Manhattan Prosecutors file criminal charges for Trump re Stormy Daniels case - ongoing discussion here (Guilty on all 34 counts, May 30, 2024)

Politics & Elections
3641

cnn update:

Michael Cohen is being shown more texts he exchanged with former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard.

He placed his glasses on before he read the texts for the jury.

In the texts, Cohen told Howard that he had formed Resolution Consultants LLC a week prior to the text exchange. He says he told him about the LLC because it was what would be used to buy the Stormy Daniels life rights.

The “business opportunity” referenced in the text was the “acquisition of the life rights of Stormy Daniels,” Cohen said.

Michael Cohen is now reading an October 10, 2016, text National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard sent to both Cohen and Ketih Davidson, Stormy Daniels’ attorney.

“Keith/Michael. Connecting you both in regards to that business opportunity. Spoke to client this AM and they’re confirmed to proceed with the opportunity. Thanks. Dylan.”

Michael Cohen says that Trump was mad at him when he was informed about the Stormy Daniels story.

“I thought you had this under control. I thought you took care of this,” Trump expressed at the time.

Cohen says Trump told him: “Just take care of it.”

In the courtroom, Trump flicked his eyes up at Cohen as he was saying this.

Cohen continues recounting from Trump: “Women are going to hate me … Guys may think it’s cool, but this is going to be a disaster for the campaign.”

“He said to me, ‘this is a disaster, a total disaster,’” Cohen testifies.

Cohen adds: “He told me to work with David and get control over this,” referencing David Pecker.

Donald Trump wanted the Stormy Daniels situation under wraps until after the election, according to Michael Cohen.

Trump said at the time, according to Cohen:
“I want you to just push it out as long as you can just get past the election. Because if I win it will have no relevance because I’m president. And if I lose, I don’t even care.”

Cohen adds: “He wasn’t even thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign.”

Trump smirks and shakes his head at that remark.

While discussing the Stormy Daniels deal, Michael Cohen said he raised Melania to Trump.

“Don’t worry, he goes how long do you think I’ll be on the market for? Not long. He wasn’t thinking about Melania. This was all about the campaign.”

Trump smirked and shook his head when Cohen made his remarks about Melania.

Michael Cohen is now being shown an email from Keith Davidson, which includes an attachment of the initial settlement agreement between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump from October 10, 2016.

The email was sent from Davidson on October 11, 2016. The settlement was dated October 10.

Cohen testified that by October 11, he and Davidson had already agreed on the terms of the agreement, including the $130,000 sum and the liquidated damages clause of $1 million per violation. Cohen says the $1 million damages clause was his idea.

Trump passed attorney Todd Blanche another note during discussion of the settlement agreement.

Michael Cohen testifies it was his idea to include a punitive damages clause penalizing Stormy Daniels if she violated the agreement “to ensure that she didn’t speak.”

Michael Cohen said he had asked for a 10-day delay to get the funds together for Stormy Daniels’ agreement and then he planned to delay again, “which is what I was instructed to do. Push it past the Election Day.”

lunch break, judge merchan says: see you at 2pm.

3642

“Drink of water?”

(Those who have seen the 1997 Australian movie The Castle will get the reference.)

3643

It’s worth noting that, as far as I can tell, this is uncorroborated testimony - there are no texts or anything to back it up - so the jury will have to take Cohen’s word for it (or not).

3644

You make a good point. But I have to think $250K is still chump change for him, and his idiocy will keep him from coughing up what should be a relatively painless insurance payment.

3645

That’s true of a whole lot of evidence in a a whole lot of cases. Jurors often (but obviously not always) believe witnesses. Especially, as we expect here, it will be unchallenged by Trump because he won’t take the stand.

3646

from cnn update:

On October 7, 2016, The Washington Post published an “Access Hollywood” video from 2005 in which Trump used vulgar language to describe his sexual approach to women. The story threatened to hurt Trump’s campaign, particularly its standing with female voters.

Cohen testified he learned from the National Enquirer higher-ups that Daniels was looking to sell her story about an alleged affair with Trump in 2006. If released publicly, her story would be “catastrophic” for the campaign, Cohen said.

“(Trump) said to me, ‘This is a disaster, a total disaster, women are going to hate me. This is really a disaster. Women will hate me. Guys, they think it’s cool. But this is going to be a disaster for the campaign,’” Cohen testified.

Trump told him to stop Daniels’ story from getting out, he testified. Trump said at the time, “I want you to just push it out as long as you can, just get past the election, because if I win it will have no relevance because I’m president, and if I lose, I don’t even care,” according to Cohen.

from rc: as i remember, men did not think it was “cool”, there were very harsh words from men about the access tape.

3647

It’s hearsay (not in the legal sense) and I can believe him and still think that it’s unproven. There is no hard proof. This is the hurdle.

3648

Yes, I agree, but there is also a LOT of evidence in this trial that is backed up by contemporaneous texts, call logs, phone recordings, financial records, etc. All of which goes to bolster the witnesses’ credibility and makes it harder for the defense to deny that certain things happened. In this instance, they could argue that Cohen was making that Melania stuff up out of whole cloth.

3649

Yes, this.

All the defense can do is to try to pick apart Cohen’s testimony on cross. They’ll try to paint him as a disgruntled ex-employee, and convicted perjurer.

I am still struggling with who exactly the defense is going to call as a witness. or what else they’ll do aside from just repeating “Everything you’ve heard is a lie. They’re all a bunch of liars and they did this all themselves. Trump knew nothing.”

3650

There are many people in prison based on the uncollaborated testimony of a witness. Yes, it’s a hurdle, but typically not insurmountable.

3651

What about those of us who haven’t?

3652

Is Melania on the witness list for the defense? It seems to me she could be used for some kind of corroboration that Trump’s intent with the payoff was to keep it from her out of respect for her feelings and their marriage.

3653

Well, if there’s someone willing to say they talked to Trump about it at the time, and all Trump talked about was the impact it would have on his family, that might be useful. Particularly if they’re actually telling the truth.

Beyond that, the defense doesn’t have to disprove the prosecution’s case, they just have to argue that the prosecutors haven’t proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. So it all turns on whether or not the jury thinks believing Cohen is reasonable. With all the supporting witnesses, I think it would be reasonable to conclude that Cohen is being truthful, but there’s no way to know for sure what the jury will believe, until we hear the verdict.

3654

Also presumably this is one of the ways Trump’s sabotaged his own defense with his “deny everything” strategy.

The jury has just heard Trumps team try and make the claim that Daniels was lying about the affair with Trump, when its absolutely obvious to anyone that it happened. Now they they have a statement they do stand a chance of convincing the jury is false, but they lack credibility because of their previous ridiculous claims.

3655

What am I missing? What is the plausible counter-story? That Cohen did this all on his own, killing a story when that did not benefit him in any way, and paid $130K out of his own pocket? All without Trump’s knowledge? Really?

I know juries can come up with crazy verdicts, but on what would the reasonable doubt rest? And please, I don’t need to be reminded that it only takes one holdout juror. That’s always so. I’m just confused by the ongoing concern. Cohen’s testimony, which is corroborated multiple ways, is the only recounting that makes any sense at all.

3656

The plot revolves around the government’s attempt to seize, through eminent domain, a housing development next to Melbourne Airport. Fair market price will be paid, of course. But one resident, Darryl Kerrigan, doesn’t like the idea. He wants to stay where he is, in his house.

He appeals the matter as he can through local authorities, and fails. He decides to take the matter to court, and engages a lawyer friend, Dennis. Dennis is a spectacularly ineffective lawyer in court. He mostly does “paper law,” that is, wills and conveyancing, which can be done from his office. Anyway, he is just good enough to be able to appeal the matter up through the court system.

At one appeal, Darryl steps out for a smoke, and meets Lawrence Hammill, who is a retired appellate lawyer. Long story short, Lawrence agrees to appeal Darryl’s case up to the High Court of Australia (think Supreme Court), and he agrees to do it pro bono.

In the High Court, Dennis and Darryl are sitting at the Appellant’s table, and Lawrence is speaking. Dennis notices that the Respondent’s lawyers are passing notes to their speaking lawyer, and he thinks that’s pretty cool, and is what he should be doing. So he writes a quick note, and passes it to Lawrence, who is still speaking. The note reads, “Drink of water?”

There you go. The movie is a comedy, and is pretty funny, in spite of the subject matter. I’d recommend it.

3657

That he did it, and falsified the records to cover it up. But it was nothing to with his election campaign. Oh no, he was just a guilt ridden cheating spouse who didn’t want his wife to find out. No election interference here! Just a misdemeanor no felonies.

Which makes his claim the affair didn’t happen even more dumb as that actually makes this counter story even less plausible.

3658

Yeah, the defense is basically saying, “This guy who worked for Trump for ten years, who always made a point of letting Trump know what he was doing so as to curry favor with Trump, suddenly decided to do it all on his own, without even telling Trump about it, at considerable personal expense, and then tried to scam Trump into covering his losses. Oh, and Trump, who was notorious for wanting to personally review and approve every check written, just signed off on almost half a million dollars without wondering what it was for.”

3659

lunch break is over, and all are in their places.

3660

A verdict in criminal court must be unanimous. A holdout juror means a hung jury, not a verdict.

(Sorry for the reminder, but there seemed to be some conflation between a verdict and a hung jury.)