Will Trump's Lawyers ask Cohen about Trump's Alleged Crimes?

[Seymour Flops]

I don't think they can, in cross-examination. If I understand it correctly (and I may not), they are only allowed to cross-examine Cohen about things he said during the direct examination.

Since he provided no evidence of any crimes committed by Trump, they cannot ask about crimes.

I guess the best question would be, "why are you wasting our time?"

Cohen did tell the jury that Trump lives rent-free in his head.

The upshot of the questioning was that Cohen was making a living off attacking Trump after he lost his law license following his 2018 guilty plea to charges including campaign finance violations linked to the hush money scheme.

Cohen tried to put another spin on it. Asked what his goal was of putting out a TikTok nearly every night, he said: “Build an audience, to create a community, to really vent because I have a difficult time sleeping, so I found an outlet.”

I'm sure everyone on the jury knows a couple of people like that.

Whatever happened to that "Books by Crooks" laws? I could have sworn that after Watergate, and the Son of Sam, they passed laws preventing criminals like Cohen from proffiting from book deals.

He admitted to being a liar, including when under oath. That said, what was the point of putting him under oath again? Just let him sit down and start slinging the bull.

Cohen explained that he lied on Trump’s behalf to Congress in 2017 during the Russia investigation, and that he was “misleading” when he told the Federal Election Commission about the $130,000 payment to Daniels in a 2018 letter.

But Trump made him do it!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/politics/takeaways-michael-cohen-testimony-donald-trump-day-16/index.html

 

[jackflash]

I don't think they can, in cross-examination. If I understand it correctly (and I may not), they are only allowed to cross-examine Cohen about things he said during the direct examination.

Since he provided no evidence of any crimes committed by Trump, they cannot ask about crimes.

I guess the best question would be, "why are you wasting our time?"

Cohen did tell the jury that Trump lives rent-free in his head.

The upshot of the questioning was that Cohen was making a living off attacking Trump after he lost his law license following his 2018 guilty plea to charges including campaign finance violations linked to the hush money scheme.

Cohen tried to put another spin on it. Asked what his goal was of putting out a TikTok nearly every night, he said: “Build an audience, to create a community, to really vent because I have a difficult time sleeping, so I found an outlet.”

I'm sure everyone on the jury knows a couple of people like that.

Whatever happened to that "Books by Crooks" laws? I could have sworn that after Watergate, and the Son of Sam, they passed laws preventing criminals like Cohen from proffiting from book deals.

He admitted to being a liar, including when under oath. That said, what was the point of putting him under oath again? Just let him sit down and start slinging the bull.

Cohen explained that he lied on Trump’s behalf to Congress in 2017 during the Russia investigation, and that he was “misleading” when he told the Federal Election Commission about the $130,000 payment to Daniels in a 2018 letter.

But Trump made him do it!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/politics/takeaways-michael-cohen-testimony-donald-trump-day-16/index.html

The only losers in this ludicrous vaudevillian style comedy are the American taxpaying constituency that are footing the legal bill for all this show boating.

Legal pursuits of Trump come at high cost for taxpayers, former president's PAC 'Save America': report

Former President Trump's PAC "Save America" has spent more than $20 million in legal fees since the start of 2023, while special counsel investigations have cost taxpayers over $13 million since 2020.

www.foxbusiness.com

.

 

[Care4all]

Since he provided no evidence of any crimes committed by Trump, they cannot ask about crimes.

That is not how it works. You can't bring a previous criminal offense in to a trial, of a defendant that is not related to the present trial.

Whatever happened to that "Books by Crooks" laws? I could have sworn that after Watergate, and the Son of Sam, they passed laws preventing criminals like Cohen from proffiting from book deals.

Books by crooks is only for violent criminals, is my understanding, and may only prevent them, while incarcerated??

The only losers in this ludicrous vaudevillian style comedy are the American taxpaying constituency that are footing the legal bill for all this show boating.

This is a NY State trial, so only the people of New York are paying....

 

[Smokin' OP]

I don't think they can, in cross-examination. If I understand it correctly (and I may not), they are only allowed to cross-examine Cohen about things he said during the direct examination.

Since he provided no evidence of any crimes committed by Trump, they cannot ask about crimes.

I guess the best question would be, "why are you wasting our time?"

Cohen did tell the jury that Trump lives rent-free in his head.

The upshot of the questioning was that Cohen was making a living off attacking Trump after he lost his law license following his 2018 guilty plea to charges including campaign finance violations linked to the hush money scheme.

Cohen tried to put another spin on it. Asked what his goal was of putting out a TikTok nearly every night, he said: “Build an audience, to create a community, to really vent because I have a difficult time sleeping, so I found an outlet.”

I'm sure everyone on the jury knows a couple of people like that.

Whatever happened to that "Books by Crooks" laws? I could have sworn that after Watergate, and the Son of Sam, they passed laws preventing criminals like Cohen from proffiting from book deals.

He admitted to being a liar, including when under oath. That said, what was the point of putting him under oath again? Just let him sit down and start slinging the bull.

Cohen explained that he lied on Trump’s behalf to Congress in 2017 during the Russia investigation, and that he was “misleading” when he told the Federal Election Commission about the $130,000 payment to Daniels in a 2018 letter.

But Trump made him do it!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/13/politics/takeaways-michael-cohen-testimony-donald-trump-day-16/index.html

Cohen admitted he was knee deep in the Trump cult, and is paying the price for it.

Just like these losers.

Jan. 6 Capitol Rioters Arrests and Sentences So Far​

Time Magazine
https://time.com › Politics › January 6
Jan 6, 2022 — So far, the median prison sentence for the Jan. 6 rioters is 60 days, according to TIME's calculation of the public records. An additional 113 ...



And these losers.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That is not how it works. You can't bring a previous criminal offense in to a trial, of a defendant that is not related to the present trial.

What?

Trump was never convicted of any previous criminal offense, but the charge includes concealing "another crime." If they don't bring that "other crime" into it, how can they prove that Trump was concealing it?

Books by crooks is only for violent criminals, is my understanding, and may only prevent them, while incarcerated??

This is a NY State trial, so only the people of New York are paying....

New York is one of the most heavily federally subsidized states in the nation, and this is what they waste my money on.

 

[jackflash]

That is not how it works. You can't bring a previous criminal offense in to a trial, of a defendant that is not related to the present trial.

Books by crooks is only for violent criminals, is my understanding, and may only prevent them, while incarcerated??

This is a NY State trial, so only the people of New York are paying....

The constituency of the state of New York are still tax paying folks & the cost of this showboat trial of Donaldo will be included in the taxes owed by the constituency of New York state.

 

[BackAgain]

That is not how it works. You can't bring a previous criminal offense in to a trial, of a defendant that is not related to the present trial.

Yes. For better or for worse, under some circumstances, you can. It’s called Molineux.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This is a NY State trial, so only the people of New York are paying....

https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/DAs-Budget-Note.pdf

Like I said: This is what Bragg wastes my money on.

 

[Care4all]

View attachment 947388

https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/DAs-Budget-Note.pdf

Like I said: This is what Bragg wastes my money on.

1.7 million in fed funds ACROSS ALL offices in NY state.... For the full year.

Nope! Federal tax payers are not spending or paying millions on this trial.

 

[para bellum]

1.7 million in fed funds ACROSS ALL offices in NY state.... For the full year.

Nope! Federal tax payers are not spending or paying millions on this trial.

Who do you think footed the bill for all the investigations by the SDNY?

Bragg only has it because the DOJ knew it was a dog.

 

[para bellum]

Bragg subpoenas the Executive Vice President and Managing Editor of Random House Publishing, who brings their Corporate counsel with her. They have to travel from Westchester County to Manhattan.

The reason? So she can read to the jury a couple anecdotes from 2 books by Trump that Penguin published 20 years ago.

That's pretty feeble. This poor woman has no knowledge of the case, but she was dragged into that courtroom, along with a corporate lawyer, just to read a few sentences from some old books by Trump.

That's the kind of shit you do when you have no case...

 

[Care4all]

Who do you think footed the bill for all the investigations by the SDNY?

Bragg only has it because the DOJ knew it was a dog.

Ah, switching your story now, I see....

INFORM YOURSELF!

SDNY was head in to investigating and prosecuting trump for his crimes but the DoJ, Bill Barr forced them to stop. SDNY did not choose to drop this, they were FORCED to drop this by Trump's crony AG.

 

[para bellum]

Ah, switching your story now, I see....

INFORM YOURSELF!

SDNY was head in to investigating and prosecuting trump for his crimes but the DoJ, Bill Barr forced them to stop. SDNY did not choose to drop this, they were FORCED to drop this by Trump's crony AG.

Not true. Cohen pled guilty in 2018. Berman wasn't fired until mid-2020. That was actually over some business with Turkey.

Barr was concerned about the way Cohen was handled, and put a hold on the campaign finance investigation for two months, then it went forward. Berman talked about it in an interview on NPR:

"BERMAN: For two months, the team that was investigating the campaign finance violations was not allowed by Bill Barr to look at a single document in their possession until Barr resolved these issues to his satisfaction. And it was so troubling to the office, to the Southern District of New York, that that's when I was read into the case because our team was sitting there unable to do anything, to pursue any of the investigation that they wanted to do. And it was, you know, really interfering with the integrity and independence of our office.

And so I was ready to unrecuse myself from the Michael Cohen - the post-Cohen investigation on campaign finance, and direct the team, in opposition to Barr's order, to go ahead with the investigation. And fortunately, Audrey Strauss, who, at that point, was my deputy, had convinced Barr to allow us to proceed with the investigation. And we did."

<snip>

"GROSS: So to get back to the Michael Cohen case, just remind us what the outcome was.

BERMAN: Well, in the Michael Cohen case, he pled guilty, and he was sentenced. And the investigation into the campaign finance violations was allowed to occur. And it reached a conclusion, and no one was charged."

 

[Care4all]

Not true. Cohen pled guilty in 2018. Berman wasn't fired until mid-2020. That was actually over some business with Turkey.

Barr was concerned about the way Cohen was handled, and put a hold on the campaign finance investigation for two months, then it went forward. Berman talked about it in an interview on NPR:

"BERMAN: For two months, the team that was investigating the campaign finance violations was not allowed by Bill Barr to look at a single document in their possession until Barr resolved these issues to his satisfaction. And it was so troubling to the office, to the Southern District of New York, that that's when I was read into the case because our team was sitting there unable to do anything, to pursue any of the investigation that they wanted to do. And it was, you know, really interfering with the integrity and independence of our office.

And so I was ready to unrecuse myself from the Michael Cohen - the post-Cohen investigation on campaign finance, and direct the team, in opposition to Barr's order, to go ahead with the investigation. And fortunately, Audrey Strauss, who, at that point, was my deputy, had convinced Barr to allow us to proceed with the investigation. And we did."

<snip>

"GROSS: So to get back to the Michael Cohen case, just remind us what the outcome was.

BERMAN: Well, in the Michael Cohen case, he pled guilty, and he was sentenced. And the investigation into the campaign finance violations was allowed to occur. And it reached a conclusion, and no one was charged."

Cy Vance, former DA who had the case before Bragg....


What do you make of that general line of criticism?

VANCE: Well, I think the indictment of the president's - former president himself is an extraordinary event. There's no getting around that. And it's an important event, legally and culturally. So that's - my first reaction is we - is that everybody has reason to be very focused on the sort of severity of where we are right now and the divisions within our country. That said, I also agree with you, Scott, that we need to all hold our fire. The only person who really knows why he made the decision is Alvin Bragg, and the facts that will support or not support his decision will be laid out when the indictment is dismissed. Until then, I think we all can have our political viewpoints, but we need to let the process play out.

DETROW: You said the only person who knows exactly why this is moving forward at this time is Alvin Bragg. You might be closest to him, though, because you held this job and you were DA when the initial probe into the former president began. Why did you make that decision? Because, look, prosecutors - we know prosecutors make choices - what to investigate, what to charge. Why did you begin that broader investigation? What were you looking for?

VANCE: Well, I'm not going to be able, Scott, to get into the internal conversations of the office, which are confidential and some covered by grand jury privilege. But I will say this, that I think it's public record that we commenced the investigation at around the same time as the Southern District of New York did. I was asked - we were asked by the Southern District of New York to stand down. We did stand down for probably over a year. And then it got to the point where Michael Cohen was indicted and pleaded guilty, and then it stopped. So that was one reason why we didn't move forward at the beginning.

DETROW: I do want to ask about the timeline here, because it's something that's come up a lot over the past few days. These payments happened in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Cohen provided all of the broad strokes of this to the public in that very memorable appearance before Congress, which was in 2019. So a lot of the basic facts here were known while you were still in office. Was this particular dynamic - the Stormy Daniels payments - was that part of your investigation? Why didn't this go forward earlier, when most of these facts were known?

VANCE: Well, I think I've given you the answer with regard to at least one aspect, that we were asked to. We were asked because the federal prosecutors were looking at it. They had better laws. So up until Michael Cohen pleaded guilty - and then this was really something that the federal government had asked that we not get involved with. But, you know, and also, I think it's well known that there are, you know - that, as a matter of New York law, unlike federal law, there are novel issues around using the false statements statute in connection with committing a crime that violates federal election laws. There's no surprise there or secret there. So there were a number of reasons that caused us to think carefully.

 

[para bellum]

Cy Vance, former DA who had the case before Bragg....


What do you make of that general line of criticism?

VANCE: Well, I think the indictment of the president's - former president himself is an extraordinary event. There's no getting around that. And it's an important event, legally and culturally. So that's - my first reaction is we - is that everybody has reason to be very focused on the sort of severity of where we are right now and the divisions within our country. That said, I also agree with you, Scott, that we need to all hold our fire. The only person who really knows why he made the decision is Alvin Bragg, and the facts that will support or not support his decision will be laid out when the indictment is dismissed. Until then, I think we all can have our political viewpoints, but we need to let the process play out.

DETROW: You said the only person who knows exactly why this is moving forward at this time is Alvin Bragg. You might be closest to him, though, because you held this job and you were DA when the initial probe into the former president began. Why did you make that decision? Because, look, prosecutors - we know prosecutors make choices - what to investigate, what to charge. Why did you begin that broader investigation? What were you looking for?

VANCE: Well, I'm not going to be able, Scott, to get into the internal conversations of the office, which are confidential and some covered by grand jury privilege. But I will say this, that I think it's public record that we commenced the investigation at around the same time as the Southern District of New York did. I was asked - we were asked by the Southern District of New York to stand down. We did stand down for probably over a year. And then it got to the point where Michael Cohen was indicted and pleaded guilty, and then it stopped. So that was one reason why we didn't move forward at the beginning.

DETROW: I do want to ask about the timeline here, because it's something that's come up a lot over the past few days. These payments happened in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Michael Cohen provided all of the broad strokes of this to the public in that very memorable appearance before Congress, which was in 2019. So a lot of the basic facts here were known while you were still in office. Was this particular dynamic - the Stormy Daniels payments - was that part of your investigation? Why didn't this go forward earlier, when most of these facts were known?

VANCE: Well, I think I've given you the answer with regard to at least one aspect, that we were asked to. We were asked because the federal prosecutors were looking at it. They had better laws. So up until Michael Cohen pleaded guilty - and then this was really something that the federal government had asked that we not get involved with. But, you know, and also, I think it's well known that there are, you know - that, as a matter of New York law, unlike federal law, there are novel issues around using the false statements statute in connection with committing a crime that violates federal election laws. There's no surprise there or secret there. So there were a number of reasons that caused us to think carefully.

Is there a point?

Vance put it on hold for a year while the DOJ went after Cohen. Yes, we knew that. It didn't stop him from going after Trump's tax records, and after the DOJ closed the investigation Vance picked it back up.

And got nowhere, and ultimately closed the investigation without charging anyone.

And when Bragg came in, he said he said he wasn't going to pursue it. Obviously that didn't sit well, because the #3 man in Biden's DOJ was sent to New York to prosecute Trump.

Nothing in this joke of a case dates after 2018. Everything they brought to court, they've had for 6 years or more.

This is nothing but a political prosecution of the opponent for the purpose of influencing the 2024 election.

And the law of unintended consequences always applies, and I don't think the dems will like where this ends...