st thing played after lunch.
Is Michael Cohen an admitted thief that he testified he was under oath, or was the money he said he stole actually compensation for legal services rendered?
@GottaLaff This is kind of Evidence 101 - a photo must overcome both hearsay (a rando pic says Schiller was with Trump is being offered for the truth of the matter), and a "foundation" (the photo is what it purports to be).
I suspect someone from the media outlet could lay a foundation, and maybe even get past a hearsay objection with a creative business records argument, thereby obviating the need to chase down the original photographer.
if i was TFG's lawyers, i'd be thinking it's better he be sedated/asleep than that he f up this trial the way he did his recent civil court trial w/ all his acting out
@peachfront@GottaLaff I'm not sure if a defendant facing prison nods off. I know I wouldn't. I would want to hear every word spoken and see every facial expression. But that's me. Perhaps Trump thinks he isn't going to be convicted. Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't. Who knows? Whatever the reason, it disrespectful to the jury and the judge.
Is this a sarcastic "for some reason" - eg implying something like Fox wanting to avoid legal consequence? I am thrown by "for some reason" and wonder how people interpret it
@GottaLaff What a dumb answer from Cohen, assuming it's vaguely verbatim, as it suggest he will still lie in court now if it suits him.
A much better answer would be that going to jail for lying for Trump has taught him the error of his ways, and the "new" Cohen is not about to risk perjury charges to lie on anyone's behalf.
@GottaLaff NFL - are they somehow trying to imply that Cohen was on retainer and thus “legal fees” was appropriate? A retainer agreement is a retainer agreement. Unless they produce one, he wasn’t on retainer. Period.
Ah, it never occurred to the dumbass defense lawyers that Cohen was hired to be a CRIMINAL, not a LAWYER! Therefore he was paid, but not on a retainer.
What dumbasses the defense are. The jury will have no difficulty with this.
@GottaLaff one would expect courtroom public galleries to be equal access to all citizens, but this sounds like they're able to get preferential access, like a "VIP" access tier. Is anyone exploring how that is being controlled?
Add comment