Trump's Troubles

Pepperoni?

 

That’s the State’s argument, but the defense may argue that he was paid that sum Perhaps because that is what Cohen told Weisselberg he paid for work for Trump? Weisselberg is not going to testify. And now we know that Cohen was stealing money from Trump Org. Why wouldn’t he just lie about more money that was owed? It’s the arguments that may lead to reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror.

 

Waiting for the closing arguments go comment here …

 

I didn’t see anything about Cohen stealing from the Trump org, until I just read a news story about it. The amount was still recorded as legal fees, but it doesn’t help the prosecutors to have a conman as a key witness.

 

We all know this was a payoff to help Trump win in 2016.

There are no credible theories as to how it could be anything else.

 

Trump picked his witnesses. He hired a "fixer" and kept him for 10+ years.

 

Trump had to have a sense of what work his "fixer" was doing for him. There was no way Cohen was doing that much billable work for him, especially after Trump was in the White House.

 

I 100% agree. The whole Cohen cross might have the exact backfiring possibility. Trump knew who Cohen was, and Cohen is who a Trump wanted. I mean, he really does fit the profile of a “fixer.”

 

The reason why the hush money case was the weakest of the criminal cases against Trump because this case relies on at least one convicted felon (Cohen), perhaps a second convicted felon (Weisselberg), and a porn star (Daniels) and their testimony to convict. Not exactly the best witnesses for the prosecution to call.

Daniels' testimony was mostly positive for the prosecution. She shared too many details, but was ready for cross. Wesselberg won't testify, which leaves Cohen. If the jury believes he's lying now just to get back at Trump, the jury won't convict. There will be reasonable doubt. If the jury believes Cohen has always been a liar, and lied in the past on Trump's behalf, and is telling the truth now, they will likely convict.

 

I'm too biased and know too much background to be objective about the trial itself so I can't make any predictions. Personally, I don't see any real alternative explanations other than it was done to help the campaign and Trump was involved.

Two main points by the defense in their opening statement were that the payments were for legal services and that the affair with Stormy Daniels never happened. I don't think the defense has done anything to support either of those statements, but ultimately I agree with others that it will come down to if the jury finds Cohen credible. I have no idea if they will or not. Would love to be a fly on the wall during their deliberations.

 

Ya thanks to the judge... The point is, that he has a history of lying, specifically under oath, and admits he will say anything for personal gain.

 

I can't remember which particular facts they need Cohen to confirm. For example, are Trump's lawyers going to argue that the audio recording we heard is fake? (I appreciate that the defense has no burden at all to prove anything).

 

Said it in another post. If the prosecution's entire case was based on Cohen's testimony the verdict would be a slam dunk acquittal for Trump. That's not the case. All of Cohen's testimony on the substantive issues (falsification of records with the intent to conceal payments to Stormy immediately prior to the election) is corroborated by documentation and the testimony of other more credible witnesses. While still a not slam dunk for the prosecution there is at least a 50 percent chance that Trump will be convicted on all or most of the counts. If he is not convicted it will be because there was a hung jury with a small number of jurors voting not to convict. The chance of Trump actually being found not guilty is extremely small.

 

The problem is there is a paper trail to match what Cohen is saying. The jury doesn’t actually have to believe him.

Of course having non-credible witnesses is a wildcard. So it’s also possible the jury overweight his credibility (or lacktherof) as compared to the evidence.

I’d imagine this is pretty common when a prosecutor gets 1 crook to “flip” on another crook. Although Cohen probably has alot more material than typical (as far as what he puts out in media).

 

By paper trail, do you mean checks written to Cohen? No one ever disputed that Cohen was paid. This case is entirely dependent on an intent to commit another crime since that was the only way to resurrect the state law that was broken due to the statute of limitations. That is why this matters if you trust or believe Cohen or not.

I know this is not easy to answer without bias, but do you think many are being prosecuted in NY for labeling a check as a retainer instead of a legal fee?

Especially considering how many violent criminals Bragg is not charging... .

Suspected felons walk free in half of cases since Alvin Bragg took office - DOUBLE the rate in 2018 | Daily Mail Online

 

I would expect the defense to hit Cohen’s credibility really hard in summation/final statements.

 

Defense witness taken to the woodshed.


Merchan Yells: "Mr. Costello you're to remain seated."

Robert Costello rolled his eyes and let out an audible sigh...

Merchan: "I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. You don't give me a side eye and you don't roll your eyes. When there’s a witness on the stand, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say 'jeez,' you don’t say strike it."

Costello held a long glare at the judge.

Merchan: "Are you staring me down? Clear the courtroom."