That’s why they’ve had so many witnesses testifying to how much of a micromanager Trump is.
So I thought that was the easy part. It’s just paperwork. There is a paper trail that shows that falsification of records happened (which has Trump’s signature on it IIRC?) so Trump as the guy in charge is on the hook. This is how company law works AFAIK
per cnn:
Michael Cohen was asked about former Trump Org. CFO Allen Weisselberg’s understanding about taxes.
Cohen said Weisselberg is not a CPA but he has been Trump’s chief financial office for decades. “He certainly knows more than I do,” Cohen said.
Cohen said when asked about the accounting being used, “I didn’t really think about it. I just wanted to get my money back.”
After the meeting, Cohen said he and Weisselberg went to Trump’s office to speak to him about it.
Michael Cohen says he thought he’d get the $420,000 back in one lump sum.
But during the conversation in Donald Trump’s office, Allen (Weisselberg) turned around and said to me while we were talking about this, ‘We’re going to pay you over 12 months,’" Cohen says.
It would be recorded “as like a legal service rendered since I was then going to be given the title of personal attorney to the president,” Cohen says.
On Jan. 17, 2017, Cohen texted the operator of his yellow cab medallion business.
“Thank you. I leave tomorrow for D.C. And just between us, I will be personal counsel to Pres Trump.”
Cohen says he doesn’t remember exactly when Trump told him he’d be his personal counsel.
But Cohen pins it around this text and his appearance on Sean Hannity announcing his position on January 18.
Michael Cohen says Allen Weisselberg told him the repayments would begin in February.
“What he stated to me is, ‘Each month just send an invoice to us. And just mark down for legal services rendered pursuant to the agreement, and we’ll get you a check out,’” Cohen says Weisselberg told him.
According to Cohen, Weisselberg explained that with moving Trump to Washington, DC, “it’s going to just take a little bit of time to get things moving” and encouraged him to “just be patient.”
Michael Cohen says he wanted to be Donald Trump’s personal attorney for the title and he didn’t expect to be paid.
“He gave me this title. I was proud to accept that title, which I wanted, so I knew there would be no compensation for any other work,” Cohen says.
Cohen said he would be paid by companies he signed consulting agreements with.
court is done for today, back at 9:30 am tomorrow.
Trump’s usual blather after leaving court. He is being prevented from campaigning. Now he’s quoting all the media people who say there’s no case, it’s all political, yada, yada, yada. Oh, and the whole world is laughing at the New York legal system.
Donnie, you need new material. You’re starting to sound like the boy who cried wolf.
They need only establish 1 and 2, I would think. Having done that, 3, 4, and 5 are matters of law, not facts for the jury to determine.
Ok, thanks. That’s kind of what I thought. Micromanager and close enough to all this…so it’s just inferred. Trump is the kind of guy that would have known and approved/did nothing.
I’m genuinely asking…Cohen and Weisselberg are the only two people who gave testimony, or any evidence, of the this planned reimbursement scheme that Trump was aware of?
I just want to add to the thanks to @rocking_chair for providing these updates. I’m hooked!
I continue to be amazed at 1) how ramshackle the Trump Org operation seems to be, and 2) how relatively small amounts of money seem like a big deal to everyone involved.
cohen and mcconney. cohen and weisselberg wrote on exhibit 35 the document from the bank showing the money transfer. mccconney wrote exhibit 36 on trump letterhead.
People’s 35 (First Republic Bank Statement with Handwritten Notes)…pdf (nycourts.gov)
today’s testimony from cohen has cohen, weisselberg, and trump in a meeting with exhibit 35.
Directly? I think so
But that’s why they had other witnesses up there, like Hope Hicks, who testified Cohen wasn’t the sort to make the arrangement without the expectation of getting repaid. And indirect stuff like Trump assuring Cohen he would be taken care of without directly referring to particulars. And several witnesses saying Trump was the sort to micromanage payments of even a few hundred or few thousand dollars and it would have been unusual that he would have signed off on these payments without question.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the jury to decide if there’s sufficient doubt, but the prosecution seems to be building its case very carefully.
Weisselberg hasn’t given any evidence
Nor will he, I gather, as he was paid off to remain silent. I still don’t see how this is legal.
ha, and I’ve been following the case. So Weisselberg is a big part of the plan/reimbursement scheme, it was his idea, and then Trump/Cohen agreed with it and did the acts to carry it out. Trump’s role was mostly just being in agreement with it / paying the money. Is this remotely accurate?
How is it illegal? He can be paid to keep it quiet. He can face the consequences for remaining quiet such as being jailed for contempt.
Cohen has testified that he talked to Trump on the bodyguard’s phone (Shiller?) and there are records showing calls between Cohen’s and Schiller’s phones, IIRC.
What if the defense calls Schiller and he says Cohen and I were just talking about the Yankees? Trump wasn’t using my phone then.
As Cohen himself demonstrates, Trump has employees who will perjure themselves.
Cohen also acts as a warning to any potential perjurers.
I think Trump wanted it kept quiet. The exact details may have been worked out by Cohen and Weisselberg (I mean seriously who would trust Trump to work out the details of a fraudulent scheme to cover up something like this?) but then were acting on Trump’s orders. And the paper trail is there, it was all signed off by Trump and we’ve heard plenty of testimony showing that he knew it was fraudulent.
That bit seems pretty straightforward to me. It’s really unfortunate that Weisselberg wasn’t forced to testify (serious, again, who signed off on his plea deal!?) But it’s not really needed at this point IMO
Keep in mind that the judge ruled at the beginning of the day that the Weisselberg contract will not be shown to the jury.
This is an open to all question. If I’m a juror, and everyone (or maybe it’s just Cohen) is describing the plan Weisselberg came up with to hide the purpose of the payments, the plan Trump wanted/agreed with, carried out, etc…why is he not testifying? Where is the third amigo? What is the jury told, if anything, about that? Seems odd.
He’s not there to say it was the plan and Trump knew it, but he’s also not there to say Cohen is making it all up. I guess it cuts both ways, but you’d certainly prefer him to be there or be able to explain why he is not.
If the jury is told anything at all, it’s not to infer anything one way or the other about why he isn’t testifying.
Yeah totally and again why wasn’t he told in his perjury case: fully cooperate in all cases you are involved in, or no deal, we’ll throw the book at you, I don’t know. But it’s academic now.
I think Trump has screwed himself here. Rather than focusing on the specific things that could have stood a chance they’ve gone for “deny everything” (presumably at Trump’s insistence), including whether the affair even happened. So IMO it’s going to be much less convincing when they try and make this case about conspiracy with Cohen and Weisselberg.
Though IANAL maybe it’s perfectly reasonable for a defense to try and claim a bunch of stuff that is actually mutually exclusive (“we deny A and B and C, all a fabric of lies!” even though it makes no sense that B and C could be untrue if A is untrue, etc.). Someone up thread used an example like: “I never rented a car! The car was in perfect condition when I returned it! The damage was caused by defective steering!” Is that a thing in criminal defense?