News Flash: A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen, but it hangs on Did the former president “cause” the creation of false business records

[Procrustes Stretched]

The legitimacy of the evidence is determined by whether the jury believes Cohen. Good luck with that.

Nope. MAGA spin.

 

[BackAgain]

The dainty can’t wrap his biased tiny little pinhead around one crucial fact:

It is NOT the duty of the public prosecutor to seek a conviction. It instead the obligation and legal and ethical duty of the prosecutor to seek justice.

Sadly, nobody seems to have ever impressed this upon NY County District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Opinion
Guest Essay
Jeffrey Toobin

"A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen"

Opinion | A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen

As provocative as the testimony has been, this case may turn on something a great deal more mundane.

www.nytimes.com

Toobin asks "Did the former president “cause” the creation of false business records?"

Trump supporters have been attacking Trump's former long time, personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, just as they have attacked Stormy Daniels and other prosecution witnesses -- even attacking the witnesses who are not hostile to Trump, who even showed a like or respect for the man. But as I've said before -- the case against Trump doesn't rise or fall on the testimony of Cohen alone ("We don’t have to rely on just Cohen’s word. We can believe Cohen because of the receipts, the tapes and the hard evidence.”)

Trump supporters have been attacking people for discussing the historical trial happening in real time. Attacking people for discussing a criminal trial without precedent in the history of the United States, as somehow being an unhealthy obsession with Trump. As if being focused on a former president being tried in criminal court should somehow not be upper most in discussions around the proverbial water coolers. How desperate, pathetic, and sad that is I'll leave up to others to decide.

I like what Toobin has laid out in his article. While I do not claim him as being the last word on this, his insights and opinions are well informed and well argued.




If the jury is told the in instructions what the case is really about? There will be no not guilty verdict, no hung jury. Only a well reasoned guilty verdict.


quotes from reporters inside the courthouse today:

Emil Bove, a defense lawyer, is suggesting that the prosecutors, in their proposed jury instructions, has shifted their theory of the case. It sounds like he’s talking about the state election law that underlies the felony business records charges against Trump. Justice Merchan doesn’t seem to agree, but in any case, he says, the prosecution’s proposal for jury instructions holds no weight at the moment. It is only a proposal.

“Just relax,” Merchan tells the defense lawyer, as he continues to argue. Nothing, he signals, has been determined yet.

Bove continues to argue. He can tell that the judge is frustrated, but it’s clear that Bove is, too. If he believes that the prosecution changed its theory of the case in these final weeks, it would help to explain why he’s irate. Merchan seems to understand that, as Bove continues to push for more testimony from their proposed expert witness on election law.

Trump folds his arms over his chest as Bove finishes his argument. He then starts whispering to his lawyer as Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, begins to address the court.

Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, stands up and fights back. He says that “there’s nothing new at all” about the theory to which the defense is objecting. In short: the charges against Trump are felonies because prosecutors have argued that he falsified business records to conceal another crime. They have signaled that other crime was seeking to promote his own election "by unlawful means," in violation of state election law. That introduces a third potential crime.

So, if you’re keeping score, that’s three potential crimes, all wrapped into each of the 34 felony charges of falsifying business records.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/20/nyregion/trump-trial-hush-money

Interesting day.

Interesting what the cult is ignoring: Reporting from inside the courthouse

Robert Costello’s contempt for Michael Cohen is coming through in his words.

Robert Costello shakes his head in apparent frustration on the witness stand as the judge sustains several objections by the prosecutors.

As Justice Merchan sustains yet another objection, he is getting visibly irritated.

Trump shakes his head as the lawyers approach the bench for another sidebar.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The defense's first witness, Costello is looking to be a disaster as he starts disrespecting the Judge. It has been reported that not everyone on Trump's team wanted Costello on the stand. I have to wonder if Trump is the one who overruled everyone.

Now I wonder how does the MAGAworld see this? What are the Boosters of Magadonia reporting?

Costello, readers will recall, was called by the defense to attack Cohen’s credibility. So far he is attacking his own.

 

[BackAgain]

Interesting what the cult is ignoring: Reporting from inside the courthouse

Robert Costello’s contempt for Michael Cohen is coming through in his words.

Robert Costello shakes his head in apparent frustration on the witness stand as the judge sustains several objections by the prosecutors.

As Justice Merchan sustains yet another objection, he is getting visibly irritated.

Trump shakes his head as the lawyers approach the bench for another sidebar.

Notice that the dainty ^ isn’t concerned with the legal propriety of Merchan’s rulings.

 

[scruffy]

Except your push is nit in the courtroom where it could count.

You're out here tapping away on some keyboard on an anonymous interweb message board.

So are you, Sherlock.

Is it my imagination or has the left gone very, very quiet?

The Trump trials are a fucking joke and everyone knows it. All 3 of your prosecutors are corrupt, 2 of them are likely to be disbarred, and your star witnesses are making everyone chortle.

This current incarnation of democommiecrats is finished. Stick a fork in ya.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So are you, Sherlock.

Is it my imagination or has the left gone very, very quiet?

The Trump trials are a fucking joke and everyone knows it. All 3 of your prosecutors are corrupt, 2 of them are likely to be disbarred, and your star witnesses are making everyone chortle.

This current incarnation of democommiecrats is finished. Stick a fork in ya.

Not sure what world you are living in with these comments.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Interesting reporting from inside:

"Are you staring me down?": Judge clears the courtroom to severely admonish Costello

Minutes after he took the stand, Merchan severely admonished Costello over his behavior on the stand and ordered the courtroom cleared in an extremely rare move.

"If you don't like my ruling, you don't say 'geez.' You don't say 'strike it.' Because I'm the only one who can strike testimony," Merchan told Costello. "If you don't like my ruling, you don't give me side eye and you don't roll your eyes."

Costello had said "geez" after an objection was sustained following a defense question. He also made an exasperated "pfft" noise after another sustained objection.

After issuing the stern instructions to Costello, Merchan asked in a raised voice, "Are you staring me down?" On the audio feed in a nearby overflow room, Costello could be heard asking Merchan, "Do you want the answer to the question?"

"Remain quiet," Merchan said.

Prior to this exchange, the judge told Costello not to answer when he sustains an objection. Many of the questions asked by Trump's lawyer were objected to and sustained, seemingly due to the limited scope of what Merchan allowed Costello to testify about.

 

[Rogue AI]

Interesting reporting from inside:

"Are you staring me down?": Judge clears the courtroom to severely admonish Costello

Minutes after he took the stand, Merchan severely admonished Costello over his behavior on the stand and ordered the courtroom cleared in an extremely rare move.

"If you don't like my ruling, you don't say 'geez.' You don't say 'strike it.' Because I'm the only one who can strike testimony," Merchan told Costello. "If you don't like my ruling, you don't give me side eye and you don't roll your eyes."

Costello had said "geez" after an objection was sustained following a defense question. He also made an exasperated "pfft" noise after another sustained objection.

After issuing the stern instructions to Costello, Merchan asked in a raised voice, "Are you staring me down?" On the audio feed in a nearby overflow room, Costello could be heard asking Merchan, "Do you want the answer to the question?"

"Remain quiet," Merchan said.

Prior to this exchange, the judge told Costello not to answer when he sustains an objection. Many of the questions asked by Trump's lawyer were objected to and sustained, seemingly due to the limited scope of what Merchan allowed Costello to testify about.

Sounds like this faux judge is a triggered liberal twit. Thanks for providing evidence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The trial ends for the day. Now remember, Cohen is not on trial. Neither is the defense's damaging-to-the-defense witness Costello.

Only Donald Trump is on trial.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Opinion
Guest Essay
Jeffrey Toobin

"A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen"

Opinion | A Trump Conviction Doesn’t Hang on Michael Cohen

As provocative as the testimony has been, this case may turn on something a great deal more mundane.

www.nytimes.com

Toobin asks "Did the former president “cause” the creation of false business records?"

Trump supporters have been attacking Trump's former long time, personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, just as they have attacked Stormy Daniels and other prosecution witnesses -- even attacking the witnesses who are not hostile to Trump, who even showed a like or respect for the man. But as I've said before -- the case against Trump doesn't rise or fall on the testimony of Cohen alone ("We don’t have to rely on just Cohen’s word. We can believe Cohen because of the receipts, the tapes and the hard evidence.”)

Trump supporters have been attacking people for discussing the historical trial happening in real time. Attacking people for discussing a criminal trial without precedent in the history of the United States, as somehow being an unhealthy obsession with Trump. As if being focused on a former president being tried in criminal court should somehow not be upper most in discussions around the proverbial water coolers. How desperate, pathetic, and sad that is I'll leave up to others to decide.

I like what Toobin has laid out in his article. While I do not claim him as being the last word on this, his insights and opinions are well informed and well argued.




If the jury is told the in instructions what the case is really about? There will be no not guilty verdict, no hung jury. Only a well reasoned guilty verdict.


quotes from reporters inside the courthouse today:

Emil Bove, a defense lawyer, is suggesting that the prosecutors, in their proposed jury instructions, has shifted their theory of the case. It sounds like he’s talking about the state election law that underlies the felony business records charges against Trump. Justice Merchan doesn’t seem to agree, but in any case, he says, the prosecution’s proposal for jury instructions holds no weight at the moment. It is only a proposal.

“Just relax,” Merchan tells the defense lawyer, as he continues to argue. Nothing, he signals, has been determined yet.

Bove continues to argue. He can tell that the judge is frustrated, but it’s clear that Bove is, too. If he believes that the prosecution changed its theory of the case in these final weeks, it would help to explain why he’s irate. Merchan seems to understand that, as Bove continues to push for more testimony from their proposed expert witness on election law.

Trump folds his arms over his chest as Bove finishes his argument. He then starts whispering to his lawyer as Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, begins to address the court.

Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor, stands up and fights back. He says that “there’s nothing new at all” about the theory to which the defense is objecting. In short: the charges against Trump are felonies because prosecutors have argued that he falsified business records to conceal another crime. They have signaled that other crime was seeking to promote his own election "by unlawful means," in violation of state election law. That introduces a third potential crime.

So, if you’re keeping score, that’s three potential crimes, all wrapped into each of the 34 felony charges of falsifying business records.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/20/nyregion/trump-trial-hush-money

Interesting day.

Your title makes no sense. Read it again.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

For months I've heard the Prosecution say that Michael Cohen is their #1 star witness against Trump.
But now since the Defense has proven that Cohen is a self admitted thief and a lying conman.
The looney tune Democrats are saying that Cohen's testimony really doesn't matter in trying to convict Trump. ...

Cohen said that he falsified records to cover up his stealing from Trump.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Cohen said that he falsified records to cover up his stealing from Trump.

and?

 

[BackAgain]

If you were following the trial as closely as you claim (*we all know your word is worth less than that of Cohen and Trump put together), to be, you'd know that Merhcan ruled earlier what guardrails were set up surrounding the testimony of Costello.

* =

Concession (of a kind) and Goodbye.

I made a bet. I lost. Welching is not cool, at least not the way I was raised. Therefore, I am obligated to honor the bet (Zona's revenge :lol: ): and the terms were simple. I bet that Pres. Obama would NOT get re-elected. Based on everything I have seen tonight, the election actually...

www.usmessageboard.com

What Username Do You Guys Like Better?

Ban hammer--VPN--Name change.........LOL I coulda tried that during my last couple of bans. But, silly me. I remain me (with different usernames all fully admitted to and never overlapping).

www.usmessageboard.com

And if you were at all honest, which you seem incapable of ever even trying to be, you’d know and admit that the “guardrails” are nonsense.

A judge is supposed to permit the defense to put on its defense. It’s not the job of any judge to be an agent of the prosecution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And if you were at all honest, which you seem incapable of ever even trying to be, you’d know and admit that the “guardrails” are nonsense.

A judge is supposed to permit the defense to put on its defense. It’s not the job of any judge to be an agent of the prosecution.

The judge explained why the guardrails were there. If you keep taking everything out of context I suggest you go build straw men elsewhere.

 

[BackAgain]

The judge explained why the guardrails were there.

And being the hack idiot drone you always are, you bought it.

If you keep taking everything out of context I suggest you go build straw men elsewhere.

Your suggestions are as stupid as your posting efforts.

You are the one who loathes context (and of course honesty and accuracy).

Feel free to head over to the dimpcrap underground where your fantasies and lie will be welcome.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Seriously interesting insight into the defense's arguments (demanded by Trump?), and the realities facing the court: After the jury is dismissed and the end of the day arrives:

The defense lawyers signal that they will likely rest their case tomorrow morning. The judge says the jury will be excused after that. But we are not done for the day yet: The defense lawyers will now move, as is typical, to dismiss the prosecution’s case. It is a long shot, but they would be remiss not to try.

Todd Blanche is throwing a lot at the wall during this motion to dismiss the case. It sounds a bit like his opening, as he seeks to convince the judge — as he sought to convince the jury — that there is no crime here. Justice Merchan is listening, leaning back.

Blanche just said that there was no evidence of a conspiracy having been formed in October 2015, misstating the month in which prosecutors say Trump, Michael Cohen and David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, agreed that Pecker would suppress negative stories on Trump’s behalf. It was August.

As Blanche makes his argument, Trump — who has ripped Blanche in private repeatedly but loved his attacks on Cohen’s credibility — is sizing up his lawyer. Blanche makes clear he’s asking Merchan to toss the entirety of Cohen’s testimony.

...

As Blanche argues that his own arguments irrefutably prove that Cohen lied, Merchan interrupts him. “You’re asking me to not find Mr. Cohen credible as a matter of law?” Merchan asks. Then he adds in another question, about whether Blanche wants him to rip the case away from the jury and decide it himself. Blanche agrees that this is what the defense wants.

Merchan cuts Blanche off. “You said that his lies were irrefutable but you think he’s going to fool 12 New Yorkers into believing this lie?” he asks. As Blanche begins to respond, Merchan signals he is done with the defense for now and adds, “I’d like to hear from the people.”

...

Trump is scrawling something on a piece of paper as Matthew Colangelo, one of the prosecutors, begins to rebut Todd Blanche.

Trump is whispering to Blanche and pointing to the note. He then slides it across the table to Blanche before taking it back, writing more, and sending it to Blanche again.

...

Justice Merchan’s fatigue with the defense is beginning to show. Despite how angry the defense lawyers have been at Merchan at various points, he has tried quite hard to be fair to them. He is clearly losing patience.

---

 

[d0gbreath]

This is why they should have let cameras in the court room. We don’t need second hand filtered news of the case.

By the way, what news outlets are in the court room?

I tried to google a list of news outlets at the trial without success. AI has hit google, which means that it's now completely worthless.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

To clear up a little bit of liability in the comments of others:

context: from inside the courthouse:

Robert Costello had not been a potential witness in this trial until recently. Prosecutors are objecting to the scope of the questions the defense lawyers want to ask him about Michael Cohen’s credibility.

Justice Merchan also sounds frustrated that this wasn’t worked out before, which falls on the defense, not the prosecutors.

It sounds as if Emil Bove, one of the defense lawyers, will be the one to question Robert Costello, if he testifies. The prosecutors point out that Michael Cohen testified that he didn’t tell Costello the truth. But “there’s no mystery” about why Costello should testify, Bove argues: He will contradict Cohen’s recollections of conversations the two men had in 2018.

Justice Merchan sounds ill-disposed toward allowing much of Robert Costello’s testimony. It makes sense that he might be frustrated. The testimony of another witness on the defense's witness list — who seems unlikely to testify — was litigated extensively. But the judge is being asked to rule on the spot whether and how Costello can testify.

Not having time to consider such decisions could increase the chances that he will make an appealable mistake. The defense is putting a lot of pressure on the judge by introducing a witness who was not on their original witness list.

Merchan says he will take five minutes to decide. “Don’t leave the courtroom,” he says, using a tone that is as close to a bark as I have heard from this judge.

As the judge stepped off the bench, Trump turned to two of his lawyers, Emil Bove and Todd Blanche, and started to whisper. His third lawyer, Susan Necheles, then beckoned to Blanche, who stood up and spoke with Boris Epshteyn, Trump's legal adviser.

...

Justice Merchan returns and tells Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, that he will give him some latitude to explore the pressure campaign that Michael Cohen said Robert Costello waged during the summer of 2018. But Merchan adds: “I’m not going to allow this to become a trial within the trial” of Michael Cohen. It sounds as if Costello will be sworn in momentarily.


“The defense calls Robert Costello.”

 

[BackAgain]

Wanna make a bet on that? Oh wait!

never mind

Your endless reliance on a dishonest claim (as bait and trolling) isn’t just off topic, which you usually are, but a testament to your boring lack of originality, the dainty.

Now. Back on topic:

A Trump conviction absolutely legally rests on Cohen’s testimony. If the jury is fair and honest, they cannot ever find Cohen credible. He simply isn’t.

Indeed, if you were honest (a contrasting fact hypothetical), even you would have to concede that Cohen is completely lacking in any hint of credibility. Especially after the defense cross examination shredded whatever was left of the lying scumbag.

But, of course, you’re a joke here, the dainty.